Is it ok to form a model based on several papers and omit something from newer papers? Of course, not that someone else proved what you're researching, just that authors said that something was important for one segment and you investigated another segment and neglected that. Later, the author published something and considered the thing you neglected. For the scope of research you couldn't include that and you based your argument on research context, scope and author's first publication.
What do you think? Is this a problem? Does it happen that authors omit some information because it doesn't help them? Please share your thoughts with me. Thanks.
Furthermore, is it ok to make changes in your argument after peer reviews even if reviewers didn't notice and didn't consider it a mistake.
Since I'm new in this research field, I have so many questions. I hope you understand.