Bad ACW history: an explanation

The magazine Nature has gone a long way toward explaining why Civil War history (and other pop history) is so awful:
Journals with high impact factors retract more papers, and low-impact journals are more likely not to retract ... the study finds. It also suggests that high and low-impact journals differ little in detecting flawed articles before they are published. ... Cokol argues that the larger number of retractions in high impact journals reflects the fact that they receive more scrutiny.
(Emphasis added.)

In Civil War history, "low impact" translates into yet another retelling, another synthesis of secondary sources, another infotainment project that cottons to what we already know. The low number of retractions made in ths field not only suggests the prevalence of low impact publishing but an absence of high-impact books and articles: in other words, an across-the-board quality problem.

(Hat tip to Overcoming Bias.)