In some ways I found the response to Tom's original paper from the researchers at Sydney University quite thought provoking and I find myself agreeing with much of their argument, suggesting that in fact, Tom's paper is by his own standards a piece of pseudoscience.
Tom's paper is in fact, research--he has developed a hypothesis, collected salient data to support an argument, and followed what might be called a empirical research method, developing his argument and conclusions. The fact Tom did not claim to be following a particular methodology is something of a red herring. The method is actually evident in the process undertaken. And then if you apply the two out of nine rule (I wonder where that came from), it must be an example of pseudoscience.
Tom's suggestion that the process he employed was more like a literature review is not convincing. A literature review is a review of research outcomes. Tom's review was of the research processes. He was in essence using the literature as a data source and paid little heed to research findings themselves. It was, in fact, more similar to content analysis.
But I don't have many problems with pseudoscience. I think Tom's paper is evidence of how good pseudoscience can be. It is socially relevant and makes many valid points and has achieved its aim of drawing attention to what is a real problem. Perhaps we need to consider aspects other than methodology when we try to judge the quality of research.