I unfortunately have no time to read a 35 pages article at the present time (end of the year, university business, etc.).
From my diagonal reading of the article (I won't pretend having done more), they propose to explain the rotation curves by two models. However, I have the impression that those models are only fits. In other words, they are cooked to reproduce data and do not predict anything to be further tested. As a physicist, my interest is therefore quite limited and I find the comparison with particle physics models a bit misleading (this compares apples with pears). Dark matter or MOND models predict many other stuff that can be tested outside the scope of the rotation curves.
Their last paragraph in the conclusion is also quite weird: this is not a matter of two camps (MOND vs dark matter). In addition, they say we should explore new avenues (which I agree with), but what they propose is not such an avenue (it is just the fit of a function).
But maybe I am incorrect (I repeat, I haven't read the paper deeply).