Authors of computer science papers aren't exactly known for their command of the finer points of the English language. basement?
In languages that can mutate data structures using side-effects, linked lists are rarely the best choice of data structure. Note, for example, that Python and Ruby have built-in array-based lists, but no linked lists. Similar structures are the default for lists in C++, Java, and C#.
That said, I'm pretty sure people use linked lists a lot in Common Lisp.
Memory usage and random access times are far better in arrays, but for dynamic resizing, deletion, insertion, appending, and splitting, that is, operations that deal with data structure rather than the content, lists are far superior to arrays.
I used to hand-code linked lists back when I used C/C++ heavily. They have some very significant advantages for modeling certain kinds of data.
I didn't mean to imply that linked lists aren't a useful data structure, just that arrays and array-based lists are well suited to an apparently wider range of problems.
No one uses lists in a LISt Processing language. :P
Many of the interesting macros I've seen use list operations heavily to slice and dice their arguments and body code. Most experienced Lispers use macros quite a bit.
Given that macros take lists as input and output lists, it would be surprising if they didn't use list operations heavily...
Uh?!?