The text is  it quite interesting, but probably not for the reasons to authors have in mind!

1. Their main submission is that for equilibrium the criterion of equal rates for the forward and reverse reactions is not necessary and sufficient. The counter example they propose in figure two is that for a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen at 100 C. (Although this needs to be made MUCH clearer). This is ONLY a counterexample because the rate or reaction in BOTH directions in effectively ZERO. (Yes they are the same, but NO chemical reactions are occurring.)

2. The diagrams are difficult to interpret.

3. The paper seems to be hiding this fairly obvious fact. Also the use of English is somewhat ambiguous in places - eg in the first sentence of the introduction it says that "the reversible reaction reaches equilibrium" - if the rates are the same (but not 0) then the reaction IS AT equilibrium.

4. I am not familiar with the suggestion that reactions with K > 10exp7 are irreversible and those with K less than this are reversible. I don't believe that there is any sharp distinction between the two - indeed all elementary reactions are reversible IN PRINCIPLE I believe.

5. The suggestion that reactions for which delta G never reaches 0 are, in principle, irreversible is an interesting one. The authors, however do not provide any examples of these (maybe they are also impossible! )

6. As it stands, I am not convinced the paper should be published. However, it raises some interesting points for discussion. The key suggestion that the idea that a reaction that is not taking place could be at chemical equilibrium seems absurd. (That is not to say that students and chemists do not fall into the trap of assuming that any system that has been around for a long time, and is not changing in composition, must be at equilibrium). I guess the suggestion is that we are dealing with alternative conceptions rather than finding an error in basic chemical theory?

I am not convinced that this text is yet suitable.