Articles are too often cited, by authors and by referees, as making the exact opposite of the argument they actually advanced. Long books are noted, with a wave of the rhetorical hand but without the mundane encumbrance of specific page or even chapter references; and highly relevant literatures, even in leading political science journals, are frequently ignored.
From Notes from the Editors, in the current issue of APSR.
Another excellent line:
[we] note a pattern accurately described by one co-editor: increasing engagement across sub-disciplines, sustained fratricide within them.
I would say the problems apply equally to economists. The reading is certainly no better and, as a colleague of mine said last year, “development economists eat their own young”.