Being succinct is also a neat excuse for leaving out details that are actually necessary for any scientist to replicate your paper. Oh and it allows certain int

Being succinct is also a neat excuse for leaving out details that are actually necessary for any scientist to replicate your paper. Oh and it allows certain interdisciplinary works to incorrectly abstract away technical details from the secondary domain. You're not wrong, and in an ideal world it is a sensible way for experts to communicate amongst themselves. But at the same time this sort of deep reading is a fool's errand at least half the time IME, because the authors of the paper themselves did not carefully read every reference. And even when they did there are often subtle unpublished differences between a cited protocol and the protocol they actually used. To be fair, it's possible this is a domain specific phenomenon, and I'm not especially familiar with human intelligence research. But it's a real problem in the areas of neurobiology and computational neuroscience I've studied. I think it's in large part a natural consequence of trying to scale science in the wrong way, but there are also bad cultural factors and a few legitimately bad actors that push the issue even further.