I think ML, at least when I was involved in it, had a much more sane way of approaching publication than other fields (I came from a biology background). Open

I think ML, at least when I was involved in it, had a much more sane way of approaching publication than other fields (I came from a biology background). Open science addresses a lot of the pain points that are mentioned in the article. I think we can all agree that having certain magazines that include what can be considered the best works is a good thing; people for better or worse need these instruments to seamlessly judge the base quality of an article. Regardless of my personal criticisms and potential declining quality of a particular magazine it is obviously very helpful to be able to know "hey, at least I can expect some degree of quality given that it was published in this or another magazine" specially as a student. But this does not mean we ought to gate-keep research. Not only that, but having your publication out can open up a lot of feedback that can be incorporated and addressed. And this is where I go back to my original statement, in ML, it was very common to publish your work to arxiv for people to read through it and I think that greatly improved the speed upon which the field developed. Access is very important. So I'm all for abolishing "pre-publication peer review".