This is an interesting comment that probably is specific to some field of research. In my field, we simply expect a thorough literature review. Occasionally, students don't look at literature far enough back in time, and assume what they are doing is new, when really it isn't.
I think Pete's comment about thoroughness is the key. I believe that synthesis of the appropriate literature is a better approach that has the goal to show that the student's project meets the standard of a PhD project that it is an original contribution. The goal of the synthesis is show that a gap in knowledge exists.
As a rule of Thumb there is every possibility certain old items & research theory may come out with the new ankle & this may come out with the new research group it is in this line it has been in a general talk come out with the comments that old is gold . This is my personal opinion
Not really. I would say there are times you may have to cite a study as old as in the 16th century. For instance, if it is a theory you are discussing, you need to demonstrate/or pay tribute to the evolution of the theory before telling us about the current thinking relating to it. However, to show currency and also minimise "obsolescence risk", it is highly advisable to utilise as much as possible, not older than 4 or so years of most recent literature, especially on empirical aspects. I would say, current literature of at least over 85% of your literature needs to be current, and from credible, high quality journals, if not FT top 50. #my views though.
Although new articles are published daily, there are many cases in which the impact of old publications does not diminish. Citation has been criticized because the citation of a study occurs for only a certain amount of time after publication and influential literature may remain uncited. I think it depends on your research topic. Although new publications might reflect the recent trend of research on a certain topic, citation of new publications does not guarantee the quality.