Yeah the big problem I have with my field is that there seems to be stronger incentives to be chasing benchmarks and making things look good than there is to actually solve the hard problems. There is a strong preference for "lazy evaluation" which is too dependent on assuming high levels of ethical presentation and due diligence. I find it so problematic because this focus actually makes it hard for people to publish who are tackling these problems. Because it makes the space even noisier (already incredibly noisy by the very nature of the subject) and then it becomes hard to talk about details if they're presumed solved.

I get that we gloss over details, but if there's anywhere you're allowed to be nuanced and be arguing over details should it not be in academia?

(fwiw, I'm also very supportive of having low bars to publication. If it's void of serious error and plagiarism, it is publishable imo. No one can predict what is important or impactful, so we shouldn't even play that game. Trying to decide if it is "novel" or "good enough for <Venue>" is just idiotic and breeds collusion rings and bad actors)