I would say that publishing is a key point of research, but merely in the sense of "finding something worth conveying, and then conveying it to those who can build on it and use it". How many people cite you is not the best metric of success, but obviously you would want as many people to read your paper, and incorporate it in their own work; that is a very democratic measure of research value.
In many cases, the paper is not the best method of conveying information, but it works well enough for most cases that no one has managed to usurp it. Editor reviewed journals might have some flaws in their process, but it is effective enough at picking out useful papers that scientists clearly chose to purchase them and use them as a source. So I wouldn't hate the publishing cycle per say, just the fact that in those cases where it is not exactly optimal, the tyranny of the majority is ruining the day of a small set of research types.
I'm an academic who is 13 years into his career. I see my job as consisting of three phases: 1) find important, unsolved problems. 2) find convincing answers to these problems. 3) communicate the answers to people who can use them. I usually get to organize my day around these principles. I feel very satisfied with my career.
I'm also in a field that has low financial barriers to doing research. The lab model that is predominant in the natural sciences is very very different.
In many cases, the paper is not the best method of conveying information, but it works well enough for most cases that no one has managed to usurp it. Editor reviewed journals might have some flaws in their process, but it is effective enough at picking out useful papers that scientists clearly chose to purchase them and use them as a source. So I wouldn't hate the publishing cycle per say, just the fact that in those cases where it is not exactly optimal, the tyranny of the majority is ruining the day of a small set of research types.