There is, in my mind, a big difference between a scientist publishing a paper in which they investigate some outlandish science-fiction-like concept (such as ti

There is, in my mind, a big difference between a scientist publishing a paper in which they investigate some outlandish science-fiction-like concept (such as time travel or anti-gravity) and find evidence AGAINST it, and one where they find evidence FOR it. The former is a reasonable result, and although expected the research provides evidence to support the hypothesis. The latter is an extraordinary result and wise scientific practice would require extraordinary evidence. (It also helps if you don't get disavowed by your own co-author and by other labs you say confirmed your results.)