Circling back to offer further thoughts. To be clear, the paper is useful & the work is welcome. Moreover, Baicker and Finkelstein cite me, Jake Haselswerdt as well as Clinton & Sances in the paper. In fact, Joshua Clinton is an editor at the journal this is published in (1/n).
So the issue is not that the paper fails to make a contribution or formally cite relevant research. Instead, there are two issues in my view. First, the paper passingly cites but doesn't fully engage relevant research. Surprise! I'm talking about my own work here (2/n)
In their 2019 paper Baicker & Finkelstein cite a 2017 paper of mine that actually asks a different question than the one they pose, while they ignore my 2018 book, which offers much more detail and is more directly relevant to their own research questions. 
It's odd that they ignore my book but perhaps they thought the article was just a version of the same. It was not. In any case, even their reference to my 2017 article is disengaged methodological gesturing ("challenges to identifying causal effects have been substantial")
Don't get me wrong, they are absolutely right that causal identification is hard in this case. I am quite direct (in the book) in saying as much & calibrating my claims accordingly. However...
My work focuses on geographic differentiation across states & theirs on ONE policy in ONE state (a limitation they note). So it would have been more accurate (& arguably more intellectually generative) for them to highlight the contrasts in what these various approaches teach us
Instead, they imply that their study is simply a more methodologically impressive approach where they resolve messy identification challenges. Useful as that may be, it largely makes an end run around existing work instead of fully engaging its strengths/weaknesses
I do not say all of this for the sake of defensiveness. I want other folks to study the things I care about & find confirming (or conflicting) evidence that helps us understand important problems better. That is science & when we do it well it can make lives better.
Yet, it is precisely because science is a cumulative process that we have a responsibility as scholars to do fidelity to the work of those who have studied our questions before us. When this happens, the questions we ask are sharper & the findings we offer more sensible.
In particular, when there are differences in methods, discipline or power, failure to faithfully engage the work of others can lead to miscommunication that impede the advancement of science. We end up arguing over methods, fields or stature--instead of learning from each other.
I am a junior person of color in political science who does multi-method research. So when two scholars different from me in all of those ways write on a topic that I am (I would humbly assert) known for-- it matters whether and how they engage my work.
I have a practice of assuming the best so I assume that all intentions were positive here. This doesn't reflect on anyone's motives or character. I don't tweet to call anyone out. I do so because I keep it real and hope that others can gain insight from my insistence on doing so.
