What makes a scientific paper good? I believe everyone has an answer or at least an assumption. The variations in answers are contingent on firsthand experience. The feed- back that we receive from reviewers and editors when we submit our papers to journals may help informing our opinion. When specialists scrutinize our manuscripts or when we act as reviewers ourselves, what part of work is of great importance to us? We tend to pay a special attention to methodology, results and discussion sections. Therefore, au- thors endeavor to present rigorous methods, valid and reliable results, and strong discus- sion points. But what about the literature review? Are we sufficiently critical of it?