I agree that if we give the critic no benefit of the doubt, we might interpret her complaint as petty filibustering done in bad faith. But we only have that sho

I agree that if we give the critic no benefit of the doubt, we might interpret her complaint as petty filibustering done in bad faith. But we only have that short quote from that critic. We don't know if she elaborated – or even if she were asked by the reporter to elaborate – on what she believes the significance of those not-included papers to be. If she is referring to major omissions, as in, the omitted papers are generally well-known and respected in the field, then her complaint is not a "lazy cop-out" nor a filibuster in bad faith, but a legitimate rebuttal.