To play devil's advocate for a moment, I'm not sure that the paper is complete as it's described. The authors do a fairly straightforward statistical analysis o

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I'm not sure that the paper is complete as it's described. The authors do a fairly straightforward statistical analysis on an openly-available dataset, and that's that. I see many reviewers asking the question, "yes, so what?" which is exactly the question that we should be asking as scientists. To go back to basics: start with a theory or model, make a prediction based on that model, then test to see if that prediction is correct. In this work, the authors explicitly stay away from anything other than a hand-waving explanation of their results, and seem surprised that the reviewers keep asking them to "frame" their results in a broader context. It would be as if Newton published an observation of fruit falling off a tree, and failed to mention gravity. An interesting observation, perhaps, but not an advancement of science.