The abstract scores 0 on the standard scale:
Here, we compare Earth to the most common type of exoplanet, the super-Earth, …
It’s easy to check that the exoplanets found so far include more hot Jupiters than super-Earths
The main body scores just 1:
The discovery of over 4,000 exoplanets has changed the direction of scientific research and motivated scientific questions previously entertained only in science fiction. For instance, there is now serious consideration of sending an interstellar probe to the closest star, Proxima Centauri, in order to study its planet .
No, there isn’t serious consideration of sending such a probe. The cited article concludes that it isn’t currently possible:
The mission is based on technologies that are currently available or under development, but would need extensive improvements to actually build the required space infrastructure. In-orbit fabrication and assembly are crucial to build the required structures. Materials for the light sail and the magnetic sail need to reach the required characteristics and technical readiness level.
The rest of the article is no better. It spends far too long explaining that Earth-sized planets have lower escape velocity and atmospheric pressure than exoplanet super-earths, forgetting that larger exoplanets are easier to find so the mass distribution of ones we’ve found won’t match the mass distribution of ones that exist (rather like saying that there are more elephants that mice in Africa because only elephants show up on current satellite images), and forgetting that Mars-sized planets have even lower escape velocity.
It supports its clam that the Solar System is good for space travel with a graph showing that space travel would be easier if the Sun were more massive.
It even undermines its own title by admitting that the Solar System is not optimal for space travel: “However, it seems odd that the Earth is near the upper limit in mass for manned space travel.”