Do you consider your [Reeve's] paper to be research? We are proceeding on the assumption that it is.
1. Consequently, we find it a touch ironic that you've employed a quantitative/empirical method, of which you seem to be so critical. For example we have some problems with the fact that your survey is only of two journals, and that the sample is a snapshot of a rather limited time-frame.
2. We have applied your criteria for defining pseudoscience to your own paper. We feel that you meet at least two or more of the characteristics you outlined. For example, inadequate sample size and simplistic statistical analyses have been used to make broad generalizations.
3. Looked at overall, your article neatly proves the point that systemic analysis would have been of more benefit in proving your point rather than the quantitative empirical methods you employed.