I think it's fair criticism. The paper explores effects of known models (convolution functions that exist even outside the NN field) without explaining them an

I think it's fair criticism. The paper explores effects of known models (convolution functions that exist even outside the NN field) without explaining them and doing the math to understand where the error comes from. You could have taken for example the CNN layer and see exactly what it does. Instead they prefer to pass through the network the full signal they expect to recover at the end and the find it works. Finding sanctuary inside computation and random experimentation against known datasets, without fully explaining what is actually happening on the modelling side should't be acceptable. The OP is flagging in his post the mental model and attitude towards research. The paper being discussed is just an example that confirms that proper rigour is being replaced by the convenience of either computation or parameter fiddling (human or experimental). None of these are going to take the field too far. The OP suggests the scientific field should focus on things that matter and change the world in an irreversible way. Provide a theorem or something that can be proved.