Thanks, yes that's correct. The key detail from the quote pull was "suggest", I didn't intend to indicate that this general method is detection is invalid.
The details in the article came down to they were pulling signal out from deep within noise in a way that other planet finders were skeptical of: "They're really digging deep into the noise here. The community is going to find it hard to accept planet discoveries from signals so deeply embedded in noise."
Even the researchers themselves are quoted as saying they don't consider anything here proven, they are just seeing if anyone else wants to have a go at finding further confirmation or disproof: "We felt that the best thing to do was to put the result out there and see if somebody can either independently confirm it or shoot it down."
The researchers themselves have not made the claim of finding an earth like planet around Tau Ceti at all. It's not been established or accepted by experts in the field that there are planets around this sun, what their orbits are, their composition, or that they are "earth-like" in a way that any non-specialist reader would interpret "earth-like". Even the authors don't make those claims. Maybe someday those things will be confirmed or disproved. Today is not that day.
The journalist is aware of this too. At the end of the article he says "If the planets exist...", acknowledging it is not established at all, before then engaging in fanciful speculation that is unlikely to appear in a reputable science news source with a competent editor: "That may just explain why no one from Tau Ceti has ever contacted beings as primitive as us."