The entire point of academia is to extend the current state of knowledge. When judging if a paper is extending knowledge, the reader must understand 1) what the prior work is and 2) how the author has extended prior work. Without citing prior work, how is the reader supposed to tell what the author has done new?
Not only that, reproducibility is core to research. Without having detailed records of where ideas are originating (i.e., citations) research is much less reproducible.
There are actually many examples of papers getting accepted because the authors claim something new by using new terminology, but ignore all prior work in the field. The reviewers are not experts in that subfield, so they accept the paper without realizing it is not novel.
> The entire point of academia is to extend the current state of knowledge.
Maybe it once was but for the vast majority of people who enter academia the enter point is to increase their take home pay throughout their life.
Academia isnt some noble endeavor but a desperate game that people play in an attempt to win enough money that they can comfortably live their meager lives and hopefully raise their children to have better lives than they had.
Until economic necessity is decoupled from participating in the academic process the idea that academia serves some kind of abstract goal like the persuit of knowledge will remain an elaborate lie that people tell themselves to justify their life choices regarding academia.
Academia is a rather poor choice if your goal is income (industry pays much better). I agree that academia isn't as idealistic as one often presents it, but the principle currency in academia isn't money but prestige. Plagiarism and other forms of academic fraud are largely motivated by an attempt to look smarter and more productive than one is in order to win recognition from one's peers.
I'm curious if in your generalization are there any references to cite? I am in desperate agreement with you, but sources are needed! (Irony unintended)
Not only that, reproducibility is core to research. Without having detailed records of where ideas are originating (i.e., citations) research is much less reproducible.
There are actually many examples of papers getting accepted because the authors claim something new by using new terminology, but ignore all prior work in the field. The reviewers are not experts in that subfield, so they accept the paper without realizing it is not novel.