Instead of refuting the flawed chinese room, the authors of those papers could have done something more productive instead. Like really working towards a real AI algorithm.

How can you possibly refute his argument intellectually without working towards a solution in some way? Knowing that it's not true now is an improvement to what was known then. By philosophizing against it, you gain a more concrete understanding of the problem and are, subsequently, closer to providing a solution.

He doesn't have an argument, in my opinion. There is nothing to refute. It is as if somebody was saying "look at this green spot, it is obviously red".

I guess the only way to "refute" it would be to create complete theory of human language and use it to prove that he isn't actually saying anything. But that doesn't seem very effective or promising as an undertaking to me.

Rephrased, maybe the problem with the chinese room is that it uses the fuzzy notion of consciousness, appealing to the vague emotions of it's audience rather than on logic. In so far as philosophy aims to clarify language, perhaps the chinese room could be useful as a bad example.