I realize well how pedantic I am being, but let's say there are two ways to interpret the term "pulp fiction." (1) As a reference to the pulp stories on newsstand racks in the early-mid 20th century; (2) as you note, as a stand-in for low-quality mass-produced fiction.

As such there should be absolutely no issue with somebody saying "modern equivalent of pulp fiction" -- because they're using the first definition. And it so happens that there is a perfect modern equivalent, which is essentially the author in OP's publishing style.