Key information:

• Conferences have been the first choice for new research publication for decades, and attempts to tweak selection mechanisms haven't changed the situation.
• The existing conference culture may not fully foster innovation as many contributions are considered banal. Some important papers were not published in traditional conferences.
• Bureaucratization of science is making conferences less relevant, with a global academic and industry business drawing in more money and participants.
• Conferences have shifted from reporting and discussing innovative ideas to a yearly exam and resume-building exercise for members, with the careerist goal dominating.
• Conferences have imposed rigid rules on bibliographic references and refereeing, looking for tiny deviations from the accepted standard.
• There is a problem with the dismissal of conceptual work without systematic quantitative studies, and the enforcement of a single dogma.
• PC members are often junior and ambitious academics, and the anonymity of refereeing leads to problems.

Important details:

• Examples like the original bitcoin paper and the "Attention is All You Need" paper show that traditional conferences may not be suitable for all important research.
• Specific rules in conference calls for papers, such as the requirement for author-year citations, have no connection to research quality.
• The dominance of the careerist approach leads to referees looking for reasons to reject papers rather than accepting them.
• The idea that innovation proceeds by departing from the standard is emphasized.
• Some suggestions to improve conferences include instilling a culture of accepting deficiencies and simplifying the call for papers.
• The responsibility for conference management should be in the hands of the most competent experts in the field.
• The spectacular revival of conferences after the Covid hiatus shows the need for them.