A Different Essence in the Design
RS needs to be on its own, because although it is underpinned by a similar parent philosophy, it is designed to have a very different essence.  It is designed to meet a need.  And RS isn’t designed to just be a methodology.  Systems science, (see the link below), indicates a need for not only a methodology, but also a community of people who are unique as a whole, because being open-minded and receptive of even the undesirable and despised, changes our lives and relationships.  

Community-Minded Systemic Function
This is unavoidable. By being kind, harboring no hostility for others, and receiving others who want a break from the cruelty of hostility,  we would make a like-minded community inevitable.  As we get rid of the hostility, we can replace it with appreciation for one another, and a deeper sense of community feeling of support.  To work right, we need to recognize that avoidable outcome from the start, and design the system according to the logical end of what effect it would have, and what role it would play in the larger social system.   This makes it something that can’t simply be Scientific Skepticism, because scientific skepticism has already become its own system, with its own norms, and this would be distinct enough from the predecessor to make it unique. Plus, community is needed to pull off the effort of rejecting hostility.  A major deterrent to pulling it off, is that not many will be doing it at first.  That support from those who also are ready to be free from the hostility, can help the outside pressure to be hostile be kept at bay.

Being Well Defined and Distinct Makes for Better Survivability
Also, a well defined name is better for reaching the project goal, due to it better establishing those factors as a key base norm, which is then protected by negative feedback loops.  By designing a name that encapsulates the core of the methodology so well into itself, it better ensures this skepticism will make receptivity and skepticism into solidified core components.  Then it better stays going in the right direction.  

Better Chances, and Better Relationships with Skeptics and Others
On the inside, trying to change creates antagonism.  There will be times when we will have to try to accomplish our goals, while Scientific Skeptics, and other science advocates with similar goals are using ridicule or aggression like the norm everywhere in society.  The approaches will conflict with each other.  If we are a third party, then we can share that being different, to be heard differently, and to also not be seen as trying to push the Scientific Skeptics or other science advocates into acting differently.  Within the same system, it would cause feedback loop conflicts, like described in the link below.