Research papers usually have more than a citation or two. It is the job of the person making an argument in a field with a long line of extant research to demonstrate that they understand what's been contributed before them.

Many papers have been found to be non-reproducible, and from time to time I read papers where I don't see how their conclusion is logical given the data. To me that indicates that often conclusions are drawn that seem logical to the researchers, and I'm sure they make perfect sense at the time, but every once in a while they end up being wrong later.