As a former chemist in another but related field, this phrase is telling and part of why it is not in a higher impact journal: "We find that this catalyst, which may be associated with the in situ generated nickel–iron oxide/hydroxide and iron oxyhydroxide catalysts at the surface". This is generally code for "we're getting some sort of nano surface effect we're not 100% sure we understand or can replicate." I can't access the full paper, but the downfall of catalysts are usually: cost, durability, or unreproduciblity\creation cost. Getting nano surfaces to grow properly at industrial (10s of grams scale as one researcher said to me) is still more of an art than a science, with maybe one guy in a 10 person group able to get the substrate to perform.
Not super aimed at this particular paper, but those are probably the reasons you don't see fireworks going off over inorganic labs around the country about this paper.