[zozbot234]

> because why would you cite phase transitions or criticality? You learn about them in class as a physicist

I'm not sure if you're being entirely serious with that remark, but clearly citing the earlier work would have bolstered their credibility: interdisciplinary research is a plus and hardly something to hide. If it's something that's taught in physics class, you can cite a common textbook.

[semi-extrinsic]

The disease of having 100 citations in each paper had not yet broken out when the papers in question were written. A good paper in 1994 probably had about 8 references, and certainly not any to common textbooks.

[saltcured]

I would read it as there being a different threshold for what is citation-worthy versus presumed background knowledge.

Imagine if every graphics paper had to cite every concept they use from arithmetic, trigonometry, and linear algebra textbooks...

[zozbot234]

This was citation worthy because it's new knowledge to the field. Even in a graphics paper, you can cite whatever basic techniques you're using if it's not clear that everyone will be familiar with them.