The reference to "profit" draws attention to the purchase price of the fossil: reputed to be "a stunning $750,000". The reviewer was one of the signatories to a letter in Nature that expressed "[o]utrage at [the] high price paid for a fossil". When palaeontologists join the ranks of fossil traders, their integrity is suspect. As an Editorial in Nature said: "such arrangements introduce conflicting incentives that can all too easily undermine the process of the assessment and communication of science." It's kind of ironic that creationists should be so maligned over their creation museums because of the money they make, with this sort of thing hanging over science's head, so to speak.
It happens all the time in science. Look at the financial incentives (and pressure) to tow the line on AIDS chemo drugs, climate change “solutions”, emergency flu vaccines, etc, etc.