The other day my adviser said something interesting. We were talking about the current state of theoretical astrophysics papers out there and he said, "All these papers just give recipes. They say, do this and do that and you will get this. They don't talk about the physics. They don't try to look into the different physics that could cause what we see. It's supposed to be Astro-physics not Astro-recipes."
This struck me as a particularly good criticism because the vast majority of papers I have been reading all have a lot of recipes for how to recreate their simulations, but very few actually look at the different physics involved. They focus more on the number of grid points in their simulation than on whether or not their physics produces something we see through a telescope. Perhaps this is a problem more for my particular sub-field, but it does seem to pop up everywhere.