What are some altruistic reasons for submitting to top-tier journals/conferences? It seems to me that there is a preoccupation within academia to getting published in venues which are highest-ranked in terms of some sort of metrics rather than venues most suited to one’s subject area albeit not high-ranked.

It occurred to me that any reason for this must be self-serving. I don’t feel comfortable with this idea. As opposed to self-interest as the actual motive, are there any better reasons for submitting to top-tier journals/conferences rather than low-tier ones?
Wrzlprmft's good answer hints at this, but I want to make it explicit:

If you are doing beneficial research, your self-interest and the interests of beneficiaries of your research are aligned.

If your work is important, then the visibility of your work and your own career success benefit others, since they maximize the impact of your research and ensure that you will have resources and freedom to do the best work going forward.

Ambition is neither good nor bad.  What matters is: to what end is your ambition directed?

I agree that simply getting recognition, as an end in itself, is not a worthy goal.  But if you are in your career in order to make a difference in the world with the research you conduct, then trying to advance your own career to achieve that goal is worthwhile (and necessary).

What about submission to top journals specifically?

There are pros and cons of aiming for the top, in terms of maximizing the impact of the work.  The pros are well covered in other answers, but in summary, the main ones are:


Wider visibility.
Better basis on which to build your own future work.
Higher review standards.


However, there are also downsides to aiming high:


Delay in publication.  If you aim for a top journal, and then try a sequence of high impact journals until you find one that accepts it, this can delay publication by many months.  Meanwhile, your work is not being read by anyone and not having an impact.  And you can't apply for further funding based on the work until it is out there.
Perhaps not the best use of your time.  Is it a good use of your time to endlessly revise a paper and tweak your analysis in response to reviewer suggestions?  Or would it be better to get on to the next research question?
Papers may be less accessible than if published as open access.  Some top journals are not open access, and publishing in a lower-impact (but open access) journal may increase the accessibility of your work.


Ultimately, you have to weight the costs versus the benefits, particularly in light of the likelihood that your work will be accepted at a top journal.  Personally, I don't like the all-too-frequent practice of starting at the top journal and working downward, even if the paper has little chance of success.  I think this is a big waste of time and resources.  But for a result that is really noteworthy, it may be worth submitting to high-impact journals (not just for your sake, but to maximize the benefit of the work).