I've only read the abstract, but it seems to directly say "this paper ignores any unflawed research that supports the idea that autistic people have no theory of mind."
(a) says it looks at empirical research that fails to support the theory, (b) is targeting examples that fail to replicate, (c) documents studies they believe made some inherent mistake, (c)2 (why are there two c?) looks at external research that does not support the theory, and (d) is the conclusion made ignoring any research supporting the theory.
Usually when I see these meta-studies, they say they look at all of the data and then will further say they excluded some for some kind of flaw. This one seems surprisingly open about choosing it's data.
(a) says it looks at empirical research that fails to support the theory, (b) is targeting examples that fail to replicate, (c) documents studies they believe made some inherent mistake, (c)2 (why are there two c?) looks at external research that does not support the theory, and (d) is the conclusion made ignoring any research supporting the theory.
Usually when I see these meta-studies, they say they look at all of the data and then will further say they excluded some for some kind of flaw. This one seems surprisingly open about choosing it's data.