One thing I've started wondering about in historiography is this phrase "recent research indicates..." I see it all the time as of late, especially in journal articles. But, it's honestly a bit misleading. Where it makes sense to use a phrase like "recent research has shown" is when a new archive has been opened up, new documents have been uncovered, or something has finally been accurately translated. In other words, in areas where the primary documents have actually been widened or improved through "recent research". However, this doesn't often happen in historiography. In many areas, we've been looking at the same pile of documents for decades. What changes is the interpretation- every generation has their own take on that pile of documents. This is why someone like Georg Iggers can write an intellectual history of historiography and do such a good job of charting the changes in mindsets.
I think where it's a bit misleading is when we use "recent research" to refer to a new take on the documents. Because then it implies that there's some reason to take the more recent opinion more seriously than the old opinion. But, again, they're often just different approaches, neither one being more or less valid than the other. In the sciences, new knowledge has to build on old knowledge and the most recent research is generally the most advanced. But, this isn't the case in history writing. Generally, the most recent research is just more recent. It's good to be up-to-date on the historiography, but I have to wonder if it's totally necessary. Often, I find the most interesting approaches in books from the 1960s.