Most academic CS literature is complete BS. The vast majority of papers fit into a simple formula of "We apply method X to problem Y, and outperform other approaches using approaches similar to method X".
Meanwhile, no one uses method X or any of its cousins, because in the real world the problem is solved very differently with a combination of both principled algorithms and heuristics derived from real-world datasets.
The paper also fails to give any theoretical reason or mathematical insight as to why their version of X is better.
Thus, it doesn't actually solve a real world problem OR advance scientific understanding.
Meanwhile, no one uses method X or any of its cousins, because in the real world the problem is solved very differently with a combination of both principled algorithms and heuristics derived from real-world datasets.
The paper also fails to give any theoretical reason or mathematical insight as to why their version of X is better.
Thus, it doesn't actually solve a real world problem OR advance scientific understanding.