> That's part of the problem. Publications are seen as achievements. If you got accepted to a prestigious journal or conference, you can list this on your CV as

> That's part of the problem. Publications are seen as achievements. If you got accepted to a prestigious journal or conference, you can list this on your CV as an impressive "award"-like thing. A publication list is not just a list of "Look, this is the kind of stuff I've been working on, have a great read at it", but "Look, my research is so great it got accepted to all these fancy places!". I don't think that this is necessarily a problem. The problem is that these "awards" are awarded based on results rather than on work. In my mind, a prestigious journal should be one where the studies have a high percentage of replication of their published work. A high-impact study which fails to replicate is just a popular lie, and has no place in science.