False positives are acceptable if the goal is to generate leads to follow up on. If the detection was due to chance then it won't hold up to further measurement. There's few enough hits that we don't need to worry about being more rigorous (and potentially introducing false negatives) at an earlier stage.

Given the context, a publication seems appropriate. A high profile similar example is when neutrinos supposedly broke the light speed barrier. If the mass media misrepresents things that's hardly the fault of the scientists.