I think the author should look more into scientific responses to pseudoscience claims. For example, the author posits two positions: 1) Emil's studies are legitimate; 2) Emil's studies are flawed, but none of his opponents are willing to make the effort to refute them.

A missing 3) is responding lends credence to studies whose premises have long since been refuted.

This is why geology publications don't publish new refutations of every new flat-earth article.

That's part of the reason why many biologists refuse to "debate" Young Earth Creationists. (Another is that oral debates depend much more on the rhetorical skills of the speakers than the underlying evidence, and a third is Brandolini's Law, mentioned in the text.)

The author writes "Unfortunately, this phenomenon is far from only affecting the social sciences", which suggests the author isn't aware of things like the what PZ Myers terms "the panspermia mafia"[1], "a tight collaborative community of cranks" that "rubber stamp their approval" on each others' papers.[2]

[1] https://www.cnet.com/science/features/the-fungus-on-mars-and...

[2] https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2021/08/11/rhawn-jos...

The panspermia mafia is far from the only such group in the physical sciences.