No, but it's not far off that: it feels like self-promotion by fabricating criticisms of an immensely popular project. IMO the core suggestion of the paper--th

No, but it's not far off that: it feels like self-promotion by fabricating criticisms of an immensely popular project. IMO the core suggestion of the paper--that noise is somehow correlated across different sensors separated by thousands of miles--is substantially more extraordinary than the LIGO experiments themselves (whose findings are well supported by decades of theory), so the possibility that this paper's results stem from anything other than flawed methodology seems vanishingly small.