Reference to previous work is not some perfunctory requirement to satisfy for academic due process. It is critical for the advancement of knowledge. Also, its pretty much entirely the definition of "well-researched". Work that is done completely independent of the established base of knowledge in a field can be valuable but someone has to do the work of integrating it and contrasting it with what was already known or else how can you weed out the cranks without many people spending many hours working through their enormous stacks of drivel?
G. H. Hardy said that his most important contribution to the study of mathematics was the discovery of Ramanujan. One could easily make the mistake of thinking this contribution could have been easily replicated by someone else, but its entirely likely that never would have happened at all because Ramanujan was not aware of much of the contemporary work that he blitzed past.
This is elevating form above substance. Ron & Shamir's work has the proper form, the proper names, and yet the material it contains is rubbish. It cites "relevant previous work", so long as you think that none of the work in industry is relevant.
The gold standard should not be if a work follows a set of practices, advisable as they may be, it should be if a work advances the understanding of mankind. One of these papers did, the other does not.