Evidence for the importance of community

Ok, so here I am reviewing a paper which is not very good for a number of reasons. One relatively minor reason is that the authors do not refer to any of the current papers published by the "big dogs" on this topic. So in my last post, I complain about having to sell myself and fit in to a scientific community and then I go off to do a review for a journal, and find myself concerned that the authors do not put their results in the context of their specific scientific "community" (by that I mean referring to the papers specifically relevant to their study). As I said, the paper is not good, but the lack of current context makes the paper seem "extra fishy". So I conclude, that everyone does it, even me: some of my judgment of the science is based on how it "fits in". And that is not bad. The authors could have made the paper seem better by selling it better and putting it in light of relevant current findings (but I still would reject it based mostly on the quality of the data).
I guess my point is that how you communicate your science matters a lot in how you and your work is perceived, and it can only help if you make it seem awesome (as long as you stay within reality, and don't exaggerate or totally overdo it).
I have not put much- no I have not put any- effort into "selling" myself. Sometimes I think this is because I have the attitude that if people can't just see immediately how awesome my work is, then they are somehow not worth my time, but I don't really believe this. This attitude comes from insecurity and fear of not being valued by my community.
One thing I have learned is that when I do put my mind to something, I am often successful. So.. here goes. Time to work on "awesome-izing" myself. Progress reports forthcoming.