I’m working in the area of adversarial examples against neural networks. A standard research paper generally starts off an introduction with something along the lines of the below, but probably with a bit more guff:
Neural networks are increasingly used in safety and security critical applications, such as medical image recognition or facial recognition in surveillance footage. However, the networks are vulnerable to malicious attacks through the manipulation of input data. With adversarial examples...... etc.
Considering there are hundreds of papers which start with the same introduction, would it be acceptable to skip over writing my own guff? Possibly just reference existing papers and mention “existing uses and problems” (or something like that).
The scene has already been set by hundreds of existing papers, so why would I need to set the scene again in any of the papers that I create?
Or would something like this generally fail to pass peer review? Obviously there’s many different criteria for different journals/confs etc.