First off, a bit of my own editorializing here, but you don't need to call them macrofamilies. If it's a valid phylum then it's just...a language family. Indo-European is a huge language family, but it is not a "macrofamily". I find that the term "macrofamily" is used by promoters of such theories to implicitly weasel out of the standards of evidence

I think the problem with how the landscape works a lot of the time is basically that "academic clickbait" is common and that papers really want grand claims and "promotions of a claim"; you first assert the existence of a language family and then outline the evidence to back up that existence because it sounds more spectacular rather than being more nuanced.

It would be better if more things were published which were more like "Here is some evidence that suggests these languages are related; I don't know if they are but it's interesting to look at it deeper to either disprove or find more evidence" but that's not often enough how it seems to go.

It seems like with almost all hypothetical language families all research on it is done by advocates that either attempt to prove their genetic relationship or disprove it rather than just investigate the issue.

The whole model of "You must first come with a strong claim and spectacular claim and then back it up" seems harmful to me opposed to a more nuanced model where evidence is presented for what it is.

But hey academic papers too know the importance of clickbait and that strong spectacular claims just sell better.