This is how books were written 100 years ago, you had to spend like the first third explaining why everyone else is wrong before getting to the part where you claim to be right.
I initially didn’t do enough of that in my PhD thesis (CS, about some weird non-frame-based imaging tech that is still only of academic interest), and my committee demanded I add more stake-claiming favorable comparisons to other tech to my introduction before I submitted.
This is how books were written 100 years ago, you had to spend like the first third explaining why everyone else is wrong before getting to the part where you claim to be right.
I initially didn’t do enough of that in my PhD thesis (CS, about some weird non-frame-based imaging tech that is still only of academic interest), and my committee demanded I add more stake-claiming favorable comparisons to other tech to my introduction before I submitted.
Do we not do that anymore?
Quacks still do, the rest doesn’t