[TheOtherHobbes]

It's tragic that academics have no metric for quality in published work.

The only metrics are journal status and citation count, which is partly why we're in this mess.

There should be some form of public post-review attached to all public work, with explicit requirements for rigour and reproducibility.

Some domains - like math - do at least attempt this, more or less. But CS doesn't seem to.

Aside from motivations - now skewed towards business outcomes - the underlying problem is that paper publishing as the gold standard for disseminating new research is a 17th century process and badly needs an update.