Susan Haack has some decent work on the subject.

I take issue with her arguments on demarcation and falsifiability a little bit, and I think she is a little guilty of nut-picking fallacies when talking about the extent to which at people hold to scientism.

That said, I think she does a good job explaining how we can have issues with science, and how some people view it. How we need to be aware of the intricacies of science, not just fall for anything labelled as science, and not forget that science it is susceptible to human error.

She also rebuts the common misconceptions of science and philosophy being separate, or science and religion being parts of separate domains.

People dangerously conflate anti-science with scientism as a way to avoid the tension between modern science and outdated beliefs(often religious or spiritual ones). But its key to remember science is simply the best philosophical method we have for discovering truth and knowledge. I would not say its the only way to knowledge, as thats too strong, and we run into serious definitional games and grey areas.

While i mostly agree with Susan's definition with scientism(kind of like gullibility for anything with the label science), I think most people who use the term are anti-science people who straw-man science or attempt a tu quoque fallacy to blissfully hold their unscientific beliefs on equal footing.