Is this article not a peer review? Written by Sabine Hossenfelder. German theoretical physicist.
"An exciting new theory reconciles gravity and quantum physics. I think it’s wrong. But I may be too."
I suppose the theory needs to be tested.
"An exciting new theory reconciles gravity and quantum physics. I think it’s wrong. But I may be too."
I suppose the theory needs to be tested.
It is also not the point of peer review to judge the correctness of the theory. Reviewers check relevance, novelty, plausibility, consistency, overall correctness of methodology. "I think this is wrong" is not something an editor would accept as an argument not to publish. That's something you can write in a new paper. And I don't think Hossenfelder would like to see it not published just because she thinks it's wrong.
But it's super cool that they show that a bit of randomness could explain dark matter and energy.
Personally I believe that the randomness might come from chaotic "background" gravitational waves from sources outside of universe and from times before Big Bang.