Many only read top 5 or top field. If it does not exist there, it does not exist.
Top 5 only neeeds to cite Top field or above QED
This explains why the papers in these journals always promote "innovative" and "new" findings. It is like living in a filter bubble
This case is academic dishonesty, not simply networks doing networks' stuff in their bubble. The paper is on a policy relevant topic, and there is an earlier decently published contribution that reaches different policy implications using the same data. The most recent paper should at least try explaining why is this the case. Ignoring that article completely should not be allowed by the top ranked journal in the profession
I would not speak of "dishonesty" (by the authors), I would suggest that we are facing "weak reveiwers" (who are not aware of the literature in the field).
I hope that the authors will somehow get informed about the article in the ILRR and I totally agree that the authors must then discuss and explain the different results.
It's obvious that they delibarately omitted that citation.