It looks like they labelled all of them fiction based on a single instance of one of the authors fabricating their case, a gross overcorrection. I wonder if they flinched at the prospect of actually assessing the validity of all of them and decided it was safer to just disclaim them.
> It looks like they labelled all of them fiction based on a single instance of one of the authors fabricating their case
Does it? That's directly at odds with what the article and editor say