On occasion people will take scientific reports (primary literature) and report the results in a way that is inaccurate or misleading.  What is behind misrepresentation like this could be any of the following:

• The secondary article was written based on the abstract (summary of the study) instead of entire journal report.  Since it often costs money and takes effort to read a full report some secondary authors neglect to do this.  This is a problem because abstracts can exaggerate results by the way they are written.  (e.g. “A significant change in hot flashes” could mean that women had hot flashes 99 times a month instead of 100.  Scientifically significant, but not practically significant.)
• The secondary article was biased to promote the practice or drug or whatever was being studied, instead of being a balanced report.
• The author of the secondary article did not understand the study results.  Maybe the author doesn’t really know the difference between statistically significant and significant in a practical or real world sense.

These are reports, reviews, articles, books, etc that cite or talk about research studies or primary reports. They are “second hand” reports.

Contrast to primary literature:  Primary literature is a first hand report of something.  In the scientific realm this is a first report by the scientist(s) that did the study or research.

Primary literature is a first hand report of something.  In the scientific realm this is a first report by the scientist(s) that did the study or research.

Most primary literature published in scientific journals is also peer reviewed.  This means that other experts in author/scientist’s field have reviewed the report and decided it was “worthy” of publication and that it was scientifically sound.   I know of several instances where researchers have decided not to publish because their work would not be accepted or tried and failed to publish because their results run counter to mainstream thought.  (e.g. endosymbiosis theory by Lynn Margulis).  Even in the primary literature “publication bias” exists.

Contrast to secondary literature:  Secondary literature are reports, articles, reviews, etc that cite or talk about the primary report.