A question has arisen, my friends, yes it has.
When you are reviewing a paper do you ever think to yourself that the authors just haven't done enough work to justify a paper? Is it a criterion for you, implicit or explicit, that a paper must require at least a certain minimum amount of time spent doing the experiments?
Or does it never even cross your mind to think about how long it took to come up with the results? Is your standard based on what is being shown and how cool and important (timely? novel?) it is?