You might even start with only yourself. And in 5 years if you want to distance yourself from your earlier, naïve efforts, then simply announce a name change.
Here's the ugly truth - it's hard to tell if most papers are "good", and there are many types of "good".
In my field, the main journal used to be "Journal of Computer Documentation". It spun off from "American Documentation" in the early 1960s. The JCD title changed in the 1970s to "Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences" because "documentation" - a 1920s term - was considered already old-fashioned by the 1960s, and the title didn't capture the new focus on computers, and the underlying principles of information science.
It then became "Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling" in 2005 because the 1990s showed how to apply those information techniques to make predictive models.
Each name change is a form of distancing itself from its previous focus as part of a shift to a new focus.
Or is "distance oneself" not applicable for that situation?
Faculty of 1000 is the only thing I know of that's even close to this.
http://processalgebra.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-novelty-of-ar... lists a few more, including "Logical Methods in Computer Science published its first issue ten years ago and has become one of the favourite publication outlets for researchers working on logic in computer science, broadly construed."
I was just commenting about how to get around the "the journal isn't prestigious so no important research is published in it so it's not prestigious" problem.
As Kernighan almost wrote:
Reviewing the paper is twice as hard as reading the paper in the first place. Therefore, if you have to be as clever as possible to read the paper, you are, by definition, not smart enough to review it.
[1] Although I can tell whether the code works, the quality of a paper is also about how well-written it is, whether the arguments are valid and supported by the data, and whether it provides something future research can be built on. A terrible paper that happens to contain code that works is useful for me, not so much for science in general.