[GracefullyBlind]

Great read. Taking from my field (CS), I think a lot of papers suffer from the idea that you only are supposed to show "the interface", like, what the result is, what you achieved. The "how" or the "why" are sometimes neglected, regarded merely as a "technicality" to account for the rigorous mathematical framework that "must be there".

There is little effort in making your results understandable and easy to replicate. Academia values paper production, which requires convincing peer reviewers that your results are not trivial and are worth publishing. Contrary to what the essay states, I don't think many scientists today think their research is "incremental". In fact, this word is used in many places as a derogatory term to indicate certain result doesn't contain enough novelty to deserve publication. Researchers are more incentivized to make their constructions and results as complicated and less accessible as possible.

This is not just a theory, this is something I've seen over and over throughout the years.