Every so often a journal I edit receives papers with some kind of claim that, if true, would break mainstream physics. For example:

>The results of this paper suggest that the velocities of dark matter waves may reach v ~ 3x10^14 m/s

Because Relativity has met every experimental test we've thrown at it, and because Relativity has a hard limit on velocities at the speed of light (3x10^8 m/s), any paper making this kind of claim is immediately suspect. One doesn't need to know what else is in the paper to be pretty confident it is wrong.

However, it is also known that Relativity is an incomplete theory because it is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics. It's conceivable that whatever theory eventually supplants these two theories could allow velocities greater than the speed of light. 

Question: Is it fair to desk reject the above paper based solely on this one sentence? Like, there's a 99.99% chance (maybe even higher) that the paper is wrong, but there's still a nonzero chance it could be correct. If it is unfair, what else do I need before it becomes fair to desk reject?