Stephen G. Brush, a professor in the Department of History and the Institute for Physical Science and Technology at the University of Maryland, investigated the influence of Alfvén's work in a paper "Alfvén’s Programme in Solar System Physics" (1992). He noted (fair use quote):
Originally Posted by Nereid
I have noted in several instances above, even when they accept Alfvén's ideas other scientists tend to ascribe them not to Alfvén but to someone else." [..]
"According to many scientists with whom I have discussed this situation, a major reason for ignoring Alfvén or resisting his ideas is his abrasive style in dealing with other scientists; he frequently denounces those who favor other approaches or ignores their work just as his own has been ignored in the past." [..]
"I have found omissions of Alfvén citations in many papers published by those who have given him ample credit on other occasions. Possibly there is a (subconscious?) fear that by mentioning Alfvén's name one will bring upon oneself a little of the hostility that he inspires." [..]
"By Popperian criteria his theories should have acquired credit by their successful predictions, and by Lakatosian standards his programme should be considered “progressive.” Yet most of the scientific community refuses to follow it or to give Alfvén credit for his achievements although many of his basic concepts are now accepted." [..]
"Nevertheless, the continuing resistance to Alfvén's work is based on a widely held opinion that his predictions are not derived from a plausible physical theory (i.e., a theory that conforms to the dominant paradigm)."
So while magnetohydrodynamics may indeed be accepted by scientists, at least one science historian feels that there appears to be resistance against some of Alfvén's work, and failure to give credit, where credit is due.