Compared to recent controversial results claiming the exact same thing (actually, more restrictive than this claim), it's not insulting it is what you should expect. The recent situation with Dias this year[1] is now under investigation as a case of data fabrication and he didn't even claim to have ambient pressure.
Frankly there are too many details missing to trust them. They've fabricated a thin film but not characterized it. It is well known that the properties of a material change when you go from bulk to thin film with a big dependence on the thickness. They don't mention how the resistance of this thin film is measured - that's important for what artifacts you might expect to see in your measurements (van der Pauw vs Hall bar measurements are the standard but they don't mention using either). Without characterizing the thin film it's also difficult to know, chemically and structurally, what you are measuring. I don't see any data confirming the quality of the thin film. The way the data is presented is such that it can be misleading, showing I-V curves instead of resistance when you are really trying to say the resistance is what is changing. The first paper doesn't even mention the insulator-metal transition that is present in the second paper which is bizarre - this is important if you are also claiming a superconductor transition close by and you would expect some discussion of this behaviour.
All of these are things that, one would hope, will be picked up by the reviewers as low hanging fruit before even really delving into the detail of the theory they present.
Decades of experience alone should not be trusted. Anyone can make a mistake, and not all the authors can be present for every experiment.
[1] - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02401-2