J. Scott Miller do planetário Rauch da Universidade de Louisville é muito céptico em relação à teoria de Boss. Senão vejamos:

"When reading science from popular press sources, it is always wise to a) read with scepticism, perhaps more so than other sources of science information,
and b) read/understand what the article is actually saying. This particular
article and the standing on this particular topic, is summarized by the
following paragraphs at the bottom of the article:

"Core accretion is still the popular theory for explaining the formation of
Jupiter and other planets in our solar system," he said.

"People have been thinking in terms of core accretion for the last two
decades, and it takes a while for people to get used to any new idea,
including scientists. But I think that with time, and with continued work on
both core-accretion and disk-instability mechanisms, most scientists will be
able to agree about the likely means for making gas-giant planets."

In science, to change the "current thinking" or "popular theory", it is not
just enough to show a new idea works, but that it provides a more correct
interpretation of the data than the current theory does. More importantly, it
must make predictions that the other cannot make that can then be used for
testing the theories against each other to see which survives the testing.

In this article, an idea has been proposed. It is different, so the media,
always hoping to be cutting edge in order to sell advertisement to potential
clients at exhorbitant prices, run stories on these ideas. If they pan out,
then they can point to them when charging their clients, justifying the high
fees by implying that that particular media has its fingers on the pulse of
new science (or new whatever, depending on the interest of the client they are pursuing/wanting to keep). If the idea does not pan, no big deal. The
process of verification can take years and over that time, memories are short
as other new things appear over the horizon. In the meantime, the media have
gotten their advertising fees and are laughing all the way to the bank.

So, for the moment, I wouldn't worry too much about the core status of
Jupiter. Maybe it does, maybe it does not. The data can be interpreted
either way. And the testing phase is only at its beginnings.

Ainda sobre a teoria de Boss diz o seguinte:

"As indicated in the article, it is a new idea. I have not seen indications of
it even being published in a peer-reviewed journal, though I do not get to
read those with a frequency to say if that is even true. But, for now, it is
an idea that has been put on the table. If it has validity, that will be
discovered. But, it will not happen over night, nor, as the article
indicated, will be selling in to those who have been working in that
particular field."