This reminds me that a lot of [other] papers are bullshit. Papers are basically long-form blog posts. One group of people did a thing and here are their results

This reminds me that a lot of [other] papers are bullshit. Papers are basically long-form blog posts. One group of people did a thing and here are their results. From those results they often come up with generalized conclusions. A lot of the time, people just take those conclusions as truisms! But do the conclusions extrapolate to other groups, scenarios? Will bias color the readers' takeaways (like authority fallacy)? How well does this work when implemented elsewhere over 10 years? Does anyone who has implemented this paper take it seriously, or without a million caveats? I cringe when I see a team blindly implement the design in a paper. Design to your needs, not somebody else's! Papers are great places to take ideas from, but you should never treat them like gospel, or copy them outright. It's the same trap as designing your solution around your tools rather than vice versa. When someone brags about implementing the design in a paper, I expect it to work poorly (at least until they figure out all the stuff that wasn't in the paper). Papers are experiments, whereas Best Practices are the experiments that were reproduced by many people in many places over a long period of time. If what you're building matters (not R&D), implement the best practice first, not the experiment.