Aside from that, focusing on quantity of papers published has incentivized publication of papers that don't significantly increase the store of useful knowledge to humanity, and function as a bit of a haystack to obscure actual useful results
Additionally the 'publish more papers' culture creates other moral hazards, like: 1. Cabals of reviewers who work to help publish each other without regard to the validity of the papers published. 2. Making authors who work for a long time on tougher science have a worse scholastic reputation than those who work to publish a large volume of insignificant papers. 3. Incentivizing p-hacking and alteration of paper scope to salvage insignificant/negative findings.
Open forums with science publishing for the sake of science should be the direction of travel, but we see a trajectory towards gatekeeping infected by corporate profiteering.
Reading blatantly anti-intellectual statements like these are very appalling in HN, and I dare say this attitude has been exponentially increasing in the last couple years. I was essentially unheard-of back when I first signed up here.
Will you be able to explain us why you're of this opinion, so it has at least more substance?