I wouldn't say it's pseudoscience, no. I have great confidence that it's wrong, but wrong science is still science.
The Indo-Austronesian Hypothesis is exactly what it says on the tin: a hypothesis. The author has proposed the idea that the Indo-European and Austronesian languages are related, which isn't inherently absurd: weirder connections have happened before.
Then, the author's gone through and compiled a parallel word list of maybe-cognates, and come up with a set of regular sound changes that would connect them. This is definitely the right next step for someone who wants to show that language families are related: it's the basis of the Comparative Method, basically the gold standard in linguistic reconstruction.
And then…that's where the author leaves off. They do some sketchy probability calculations but don't claim those calculations are undeniable proof or anything. And math mistakes don't inherently make something pseudoscience.
So I'd say that it's perfectly valid science—it's just not finished (and has some math mistakes). It's a hypothesis without enough evidence behind it to make it a theory. To become an actual theory, it would have to be developed further, with more cognates found, grammatical comparisons, and so on. And the author admits that on the first page: "Maybe some expert will read this and pursue my ideas." So far, as far as I know, no expert has.
TL;DR: It's a perfectly valid (scientific, falsifiable) hypothesis, with a small amount of evidence behind it. It's just not complete. I also believe that it's downright wrong, given my own experience with Indo-European and Austronesian languages, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong on that if the author comes up with a stronger argument.