"[R]esearchers say" this, "researchers say" that... Why not do real reporting, and write a real article, which has verified facts, and doesn't need weasel phrases?
I'm not sure how they would be able to do that effectively without input from researchers. I don't see that as a weasel phrase, but as a (reasonable IMO) deference to experts in the field.
Reporters can contact sources. They call the person who wrote the paper or other experts and then quote them in the article.
This has the benefit of making the reporter's story contain some actual unique information. More importantly, it meant that the person reporting the story had checked with a person to confirm what they were reporting. One of the reasons that wrong stories get repeated in online journalism is that people just rush to repost something without checking with anyone to make sure its true.
