Just re-using the 'data' from the question is itself and merely stating, "yep, seems legit" is quite unsatisfactory.
"Skeptcisim is unwarranted" is a statement I consider always 'false' – especially for the purposes of this site.
Now, questioning Einstein on photo-electric effects might seem a bit pretentious, but 'scientific skepticism' means that questioning the science, the methodology, the data, the interpretations and conclusions or how they are presented and reported are all on the menu. Always.
Oddthinking commented below an answer that we look for equally good or stronger evidence, and we might compare these results and findings with previous results, reactions to the current study … and the list goes on.
Specifically, this study — Frank Edwards & Hedwig Leeb & Michael Esposito was mentioned in: "Risk of being killed by police use of force in the United States by age, race–ethnicity, and sex" has an ideal jumpboard as being mentioned in a Nature article:
A pair of high-profile papers published in the past few weeks (1,2) come to seemingly opposite conclusions about the role of racial biases.
— Lynne Peeples: "What the data say about police shootings. How do racial biases play into deadly encounters with the police? Researchers wrestle with incomplete data to reach answers."
And only 1 being our source here and 2 the 'seemingly opposite one'.
To me, that means the hunt is on… 1
If we look further we find a string of articles handling the issue. Or trying to. Within seconds I had a long list of studies, all highlighting different methods, data points, statistics – and conclusions. Some bad, some better, not all the same.
No single one study is perfect, nor can it be. Absolutely no matter in what kind of prestige journal anything is published. The present study is not hammered into a philosopher's stone, nor is it the pinnacle of current scientific consensus.
And here, the study in question may be good, but I would expect at least a detailed explanation:
- why is it considered to be a good source
- why is *this particular paper a good one'
- of the limitations and contradictions from with the study itself or
- in comparison to other studies, whether earlier or later.
- Then a general weighing against the other studies out there, and
- how an answerer would criticise (or 'review as a peer') the current paper, and
- how other authorities have handled this specific issue.
- Did it receive lots of comments,
- was it cited approvingly or in a shady light?
A hint I'd like to share: in social sciences like that one needs to take a thorough look at the foundations of that study, before swallowing a concluding soundbyte about a 'what' without ever getting to know the 'how' of definitions, limitations etc. I want to get to the 'why'. That a source is otherwise 'reliable' is 'nice', but since even the dumbest crackpot may utter a statement that is 'true', but nice sources fail us from time to time, 'nice' is not enough.
Regarding the indeed in general 'good' reliability of this source, we mustn't just swallow everything 'as is' just because it is published there in PNAS. Consider this very recent example:
Dear Editorial Board of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
We are writing with deep concerns about a paper recently published in your journal, entitled “Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19.”1 The paper made extraordinary claims about routes of transmission, the effectiveness of mask-wearing, and by implication, the ineffectiveness of other non-pharmaceutical interventions. While we agree that mask-wearing plays an important role in slowing the spread of COVID-19, the claims in this study were based on easily falsifiable claims and methodological design flaws. We present only a small selection of the most egregious errors here.[…]
— Meta-Research Innovation Center At Stanford: "Formal Request For The Retraction Of Zhang Et Al., 2020", June 18, 2020. (Signed by a long list of scientists from a wide range of medical fields.)
This is not an isolated 'first' incidence at that paper, but rather a by now common theme with its own Wikipedia page: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, quoting the title of a most important Ioannidis paper.
To be clear, answering this meta-question sticklishly: I agree that we should "allow the article to be used in the answer?" — but as part of an answer, as that 'the publishing venue is known as being a quite good source' is a valuable 'hint'. Source monitoring is important. And if the paper itself is good, then we cannot be prohibited from using it as well.
In that case now, it looks more like "I am not dignifying this 'skepticism' with a proper answer but remind you to never question authority again. Trust your masters and obey." To be clear: "Yes, that's world class" and 'that's it' is an amplified pure fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". While we do that here on SkepticsSE indeed – and too much for my tastes actually – an answer that simply stops there is not an answer (that is 'of high quality', that is: also not inherently flaggable as 'low quality' or 'not answer') but reads like either lower quality, that while written as an answer, is more like comment, an introduction to an answer, etc.
A single appeal to authority is unwarranted. And if it is the same authority that should be questioned and scrutinised here, we achieved a lot of clicks, perhaps, but failed to promote our cause, surely.
Thus I definitely said that to accept anything on trust, to preclude critical application and development, is a grievous sin; and in order to apply and develop, “simple interpretation” is obviously not enough.
1Curiously, the source2 for that nature article was also in PNAS, has had massive feedback, corrections, letters, and now has been retracted.