[metalspoon]

The authors have published this theory in Science, and this one is in Nature Communications. Probably any criticism we can come up with was provided during the review process.

I'm also unconvinced, but it is very difficult to criticize this theory fairly and from the internet at the moment.

[naasking]

Peer review does not critique the plausibility of hypothesis, just the structure and quality of the paper's argument. At best, reviewers might say that the section on alternative explanations might be lacking.

[wrycoder]

That’s the theory, anyway. In practice, the acceptability of the hypothesis in the current paradigm is central.

[kelipso]

You can make any and all kinds of criticisms in peer review.

[naasking]

Sure, but gatekeeping ideas you disagree with is not the purpose of peer review, and distorts its true purpose of ensuring the research and it's presentation passes some minimal quality threshold such that the community can understand and debate it.