Yes and no. I think the larger issue is about the ambiguity of what publications mean and should be. There's a lot of ways to optimize this, and none of those has optimal solutions. I don't think you should be down voted for your different framing because I think we just need to be more open about this chaos and consider other values than our own or the road we're on. I think it is very unclear what we are trying to optimize and it is quite apparent that you're going to have many opinions on this and your group of reviewers may all seek to optimize different things. The only solution I can see is to stop pretending as if we know what each other is trying to do and be a bit more explicit about it. Because if we argue based on different assumptions we'll talk past one another if we assume the other is working on the same set of assumptions.