Just some random THOUGHTS from my reading these days.

Presenting all evidence as equally high-quality and equally robust is a bad implicit message. It takes a lot more work to contextualize, but contextualize we must. Listing a huge stream of studies with all kinds of different characteristics and wildly different theoretical framings isn't really a service to your reader. It teaches science = list of facts rather than a process of evaluating overlapping, changing, dynamic bodies of evidence