Their analytic approach obscures the fact that many different types of romance novels are written, and that they appeal to varied audiences. Most studies of romance novels utilize only a handful of novels. Most importantly, they don't compare and contrast different types of romance novels. Romances are produced by publishers who demand conformity to a set formula, not by authors exercising full creativity. Frankly, there is some truth to the belief that publishers tend to enforce conformity to a formula in many cases.
Romances promote a conservative message about male-female relationships.
The concern here is that romance novels encourage women, particularly young and impressionable women, toward views that reinforce gender inequality. The concern is not that readers mix up reality and fantasy. Rather it is the belief that readers are subconsciously attracted to a latent message in the books that subverts feminism. Unless they read a lot of popular fiction, academics are unaware how much variability there is in sexual explicitness. But I understand part of their point here.