The point is not only that the appropriate papers are cited but also are read carefully. I'd doubt that authors who are providing a reference list of let's say 50 to 100 references really have read all this stuff. Given that they spent half an hour per paper, this would mean that reading all the papers would have taken 25 to 50 hours - a week for reading! Who can effort this? In addition, reading is not sufficient, the paper must be understood and reflected. Who has really this time?

afford*

And - yes, I do read all them papers that I cite as long as they are available (including the infamous 182 papers in my review).

If using the binary format (YES/NO) answering this question, I'd say "YES". I don't think somebody from the audience can say about somebody he/she knows: "He doesn't have many citations but he's doing great research that is well-known in the community and highly regarded by scientists working in the area.."  

Massive scientific proliferation has become a momentous issue. On any particular topic the number of articles sometimes is a legion; at times many of them are a "drop in the bucket" in  the mighty vast  ocean of literature. In light of this, only critical, relevant papers can be cited. Sometimes one might wish to make a generalization, for instance: - "monoamine oxidase is localized in the outer membrane of the mitochondrion". This terse statement needs a citation; the author might not extensively read the original article documenting this finding.

One particular - perhaps - thorny issue is the lack of citation of a seminal, original paper. Someone might have published an original paper, let us say, in the 50s'; as a consequence of subsequent spurt of activity, the original paper is relegated. Other papers would then be published on the very same issue, using modern, sophisticated methodology. However, there may not be anything new of substantive significance in the newer - "modern" - articles so much so the original article of yesteryears stands the test of time. This is the capricious nature of things. As an aside, individuals now adore - to use an informal expression - the art of "reinventing the wheel.” So much on accretion of scientific articles...

Dear Dr. Grabtchak, let me rephrase slightly your last sentence. Do you think it would be possible to say in some cases: "He's doing great research; however, it is not acknowledged properly by the community and his work does not receive the citations it deserves"?

For example, in this discussion:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_we_really_aim_to_publish_our_best_work_in_high_impact_journals2

the following statement has been made by one of the participants and attracted my attention: "In 1994, a breakthrough research findings submitted to Nature was rejected, citing lack of interest for a broad audience. It was subsequently published in PRL. Research on that new topic was continued. In 2006, another reputed research group published the same findings in a slightly different way (concept and principle exactly the same) in a reputed chemistry journal with impact factor 12 and a year later another in Nature nanotechnology! When we send the orginal papers to the lead author, he appologized for not citing the original article and also pleaded his ignorance of the published work! The matter was closed in good spirit.

How nature‘s stringest review process passed this paper?

The same group continued to published those results in so many ways in high impact journals for many more years by citing (but in a veiled manner) or without citing the original work."

As I am not a specialist in nanotechnology, I do not want to make any judgments about that particular situation; but do you think that this case is unique or would you consider that such situations happen more frequently and require a systematic solution?

Sir C V Raman, FRS, physicist and mathematician (Raman Effect fame), who was awarded the 1930 Nobel Prize for physics, communicated a manuscript to Nature; all the 8 members of the editorial board uniformly rejected it. This response made the chief editor of the journal to very carefully review it; he surmised that if all the editors had rejected it, the manuscript could have something worthy! And, it was accepted for publication. It must be mentioned that Raman's work on why the sea is blue is so fundamental; the work was apparently simple; it led to the theory of molecular scattering. It has far reaching implications for physics, chemistry, structural biology, physiology, etc. Raman constructed his own spectrometer, the cost of which was Indian rupees 300 (now US$ 5.00)!

Raman Effect plays a momentous role in the context of structural aspects of chemistry. Now we hear: Raman spectrometry, Raman crystals and crystallography, Raman microscopy, Laser Raman effects, and so on. His work was seminal to light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. His work extended to acoustics, mathematics of harmonics (in music), physiology of vision, crystal structure (extended to crystallography later). He was one of the intellectual giants of the last century. His entire education was in English. His language felicity was also momentous. One wonders whether the reason of the reviewers had anything to do with the perception associated with his origin from India, looked upon as a third world (I guess the term used by Jawaharlal Nehru) candidate from the British “Raj”. I am not implying anything negative here.

Dear Andrey,

Thanks for sharing it. I think that the example you mentioned is an exception from the rule rather than a common case. The system does fail from time to time because it's not perfect. Ignorance (deliberate or not), politics (sic!), personal ego - all of it may surface in such cases, and be sure that when it happens with high impact journals (Nature, Science, etc.) it will be amplified to the enormous extent leaving a very strong and bad aftertaste.

Honestly, I'm not sure that we need to put a new review system in place. Why? Because any system is as good as the people who are building and operating it. The system reflects us as a society, our modus operandi, our best and worst sides. This is us who have to be changed. And we're trying our best to evolve and be better. This may be too naive and simple, one may say but this is what I think.

Serge