A couple of comments here.
Firstly, there is a common misconception that dark matter is a pure kludge, introduced to explain the apparently discrepancy between the observed stellar content of galaxies and their rotation curves. However, at this point there are several independent lines of evidence for dark matter.
-- Weak and strong lensing by galaxy clusters, which distorts the images of "background" galaxies, and is a function of the total mass of the lensing object.
-- The pattern of hot and cold spots in the microwave background (CMB) whose physics is dominated by the gravitational potential of the dark matter, some 380,000 years after the big bang, long before the first galaxies formed.
-- The velocities of galaxies in clusters, which would not be gravitationally bound in the absence of dark matter.
Any of these observations can be explained by "modifying' gravity. However, each of these observations apparently requires a different modification to standard gravity from the others (not that the article being discussed here only talks about galactic rotation curves), whereas all these observations are consistently explained by dark matter. Consequently, Occam's razor alone gives you a strong preference for dark matter over modified gravity. Moreover, the properties of the CMB in the presence of dark matter were computed before they were actually observed (look up "acoustic peaks" or "Doppler peaks"), so dark matter is indeed a theory that has made successful and non-trivial predictions.
My personal sniff test for any modified gravity theory for dark matter is whether it least acknowledges the above issues -- if it doesn't, it is not worth reading. And this one fails it, as do most others.
Also, this theory apparently "explains" the Pioneer anomaly -- but that "anomaly" now seems to be explained by not properly accounting for the anisotropic emission of heat from the spacecraft, which means that this theory actually makes predictions that are at odds with observations.
Finally, so far as I can see the author of this paper is only tenuously affiliated with CERN (likely as a visitor, rather than a staff member there) -- this doesn't alter the value of the content, but the original posting using this affiliation to establish the author's bona fides, so it is relevant to that extent.