Nop. Most people pick their references and formulate a narrative. Much easier if you are doing a Masters or Ph.D. The cult gets more concentrated with post-docs and the higher ups who bother to publish as much as possible in a specific area.
The cherry on top of it all is tenureship. Which is basically kinghsip. Nobody and nothing can remove them.
Ad lets no forget how most these journals work, the money under the table and the special interests they serve. Nonetheless, they are treated much like the holy grail of science even though most papers do not follow the appropriate standards.
I must confess that I am not too sure to follow your answer. Are you talking about steemit, or about real life, or both...
I assume you discuss here steemit posts. Some authors do that, that is true. And to be honest, this is not what I personally prefer. I like when there is a personal touch in the text, an interesting approach. But I prefer 1000 times a narrative article discussing something scientific than some conspiracy theory, for instance.
In real life, I know counter-examples (of my field, but I am pretty sure you can find some from other field as well). On steemit, I don't see the point here.
This is not true for all journals and all fields. My own field is an example (have a look to the arxiv or scipost).