This is affecting the way I'm reviewing articles. When someone from a different discipline comes in and makes an interesting case, am I a good reviewer if my immediate reaction is "but you didn't cite the canon!", even though their arg is complete without it?
Say they don't & I let it go. The paper is now in the wild. Those offended would then pen their responses. A dialogue happens. As it should. What's wrong with that? The responses would still get the last word. Is it the reviewer's job to press each paper into the mould before it can see the sun?
But I get it. I'm pissed too when people claim that an issue has never been touched, a claim has never been made, or just barge in from the outside thinking that they have some grand aha that nobody in entire fields have thought about before. Go home and do your homework! But things are swinging
... too excessively in the other direction when reviewers (incl me) put so much effort into canon citations that the argument is lost in paragraphs of statues erected for the sole purpose of pleasing the gods. When their presence or absence does nothing to the argument.
So now I'm going to get over this hang up, go finish that review, and enjoy the fact that I get to manage and write for a magazine that is about getting to the point.
No.
Exactly