The subcutaneous esketamine KAP paper draws methodological critique (confounding, no randomization) in the literature or commentary within 10 weeks.

When the under-skin esketamine study gets published, other researchers are likely to write critiques pointing out that it had no random assignment and no control group. Without those safeguards, you can't tell whether patients got better because of the drug or because they expected to feel better. These critiques typically appear as letters or commentary in the same journal within about ten weeks.

Non-randomized adjunctive-therapy designs conflate expectancy with drug effect. Reviewers will flag this. The clinical translation is being rushed ahead of mechanism.