Yes, I have seen that. The author of the article has also posted a refutation of the counterpoints, with no substantive replies by Kinkajoe.

The overarching point that guzey makes is "the book is not scientifically sound, despite Matthew Walker plainly stating in the introduction that it would be". Arguing that Walker's claims are "hyperbolic, [but] within reason", that it's ok because "it is a book intended for the public" or that all this is "justified by the important message he is trying to convey" is completely besides the point! That may all be true and not change the needle one bit on "scientifically accurate".

Making up unsubstantiated claims to ""convey a message"" in a book and then later citing the book in your own scientific papers is the exact opposite of academic integrity. Hence my advice to take Walker's work with an appropriate grain of salt.

You literally linked to the same article as the parent comment.