Is it preferable to list the limitations of the presented method in the paper? I don't remember I have seen authors (in CS) explicityl listing the limitations of their approaches. Most of the cases, the approach is presented as complete solution of the addressed problem*. Authors (including myself)  usually mention in future work a potential solution of another problem (specifically, a higher level of the problem* being discussed).
Obviously, every method has limitations on the addressed problem. Is it preferable to list the limitations of the method? as I believe the authors are the most knowledgable people about their approach. Also, does &quot;listing the limitations&quot; hurt the acceptance chances of the paper? (I don't think I would be influenced by the fact that they are listed when I review papers, but not sure how other reviewers would react)
Actually, in every field, limitations should be mentioned. Otherwise the paper gives an incomplete account of what is known and what is not.
But that assumes that the author(s) recognize the limitations and that may not be an easy thing to do in some fields. In some situations, however, the limitations may be obvious to the reader, and thus are omitted. Some limitations might be trivial, though I'm having trouble coming up with a quick example of that. And, in statistical studies, the limitations are well known from the methodology used; sample size and such.
But including limitations should not negatively affect the likelihood of acceptance. Quite the opposite, I think. A reviewer, noticing an unstated, but important, limitation would be likely to comment on it and suggest an update.