Yes, that deserves its own entry in my list of reasons: Articles which refer to very recent predecessors are assumed to be part of a dynamic and fast-moving fie

Yes, that deserves its own entry in my list of reasons: Articles which refer to very recent predecessors are assumed to be part of a dynamic and fast-moving field and not a backwater. The impact-factor formula explicitly incorporates this assumption. Now that you point this out, I feel even better about my use of the word "crappy" to describe the submitted article. Everyone involved in scientific publishing keeps one eye on the impact factor numbers at all times. The hypothesis that these impact factor calculations are distorting scientific publishing (similar to the way that the US News rankings are distorting higher education) has been around for years, and you'd think the article might have mentioned it.