This shows the authors are familiar with the field, avoids inadvertent plagiarism, allows them to make it clear precisely how their contribution contributes to knowledge, shows people from funding bodies that this is a cutting edge and important field of research, and points readers in the right direction if they want to see earlier ideas, or ideas in a more applied context.
If among those 92 citations should be a few papers from your boss and your colleagues, nobody will see that as unusual - as long as they're at least marginally relevant.
I would in fact argue that the trend, in "applied" fields, of justifying the importance of a piece of work by pointing out that a lot of people are doing similar work is in fact self-fulfilling. That makes it somewhat useless as a measure of importance.
Scientific context should be critical, not just descriptive.
There is one filter on this, though: you have to get funding for the work, which is a different process than getting a paper accepted. There is of course some overlap, as "people are working on this so it must be important" can be useful in arguing for funding, but funders at least potentially have other criteria in play too.
When you write your paper you say exactly this in the introductory context. Here is what other people have done, here is a problem not yet solved in this area, we solve it. It saves the reader an enormous amount of time by not having to do a literature review themselves to see how the paper fits into the larger thrust of the field, and what the novelty is.
How can you justify the novelty other than by comparing to other people's work?
Which claim do you disagree with? The claim that the trend I describe exists, or the fact that it is bad?
Note that what you describe is what I advocate: you explain that the question exists and hasn't been answered. This is not an argument that is based on the volume of work that exists.
It is also an argument you cannot (as an author) be trusted to make. Even if you cite everything that has been published that is tangentially related to your claimed contribution, there is no way a reviewer will know all of it, and no way a reviewer will be able to go and read all of it. So they can't determine whether your claim of novelty is correct unless they already know the entire field. The only defense against this is to encourage crisp and clear descriptions of claimed contributions (to knowledge or practice) and violently reject any overinflated claims. It is not to include an entire survey paper in the introduction of every piece of work that pushes the state of the art forward.
It does mean that the average paper is less accessible to the non-expert. It also encourages the regular publication of surveys whose role is solely to critically and exhaustively compare recent advances, and of textbooks whose role is to describe historic developments and their context. This is not something every paper should be doing.
People do this in science, politics, and church. It’s a call to act only (or mostly) on that person’s testimony. An act of faith. It’s both a red flag to watch for and a necessary aid for people.
A red flag because it’s often a sign of fallacy. I default on looking that person up along with folks that might disagree with them. Every success adds credibility. Failures mean I’ll default in a different direction if I hear their name come up. Might even dig into what other claims they have which are spreading.
Those sources who keep getting the job done in specific areas can graduate from red flag to reliable enough to default on. Only in that area for claims not to far from what they’ve been good at. If outside or a big claim, still double check. Also, be able to provide verifiable evidence of why you trust the source.
Edit: So, if anyone wants to build on Fermat's last theorem, it's not enough that they cite Wiles' paper proving it, but they should have to re-derive the proof themselves?
I think humans operate on faith in others’ testimonies way more than actual science. As a follower of Jesus Christ, this doesn’t bother me since I believe we learn the truth in multiple ways. However, science is rooted in empiricism which says any belief must be proven, independently reviewed by skeptics, and we keep using it while it seems correct. Dissent is always allowed in real science since our models (beliefs) might be useful but incorrect on some level. Whatever survives the most review with the most utility is what we should keep using.
What happens is often different. People believe something just because it was reported somewhere or had a name on it. That’s pure faith (or argument from authority). Many works aren’t just unreplicated: they can’t be replicated. Many institutions have political biases affecting their work. Many don’t allow dissent on some topics. People good at one thing often fail at another. I also see big jumps in extrapolating a small success to future, larger successes.
While common (even on HN), none of that is the scientific method in action. It’s more like a mix of science, unproven dogma, speculation, political maneuvering, and a popularity contest. The ratios of these vary by field and institution. Don’t call anything science or “proof” unless it fully follows the scientific method. And builds on premises that did, too.
So while I agree that generally citations are a statement of claim and the reference given allows people to see if that statement of claim is actually supported, within the paper itself good authors also explicitly weigh the "truth value of a proposition".