I don't suppose the proposals in NR's "Bookburning" editorial were
intended seriously, but the problem of meaningless publication
requires analysis.  As the editorial says, the situation in
the hard sciences is different; there publication is really important
for the progress of science.  Of course, most of what is published,
even in the hardest of sciences,
turns out not to advance the science, as shown by the fact that no-one
but the author ever refers to it.  However, excess publication is cheaper
than policing; I wouldn't be willing to do my share of
carefully reading papers of no interest to me in order to be sure
that I am not suppressing something important.

In the humanities, the situation seems to be different.  Faculty members
often denounce their own research and publication as meaningless.
However, reform will be difficult.  It's not all meaningless, and
good research in the humanities presumably demands the same light
teaching loads and ability to attend conferences as does research
in the sciences.  It would be necessary to distinguish between
those humanities faculty members doing real research and meaningful
publication, make the others do more teaching and evaluate them
based on its success.  Is there a reasonable way of making the relevant
invidious distinctions?  Who is to do it, colleagues or deans?

Here's one possibility.  At major research universities, a faculty
appointment in the sciences is basically a hunting license.  If one
wants time off from teaching in order to do research, one must get
a grant or contract from an external agency that funds research.
If humanities research and publication were mainly funded by (say) the National
Endowment for the Humanities instead of the universities themselves,
then research time would require successful peer reviewed proposals.
Indeed the universities could effect a reform themselves by pooling
the money they now devote to time off for scholarship and creating
an agency that would evaluate proposals.  Probably this wouldn't
work.

The social sciences are intermediate, because their problems are
so difficult that it's difficult to say what is real progress,
and popular research directions often turn out to be mere fads.
The titles cited in the editorial relate to the problem of distinguishing
evidence from anecdote.  Whether they are bad work, as the editorial
implies, cannot be established from the titles.  The editors may merely
be illustrating their own ignorance.  I admit mine.

Finally, suppose some university (say mine) carried out NR's proposed
reforms literally.  Almost all research oriented faculty (the exceptions
would be those who couldn't get other jobs) would leave for other
universities or research institutes, and this would constitute the
"survival of the unfittest" frequently observed in badly administered
institutions of all kinds.  Its general adoption would cause the
segregation of research in non-teaching institutions as is common
in many foreign countries.  This works, but the American practice
of combining research and teaching is generally considered to work
better.

"Reforms" along the lines of the editorial are often proposed
by undergraduates considering only their own interests.  University
administrators then patiently tell them that all is for their own
best interests; research makes professors better teachers.  This
is a diplomatic half truth, because the undergraduates really would be
better off if everyone devoted himself entirely to their interests.
However, why excite their riotous tendencies by telling them
that university policies are a compromise, and
their interests aren't the only consideration?  Research is as
important for society as undergraduate education, and the best
professors are devoted to research and scholarship
and would go elsewhere if the research environment were
bad.  Actually, the undergraduates and their parents act as though they
believe this.  The major research universities have a larger
ratio of applications to admissions than the institutions concentrating
entirely on undergraduate education.

Since there is a choice of institutions, the editorial might have
merely advocated that students choose institutions without
much faculty research and publication.