1. Avoiding scholarly consensus
Failing to seek out (or avoiding), the established scholarly consensus on an issue, or concealing this information from readers.
2. Artificial levels of credulity
Accepting sympathetic sources[1] uncritically despite their lack of scholarly standing, whilst rejecting more scholarly and authoritative sources which are antagonistic,[2] claiming they are insufficiently convincing.
3. Confirmation bias
Overwhelmingly selecting sources sympathetic to the view already held, whilst ignoring or dismissing antagonistic sources.
4. Factual errors
Making factually inaccurate statements.
5. False neutrality
Observing correctly that a particular argument is inconclusive due to inadequate or ambiguous evidence, and then appealing to it later as if it had been decisively proven.
6. Inflating authority
Exaggerating the value or authority of a particular source.
7. Inflating evidence
Exaggerating the amount or quality of evidence for a given argument.
8. Manufacturing controversy
Presenting the appearance of scholarly controversy despite scholarly consensus.
9. Selective tolerance
Tolerating a perceived fault in a sympathetic source, but identifying it as a critical flaw in an antagonistic source.
___________________
[1] A sympathetic source is a source which supports or acknowledges evidence for the case being made.
[2] An antagonistic source is a source which rejects or denies evidence for the case being made.