Why didn't the author name the publisher? So librarians, unfamiliar with esoteric fields can put a black mark next to that publisher's name and only buy from that publisher if requested or approved by an academic in that field. Surely the reputation damage that should be inflicted would stop such practises if they exist. But we have a claim with no evidence at this point.

I agree, the original article doesn't hold up well under scrutiny. Anonymous source and no verifiable, relevant facts-- even facts that should be easy to obtain.

Perhaps the author of an editorial in a British newspaper is aware of the draconian libel laws in the UK, and doesn't want to name names to avoid a likely lawsuit?

Perhaps. I think it's equally likely the story is low-effort clickbait that's fooled over 200 readers at Hacker News.