Why there is many things wrong in science and large number of publications is probably amongst them the premise of the argument here is weak at best. The author

Why there is many things wrong in science and large number of publications is probably amongst them the premise of the argument here is weak at best. The authors essentially say because in established fields people cite established papers, therefore no progress is made. That is quite a leap, just because people continue to cite Newton does not mean that no progress is being made. The argument seems to be that new "disruptive" science needs to replace the old, but that is hardly ever the case. Instead of replacing it it often extends it (see my Newton example which was extended by e.g. quantum mechanics).