This paper only has 2 authors. The other solvers are probably applying technique specific tricks and speedups, and you're working with approximate optimization, it's not that easy to move everything over.
So? I don't get the relevance of the author count.
These researchers are in the business of improving algorithms. Implementing them in large industrial (or open source) code bases in a maintainable way -- and then actually maintaining that code -- is a different skillset, a different set of interestes, and as was pointed out, besides the point.
Either you believe their results, then be grateful. Someone (yoU!) can implement this. Or you don't. In which case, feel free to move on.
Your tone comes off as entitled.
You're making a very general point on how algorithm research and software development are two different things, which is of course true. However OP's question is genuine: a lot of research in OR is very practical, and researchers often hack solvers to demonstrate that whatever idea offers a benefit over existing solving techniques. There are no reason to believe that a good new idea like this one couldn't be demonstrated and incorporated into new solvers quickly (especially given the competition).
So the quoted sentence is indeed a bit mysterious. I think it just meant to avoid comment such as "if it's so good why isn't it used in cplex?".
You do realize that the solver companies are in exactly the same boat, right?
> https://www.scipopt.org/index.php#news
So the new player to show up is here. :-)