I think that the presentation and the paper look good enough to listen to the claims of experimental results in good faith. While I also remain fairly skeptical

I think that the presentation and the paper look good enough to listen to the claims of experimental results in good faith. While I also remain fairly skeptical, in my opinion it's worth to reproduce those results. Even if it's not the free source of energy as authors claim (it's probably not), nevertheless it may be an interesting effect worth exploring and explaining. Regarding the attack on scientific journals which tend to ignore anomalous results, I agree that it's a deeply flawed system (even if we are to forget about parasites like Elsevier & co), but there is no simple solution to that. Journals are incentivized to cultivate their reputation by producing a constant stream of good enough papers. Accepting papers with extraordinary claims is a bad strategy from risk-benefit point of view. On every paper which indeed correctly points at a future breakthrough you get many-many thousands of "duds". With the advent of preprint sites at least you can freely share your results. Hopefully, eventually we will build an open reputation system on top of them, which will replace the existing system of journals and conferences.