I would like to point ou some positive aspects of the culture of the selection of papers in the field of Logic. A culture that has had a good influence in the field of formal semantics of natural languages.

Firstly, logicians are not very concerned with the length of the papers.
You may write a very short paper, let us say 10 pages, and no Logician will not complain because it is short. Greg Restall recently wrote one 13 pages work that is more interesting than any videogame. But there are long papers too. Glanzberg has written some and they are very good too. So, Logicians do not measure quality for the length of the papers.

Secondly, Logicians do not judge one’s work by the references it quotes. Someone’s work is his work, the bibliography consists of works by others. If you evaluate someone’s work it is the work he wrote that is in question, not the works others had written. Thus, many papers in Logic come with a very short list of references at the end. Sometimes a Logician quotes no more than six authors. Restall in his ‘Not Every Truth Can be Known (at least Not All at Once)’ lists only four works and that is ok. And it is not necessary that all references are famous works with prestige or all new production. One can quote Aristotle’s first writings and it is ok.

Thus, I think the paper selection culture in the field of Logic favours reasoning more than in some fields. In this sense, many national communities of linguists, who are overconecerned with number of pages and with which references are cited, have a lot to learn from logicians.

Semanticists, as I said, are very influenced by logicians and think this influence helps the culture in Semantics too.