A peer-reviewed letter/editorial will criticize the subcutaneous esketamine KAP pilot's non-randomized design and confounding of psychotherapy vs drug effect.

Researchers ran a small pilot study combining esketamine (a nasal spray version of ketamine, given under the skin in this case) with talk therapy, and they didn't randomly assign patients to groups — a key standard in medical research. Within a few months of publication, other scientists are likely to write formal criticism pointing out that you can't tell whether any improvement came from the drug, the therapy, or both together. This matters because it affects how seriously regulators and doctors will take the results.

Non-randomized adjunctive designs invite exactly the attribution critique methodologists raise; the field will echo it publicly within weeks of publication. Specific target (the SC esketamine KAP pilot) makes this falsifiable.