Okay, time for the lecture: Someone has to write good science for lay people. Scientific American isn't an aggregator, pulling in links from various scholarly journals and putting the abstracts and a few teaser statements on a page that attracts eyeballs and the ads make money. Scientific American has people who write original articles about subjects and they get their information from scholarly journals. They tend to link back to themselves as source material, but it took a few keystrokes searching Google Scholar to land one of the original articles about Candida auris that this article references.

It's a good starting point, like Wikipedia for references. Start there and work up if you need the rest of the scholarly detail.

Those who can, do. Those who can't teach. I've always thought that statement was short-sighted and dismissive, but if it will get you to stop with the "I used to teach science so I know better" stuff, sobeit. These Scientific American articles do like you did, teach. There's nothing wrong with teaching science so you need to stop dismissing your journalistic peers as if you're better than them. There is plenty of room for good science material in the world, and nothing wrong with reaching the masses.