Usually the "I found and translated this old work" gimmick is presented within the text, not outside it. That aside, digital humanities work can be interesting

Usually the "I found and translated this old work" gimmick is presented within the text, not outside it. That aside, digital humanities work can be interesting, but I found a preprint of the actual paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.00142.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.00142.pdf) and their conclusion seems to be "Ossian is closer to these Irish works than it is to Homer". I'm not going to bother digging into their methods to see if they're plausible, but it's not clear to me why you'd expect anything else, or be able to conclude much of anything from that. If Ossian were real, then you'd expect later sources like "Acallam na Senórach" to either have been inspired by it or similar sources; if Ossian were not real then you'd expect it to have been inspired by "Acallam na Senórach" or similar sources. That is, they've found correlation, but from all hitherto existing analyses we already know there's substantial correlation, and what we care about is causality.