I can, yes. This is one of the top journals in Ecology & Evolution and has a stringent peer review process. Specifically from this article:

>Peer review information Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Peter Kennedy, Toby Kiers and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

It is. There is a very interesting discussion happening on the woo vs. research in this field.

Their Conclusions are especially compelling:

>We conclude that popular claims of singular positive effects of CMNs in forests are disconnected from evidence. We also show bias in citing positive effects within the research community. The functional role of CMNs in plant communities and ecosystems has been controversial for decades, and we are not the first to highlight unknowns, confounding effects and gaps in knowledge(21,22,26,27,82,106,107,108,109). What is new is the wave of popular science that has overlooked uncertainty about CMN structure and function to espouse a singular narrative—that trees benefit from being connected by CMNs. As mycorrhiza researchers who have investigated the function of CMNs, we are thrilled that the public has become as excited as we are about the many roles that fungi play in forests. Nonetheless, it is important for the public and scientific community to understand the nature and extent of the evidence for the roles played by CMNs in forests. The inaccurate framing of CMNs in forests in the popular media, and bias in citing original studies, necessitates improvements in communication and citation practices (Supplementary Note 4). In line with previous calls(110), we believe that the anthropomorphism currently present in some science communication on CMN function in forests(1,2) should be reconsidered. We also agree with previous statements(111) that more evidence is needed before forests are managed to protect CMNs per se.
>
>While many excellent studies, for their time, have been conducted on the role of CMNs in forests, we suggest that the most concerning issue is the rigour with which the results of these studies have been transmitted and interpreted. Moving forward, we offer some approaches to future CMN field studies that will address alternative explanations and ease interpretations of results (Box 3). We lack strong evidence that CMNs are widespread and persist long enough to be functional in forests; hence, more CMN maps that include fine-scale temporal and spatial surveys are needed from diverse forests worldwide. We can design experiments that rank CMN effects on interplant resource transfer and seedling performance against a range of ecological factors. For example, studies such as refs.( 65,75,81) went beyond testing for a CMN effect on seedling survival to ranking CMN effects among ecological factors such as seedling genetics, stand type and regional climates; this approach is crucial for understanding how ecological interactions function in forests. For experiments using natural or physical barriers, we need to carefully acknowledge, or better yet, eliminate confounding effects (Fig. 2 and Box 3). Finally, by incorporating the myco-perspective into field experiments, we can ask what role fungi play in forest CMNs. All of our suggested approaches involve existing methods; thus, we do not believe they are beyond reach.
>
>Let us devise new experiments, demand better evidence, think critically about alternative explanations for results and become more selective with the claims we disseminate. If not, we risk turning the wood-wide web into a fantasy beneath our feet.