Scientist appealing to his authority

A scientist publishes a clinical trial. Many scientists and others call for its retraction citing flaws (about 30 sign a document calling for retraction). The scientist does not specifically address the criticisms of critics. But on twitter the scientist, who hasn't addressed the facts of the arguments of critics, tweets about his "25 years’ experience in clinical trials so what do you know?" type of logic to critics who include non scientists. I see this as appeal to authority logic not deferal to authority.

Is it not an unseemly appeal to authority by the scientist? If specific flaws of the study are raised which call into question the reliability of the study and a scientist doesn't address them but eventually makes a tweet like this, is it not appealing to authority to attempt to persuade people of the truth of the study rather than pointing to the study itself to support its truth? Or would you say its a case of deferring to authority or maybe even a grey area where it could be argued by a critic of the study that its an unseemly appeal to authority by the scientist, but argued by the scientist that he is deferring to his authority.

This is a real example currently playing out in real life. From where i stand its an unseemly appeal to authority and deceptive attempt at persuasion to the masses on twitter using an appeal to his authority because he cant win using an argument of pointing to the study itself because it has flaws and is in question.

And anyway, to me, truth claims in science should be built on the science itself (the study itself and its methodology) and not the scientists authority or "years of experience".

I understand that years of experience can be a signal of quality of the study. But if a study's reliability is called into question because of glaring flaws, in that context wouldnt the proponents of the study be committing a logical fallacy (one that is presumably shameful and unbecoming of a scientist to make) by attempting to appeal to authority at all at that point! (Because science claims should stand on the study itself and not authority claims to justify its reliability)

This would be a clear appeal to authority . The scientist should know better... a response to peer criticism isn't "I know what I am doing, trust me." To add nuance, if the criticism was from people other than peers that have little knowledge of the specific area, the details of the trial, or science in general, then referring to his or her own expertise might be justified, providing the criticisms are not legitimate (like a creationist asking a biologist "if we came from monkeys, then why is there still monkeys?")