This approach sounds sensible but it has a serious flaw. Skeptics are not willing to accept the plausibility of most paranormal claims unless the evidence is extremely strong. Little or none of the existing research rises to that level, so we remain skeptical. Had skeptics said some 40 years ago that all we wanted was reasonable quality replicated research, we might now be having to eat our words. The logic of the extraordinary claims argument is independent of the possibility of cheating by paranormal proponents.
Many paranormal claims have a very low a priori probability.
This means that potential biases and research flaws are more plausible as explanations for pro-paranormal results than is the truth of the claims. The argument would still be valid even if cheating, one possible explanation, was completely ruled out. In situations where fraud is especially likely, such as a single individual self-promoting as a psychic, we don't need the extraordinary claims argument to require tight controls against cheating. Ordinary diligence and common sense suffice to mandate exquisite and painstaking caution. This may prevent communication with non-skeptics unless they are willing to adopt our strict standards so as to achieve general acceptance.