Analogy versus Similarity
There has been a considerable amount of argumentation on this thread conflating analogy with (a high degree of) similarity.
I therefore decided to make a post addressing solely this issue.
A tiger and a great white shark can be considered to be analogous, in that each is an apex predator. This analogy does not however mean that they are particularly similar overall – they have profound differences in morphology, physiology, hunting strategy, etc, etc, etc.
In fact analogies tend to be noteworthy because of overall dissimilarity. One is unlikely to see an analogy made between Emperor Penguins and King Penguins. If two things are too similar overall it tends to obscure the single point of analogy that is being attempted to be made.
Therefore it is unreasonable to take papers pointing to an analogy between two things as meaning that they are highly similar. It is highly likely that they mean the exact opposite, that it is the overall differences between them that make the single point of analogous similarity worthy of mention.