He wasn't just affiliated, but I understand the frustration with the idea to some extent. Yes, it does sound reasonable because at any point in time they could've sat him down for a course correction and helped him learn. This was pretty much his brand as much as I can tell.
How is their handling of a bad apple in any way related to the quality of their research? Should we dismiss all of the good work of scientists because their organisations likely employed a few undesirable people at any given moment? Seems silly to me.
Sure, you all are probably right that unless I care to dig up his now deleted tweets and a recording of that conference that it's not worth saying anything about.
On the note of DORAs quality, I don't think they've ever actually released any datasets. The excuse they give is anonymity but their collection surveys always stated that the surveys are anonymous. It's impossible to determine the quality of their research beyond their own statements.
