In my experience this is already being practiced. Maybe it's different in machine learning, but in type theory simpler explanations are well worth publishing an

In my experience this is already being practiced. Maybe it's different in machine learning, but in type theory simpler explanations are well worth publishing and are published all the time even in high impact venues. As far as I can tell, progress towards eliminating "research debt" takes two forms: on the one hand there is a place for good exposition, typically in the form of textbooks, and on the other hand concepts get better understood over time and people come up with simpler explanations. In both cases the results can already be published... Is the situation in machine learning really so bad that nobody is going to publish simpler explanations of known results?