FRAME CHALLENGE
Any answer I have would be a frame challenge.
Science does not need to be 'reformatted' for fiction authors – this is not an issue that needs fixing outside of puritanical worldbuilding-syndrome.
Sci-fi isn't in need of 'fixing' because it's entertainment – just as Romance genre is not made 'better' when we interject trigger warnings about toxic relationships and self-help therapy.
Can you imagine an atheist 'The Exorcist'...? Or a scientifically pedantic ghost story where nothing happens because ghosts don't exist?
God, please, no. That's not at all what stories are for.
Suspension of Disbelief
It's up to writers to decide what topics interest their readers, and whether real science has any place in their story. Most stories seem to do just fine with the tried and true writing technology called suspension of disbelief.
I'm sure if you look back at the childhood stories that inspired you, the ratio of science to fiction is nowhere near as high as you remember. Yet it still sparked your imagination -- or more likely: you always had an imagination and this was the type of story you found entertaining as a kid.
Why would you want to kill that joy for everyone else?
The problem with worldbuilding syndrome is there's no story there.
That's why I say this is not a problem that needs fixing. It's just an opinion from (usually) sci-fi snobs who want to separate their spacehelmet & rockets fantasy genre from knights & dragons fantasy genre.
As I already pointed out, where is the atheist outrage for a more realistic 'The Exorcist'? And the college women's studies critique against having a vampire boyfriend – oh wait, that exists. I leave it to you to decide how silly that is, and whether authors are taking heed.
'Science' in real life?
If you choose to start a science for writers blog yourself, I will applaud the effort. A search for 'worldbuilding blog' should turn up many examples.
And more luck to you because we live in a society where string theory, LK-99, and Alcubierre drives are lauded as 'science', rather than attention seeking hoaxes and outright frauds (or being generous: fiction).
Meanwhile, non-science authors can start with wikipedia and learn about actual science the same way everyone else does, not through simplified recaps but by thorough research from multiple accredited sources. Textbooks exist on a great many subjects and require credible sources. Online blogs are where misinformation breeds.
'Science' in Fiction
Science Fiction has plenty of un-scientific tropes that persist because that's what readers enjoy – often because they are a conceit that allows the story to take place in a more dynamic and interesting story-universe.
Transporters were invented because of TV budgets (time and money) and an eye-catching visual effect. No one cares about riding everywhere in a 'space winnabago', it's boring and lacks the wonder that is the whole purpose of the genre in the first place. Sometimes you just have to make stuff up to capture the feeling that a technology is really 'out there'.
However, what sci-fi authors appear to ACTUALLY need are some lessons in writing realistic characters that act like actual human beings. When they reach this basic storytelling milestone we can start working on the pedantic science details which will become obsolete in a decade.
Junk science tends to make more fantastical stories, which is usually the goal. There's not a whiff of science in Star Wars, and yet it moves.