A 'simple refutation' would be on par with: "Since you can't derive logical content from tautologies and constructed a priori rules don't obviously translate to a posteriori facts, 'A=A' doesn't say what Rand thinks it says as a foundation for her metaphysics" or "performative contradictions say nothing about the content of the theories under discussion, so Rand's attempt to ground her epistemology fails from the start" but unpacking their ideas would take a long, long time.

A longer 'refutation' would be to explain what the current problems in metaphysics and epistemology are, how the problem-situation has developed, and the level of expected rigor, then explain how Rand's work often either conflicts with, is ignorant of, and/or derivative of the current problems, history of the development of the problems, and level of rigor. Does that help?