I'm a researcher in the field, and the amount of new research coming out each day is just way too big to handle. Which means I have to rely on heuristics like this to judge what is worth my time. Otherwise I'd be spending 25 hours/day reading papers, and waste brain capacity digesting worthless findings. Not everything that passes peer review is read-worthy, far from it. It just means there aren't any gaping holes in it. Don't get me wrong, the heuristic is far from perfect. But a random paper on HN (which is not known for its abundance of researchers) that was posted without any context explaining why I should care is not a good signal.