If I got this paper as a referee, I would reject it for lack of proof. arxiv.org/abs/2201.03453 (For anyone who is interested, I can be more technical in DM or email, details are not twitter-friendly…) Here are a few general thoughts:
First, there is the context - the subject is under scrutiny. E.g. one paper from the same group is under an Editorial Expression of Concern. science.org/doi/10.1126/sc… The concern is about non-representative data selection, but scientific root is - alternative explanation!
@spinespresso My postdoc advisor would quite often emphasize that science moves along not only with discoveries but also with criticisms. Thanks for your critical stance in this issue.
@spinespresso Fair if you disagree w/the interpr., or you feel they should compare to an alt model. That's peer review 🤷♂️ The language used is cautious - says data agreement w/ a model "supports" interpretation. Lets encourage publishing intermediate results so this discussion can proceed