Given that referees for most academic journals are not paid, this seems a bit outrageous.  But then we already knew that, didn’t we?  I got the graph below from this article in Scientific American which in turn got it from somewhere else.

$|\Psi\rangle = c_{1}|\psi_{1}\rangle + c_{2}|\psi_{2}\rangle$.
Different interpretations of quantum mechanics interpret this state in different ways.  A statistical or stochastic interpretation would assume that the values $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ represented the results of repeated measurements.  An ontic interpretation (or something similar) would interpret these values as literal, i.e. the system that is in the given state really is in a superposition of the two sub-states simultaneously.  An epistemic or Bayesian view would see these values as representing a state of our knowledge that will be updated with a subsequent measurement, i.e. they are related to probabilities (the Born rule, though there is a very big difference between the Bayesian approach and one that takes the Born rule at face value).  Notice that these three interpretations of the state roughly correspond to the three functions I assigned to science: measurement, description, and predictive explanation.  As I casually remarked in my essay, perhaps, instead of needing no interpretation, as Brukner has suggested, we really need multiple interpretations.  Hmmm…