Thanks to David Nagel for spotting this very thorough and positive overview of the field, a considerable feat on the part of the authors. Note that the 'Appendix A ' link leads to a 3Mb Excel file with over 500 references to various cold fusion papers.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S1572665721008973 - open access.
Review - Preliminary survey on cold fusion: It’s not pathological science and may require revision of nuclear theory
Luciano Ondir, Andrade Delvonei Alves de
After three decades, “cold fusion” field is alive with thousands of publications technologies. Nuclear reactions in solids are more complex than simple fusion. They also seem to need energy triggers like background radiation. The field does not fit in pathological science model. The field has potential to bring disruptive technologies.
Since 1989 the announcement of “cold fusion” by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleishmann, “cold fusion” field has been surrounded by controversy. After three decades, this field is alive and has produced thousands of publications, most in dedicated periodic and conferences. This work aims at checking whether “cold fusion” fits in pathological science traits. For each type of experiment and year, this work counted the distinct research groups results (success or failure). Experimental results from many research groups suggest that nuclear reactions in solids are more complex than fusion (it is not only fusion) and that they need energy triggers like background radiation, meaning chemical configurations alone do not seem to generate nuclear reactions. Some types of experiments present rising trends (the field does not fit in pathological science model) and have potential to bring disruptive technologies. If confirmed, experimental results will require revisions of accepted nuclear models.