With regard to citations, it's one thing to complain that a paper is only citing two out of three of the relevant pieces of prior work -- but it's another thing to complain that a paper seems blissfully unaware of an entire relevant body of prior work. This is especially problematic if the prior work persuasively establishes some limitations on or reasons to be skeptical of the author's preferred data or methodology.
There are also a lot of papers that just cite without properly engage––some even mischaractererize––with the work. I notice that this problem ... (read more)
There are also a lot of papers that just cite without properly engage––some even mischaractererize––with the work. I notice that this problem ... (read more)