The point of citations isn’t simply an index of prior research it’s there to inform readers of the writers context.
Research should be put into the proper context in the field, not based on what the writer personally looked at. If a researcher's context is myopic enough not to include relevant prior work known or done by reviewers, then the research itself is of questionable value. If someone submits work that purports to be novel, yet they haven't done a proper literature review to include relevant studies, I'd say that is itself deceptive and more actively harmful to the field as a whole.
The same is true to a lesser extent for any research. Now if the field has discovered some flaw in what was done then things go well beyond the simple need for a citation.
And this doesn't even touch upon the fact that research that's going to take 5 years is going to be well-funded, and you'll have to write interim reports over that period. When you get 5 years of funding, you don't get that all at once. During that time, you'll have to answer for advances in the field and justify why the research is still worth doing.
As to other field moving on, it can be a reason to reject the paper in it’s entirety but has zero impact on the results which is the only thing that actually matters. Papers aren’t textbooks, the goal is to communicate what was done and what happened not inform the reader of some wider context.
In the end if I am reading 30 papers on some topic I really want them to be as short and clear as possible. And for topics I keep up with I sure don’t need this fluff.
And a literature review is part of what was done, always. If what you said were true, there would be no point in a literature review at all. Instead, every paper includes one because researchers understand it's an intrinsic part of research. That's what makes it research instead of just search: research is a systematic process that involves, in every definition of the process I've ever come across, a literature review. I challenge you to find an example of peer reviewed research that doesn't contain one.
https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/232514/Einstein%20E=mc2%20(pp...
But, I don’t disagree that someone should keep up with the literature. Including it as part of a paper is what I disagree with.
A direct search on the CDC 6600 yielded 27^5 + 84^5 + 110^5 + 133^5 = 144^5
as the smallest instance in which four fifth powers sum to a fifth power. This is a counterexample to a conjecture by Euler [1] that at least n nth powers are required to sum to an nth power, 1 > 2.
And that’s the paper. They could have gone into great detail about the program used etc, but it clearly communicates what was done and the results so why bother.
How would you go about redoing exactly what Lander and Parkin did? You can’t because they don’t really say. Isn’t this whole thread about a lack of reproducible studies resulting in fraud?
But anyway, I like what you’re doing here because you’re beginning to document why the modern peer review system was developed in the first place in the 70s. Sounds like a good topic for a research paper.
Many modern papers are of this form. If you have some specific data as recent enough to be valid I could provide one but I am not going to just pick a paper from 1990 and you say nope not recent enough.
Another is for posterity and for future generations. If I give the paper you cited to a student, they can be wowed at its brevity and impressed by its genius, but they learn nothing.
I get you’re trying to prove your point but all you’ve done is solidify my position in my mind that literature reviews are essential to good research. You’ve given me a great topic for my talk to our incoming class of Ph.D. students in a couple weeks, so thanks for that, I mean it. Cheers.
O well, there’s a reason science advances one retirement at a time.