I get the impression that people who review research papers want to see recent papers listed in the bibliography. To me, this implies that I would have to list papers that are not neither the biggest landmarks nor the most relevant. When I do research, it's mostly my own thing. It's interdisciplinary and it is not a Frankenstein paper that was made by stitching together other papers to make some unique creation. This creates a problems when I make citations. The primary source is seemingly incoherent scriblings in my notebook. Anyway, I can make citations, they just don't always seem totally relevant to me. I guess there is the issue of demonstrating sufficient knowledge in the subject area, but this requires a lot of effort, as my field hardly has an established body of research to begin with...which means reading papers from other fields and contributes to neither the originality nor the usefulness of the research. Do I sound lazy?