> The explanation for this phenomenon is usually that authors have lazily, sloppily, or fraudulently employed sources, and peer reviewers and editors have not d

> The explanation for this phenomenon is usually that authors have lazily, sloppily, or fraudulently employed sources, and peer reviewers and editors have not discovered these weaknesses in the manuscripts during evaluation. I've seen this sort of thing in the literature I'm familiar with (HF Radar). I don't think it's laziness or fraud, but a version of the telephone game played as a kid. A 'fact' will get stated, and then repeated over and over until some of the original meaning is lost and it becomes gospel. This can happen because the fact is not crucial to the science in the paper but always part of the introductions or statements about how the system works. The statement I'm thinking about in particular is "if you have N receive antennas, you can only find (simultaneously) N-1 signals". This is true if you are using covariance-based methods such as Multiple Signal Classification (MUSIC). It got repeated and repeated until the caveats (simultaneous, and MUSIC) are longer included. Of course, if you have two orthogonal antennas you can distinguish two directions, perhaps not in complex situations!