> So their theory is incomplete as of yet. That's not good.

I hard disagree. Your comment to me reads as if a paper should either prove a new theory or disprove an existing theory.

However, publishing new results without a clear understanding of how it works is just as valid and this seems to be that. In Phsyics and Astronomy, new observations are often published without a theory of how it works. This is not a bad thing, that is part of the collaborative nature of science. The same holds true for papers suggesting a new theory, but lacking either observational or theoretical proof.