Its doubly bad in that its a historical survey containing no new results. I assumed based on the headline it was an editor trying to be "hilarious" when report

Its doubly bad in that its a historical survey containing no new results. I assumed based on the headline it was an editor trying to be "hilarious" when reporting a new paper claiming internal inconsistencies destroying the theory. The obvious analogy of fabric unraveling when strings break loose and all that. If, someday, string theory does "unravel" due to internal inconsistencies (IF!) then this would be a legendary headline for the paper, or for journalistic coverage of the paper.