Should reviewers be required to cite their sources?

When I got back from the IBAGS conference, I was greeted by an 'paper rejection email'.

Failure with a capital F (source)

I was disappointed of course, but I slept off my jetlag and then built my self-confidence back up by saving the universe. I will retool the paper and submit it somewhere else.

However, the reviews for this paper were particularly infuriating (aren't they always?). Here's a summary:

I say: "Thing X is true (citation, citation), so we did thing Y which uses thing X."

Reviewer says: "You act like thing X is true, but it's not (no citations)."

The reviewer did this for two specific aspects of the paper, saying that the basis for our model and our ideas just aren't true, but giving no citations. In both case, I have citations in the paper to back up my claim that these things ARE true.  

This particular form of irritating review has not happened to me before. I've always had well-cited responses to my claims. It's common courtesy to cite some papers when you say that someone is completely wrong about something, but I guess it's not required.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? Has it happened to you? Am I just having the normal 'grrr' response to a negative review?

© TheCellularScale