Just to echo what's being said, about 50 years back when I had the time, I went over to the UC Berkeley psych library, where they had (maybe still have) a metaphysical section. I read or scanned in detail every book in the metaphysics section, about 2000 volumes, maybe more. My conclusion was that between 75% and 90% were copies of a single general doctrine, of which only about 25% had anything new to say, and only about 10% seemed to really be authoritative.
The biggest benefit was that it kept me off the street and out of trouble for a few months. A few authors, like P A M Atwater, are serious and well grounded, but a tremendous amount of what's there is just business as usual.
There's another trend, one that seems to have taken over the ASPR and other similar journals, which is to force people to publish experiments, rather than philosophy or other abstract thinking. Meanwhile, abstract discussions are downplayed. This means that there is a potential source of good data, but it tends to repeat what everyone already is saying, which limits its utility. With limited access to new thinking, there is a limitation to new investigation, and thus experiments tend to be pretty repetitious, or trivial in content.
My suggestion is always to take whatever people write with a grain of salt. People used to tell me to disbelieve anything that I heard, and believe only half of what I saw - not bad advice in this area.
dave