1) Skeptical Inquirer has an online presence and lists the articles in the issue (some are available to general readers). None have titles suggesting that they are “research on ad hominem attacks”.
2) In an Argument from Authority the person IS the argument. Pointing out that they are not reliable sources - as is the case with Andrew Wakefield - is an entirely valid response.
3) Even in the case of Wakefield’s paper the undeclared conflicts of interest - for instance - are relevant information.
4) I see no reason to believe that there is a problem on this forum that would justify the additional workload of the proposed “solution”. Providing evidence that there is a significant problem here would be far more relevant to that than anything in the article.