Yes.
NASA has never submitted a report for peer review. Therefore, until one appears it's grandstanding at best, shameless fundraising at worst.
The experimental results are not sufficiently distinct from noise to establish that the result is real, and the experimentalists claiming this result have latched onto one phoney-baloney theory after another in an attempt to make their claims plausible. Last year, it was a relativistic effect produced by unbalanced Lorentz force at the different width ends of the resonant cavity. That claim got pretty well blown-up and now they're raving about virtual particles.
The reality is that if the experimental effect was large enough for them to get a peer-reviewed result into publication, theorists all over the world would be shoving each other out of the way to explain the effect, rather than the other way around: a handful of dubious "theories" without any serious experimental evidence for them to explain.
I have a solution, but it only works on spherical chickens in a vacuum.
And: "White and Tajmar have impeccable credentials that put them beyond cheap dismissal and scorn. Physics is an experimental science, and the fact that the EM Drive works is confirmed in the lab. "This is the first time that someone with a well-equipped lab and a strong background in tracking experimental error has been involved, rather than engineers who may be unconsciously influenced by a desire to see it work," notes Wired referring to Tajmar's work."
Also: "The NASASpaceFlight website and forums have emerged as unofficial news source and discussion space for all things related to the EM Drive and related breakthrough space propulsion proposals such as the Cannae Drive." Which would be a response for your argument that "The reality is that if the experimental effect was large enough for them to get a peer-reviewed result into publication, theorists all over the world would be shoving each other out of the way to explain the effect, rather than the other way around: a handful of dubious "theories" without any serious experimental evidence for them to explain."
For it's my understanding that the "reality" is that the ONLY thing scientists "shove each other out of the way for" is GRANTS. In this day and age it is beyond naive to believe that researchers pursue the dreams of pure science. Rather to exist at all they have to be extremely hard-nosed about what the "popular subjects" are for peer-reviewed publications, because those are the subjects for which they can get grants.
That's WHY ""The NASASpaceFlight website and forums have emerged as unofficial news source and discussion space for all things related to the EM Drive and related breakthrough space propulsion proposals ." And in the alternative, your speculation - and that's all it is - that "the experimental results are not sufficiently distinct from noise," is countered by the very subject of this article - the "new experimental results on the controversial, "impossible" EM Drive, at the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics' Propulsion and Energy Forum in Orlando... titled "Direct Thrust Measurements of an EmDrive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects." And as presenter Martin Tajmar is a professor and chair for Space Systems at the Dresden University of Technology, interested in space propulsion systems and breakthrough propulsion physics," I think he probably wouldn't want to present a paper demonstrating his inability to parse background noise from experimental date - quite the opposite, in fact.
So given all of that, if his "peers" don't want to address his findings, it's not his fault - nor is belligerence by the supporters of the entrenched paradigm a new attitude to deal with in science.