We can be more specific than "the incentives are wrong in Academia", because we know what the incentive is: it's peer-review.
The problem is that today's peer review, while better than nothing, is far from a perfect judge of research quality. If peer-review was a perfect judge of research quality, there would be no incentive problem. The incentives would be aligned.
I happen to be working on an improvement to peer review. An early prototype can be viewed at <a href="https://peeryview.org/about" rel="nofollow">https://peeryview.org/about. Holler at me if you're also working on this problem!
toomim · · focus · HN ↗
The problem is that today's peer review, while better than nothing, is far from a perfect judge of research quality. If peer-review was a perfect judge of research quality, there would be no incentive problem. The incentives would be aligned.
I happen to be working on an improvement to peer review. An early prototype can be viewed at <a href="https://peeryview.org/about" rel="nofollow">https://peeryview.org/about. Holler at me if you're also working on this problem!
t0mpr1c3 · · focus · HN ↗
We can tweak the process, but for better or worse peer review (in various forms) has been the principle metric of quality since the enlightenment.