I remember once reading an opinion piece that suggested that most papers should trim the "introduction" section greatly, instead referring to key review papers

I remember once reading an opinion piece that suggested that most papers should trim the "introduction" section greatly, instead referring to key review papers or textbook entries. Although I've never followed this advice -- I want papers to be accepted, after all -- I can see a lot of merit to it. The idea is to point readers to cohesive and well-cited treatments of the foundational material, rather than presenting them with a half-hearted pro forma summary that is unlikely to be especially insightful. Fields that follow this scheme would likely accumulate some useful review papers that will actually be read, unlike the throw-away citations that appear in conventional introductions. Would this scheme be beneficial to readers? I think so. But will it take off? This seems unlikely. I read this opinion piece perhaps a decade or two ago, and I've not noticed a change in academic writing. If anything, the reverse has been true: I see more and more introductions that basically rehash introductions from other papers. And with LLM tools, this will only get worse ... the further the introduction is from the author's actual research interest, the higher the likelihood of it being irrelevant, puffed-up, or simply wrong.