"The default assumption should be that methodological weaknesses are due to ignorance rather than bad faith" (lines 138-139). Why does this assumption not extend to the discussion of literature reviews in the next paragraph? Why would selective or inaccurate reporting of the literature be more likely to be "insidious" than methodological flaws? Wouldn't these errors exist on the same spectrum as methodological ones- with most resulting from the nature of the system (e.g., perverse publishing incentives, sheer amount of content being produced) rather than outright malicious intent. And might the ignorance that results in most methodological weaknesses be the very thing that leads to misinterpretation of the literature?