One relevant reaction to this paper (especially because there was no direct agreement with the article by any scientist) is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07

One relevant reaction to this paper (especially because there was no direct agreement with the article by any scientist) is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07136 https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.07136 "Every now and then some confused authors use wrong, non-covariant, definitions of velocity, acceleration and gravity, based on their vague Newtonian intuitions and hidden in a superficial, often purely semantic, relativistic disguise. A recent example of such a confusion (Gorkavyi & Vasilkov, 2016) is discussed at the end of this Note." It concludes: "The paper by Gorkavyi & Vasilkov (2016) is not even wrong, it is simply a nonsense. The only question that may be of interest here is — how such a paper could possibly slip into the Monthly Notices of the Royal astronomical Society? I may offer just one explanation. I was told a story, perhaps apocryphal, about a famous referee report (many years ago) by Jim Pringle: “The paper is so obviously wrong that it should be published as it stands”." Regarding Gorkavyi's linking of EM drive and his hypotheses, he tried the same with the Pioneer anomaly, but the anomaly was eventually explained completely without that, so it really seems that he looks for anything "unexplained" at the moment to popularize himself, knowing enough formulas to casually appear as he knows what he talks about, but inventing his new semantic out of thin air.