Below is an exchange of e-mails between me and Gemma Calvert about one of her articles. The main interest in this exchange is that it is a nice example of the "bogus reference" technique, i.e. giving reference(s) to support some position/assertion which do not actually support the position/assertion. Here the assertion is that "map" is used as a shorthand for "receptive field", but the references she gives clearly show that "map" and "receptive field" are used to mean different things.
The "bogus reference" technique is relying on the reader(s) not to go into the effort of checking the reference. In this case, the references are not exact, which has the advantage that after I check them she can, in principle, claim that I didn't find the references she meant (in this case, though, she simply didn't answer).
The "bogus reference" technique is very common and very effective. What makes the problem worse is that people don't regard bogus references, which are effectively lies, as dishonest moves, so a person that uses the technique don't lose much even when it is found. Therefore it is a safe tool, which at worst will not achieve the intended effect, but will not harm its user.
[ 13 Nov 2004] I got an e-mail from Gema Calvert threatening legal action if I don't remove her e-mails, because they are "personal". This is the first time that somebody told me that e-mails discussing their published work is "personal", and the first time that somebody threatened with legal action. You will have to take my word that she was using bogus reference, and embarrassed enough about it to make legal threat to eliminate it.