This reads like a gross misrepresentation of the previous literature from Libet et al. and others. For the record, the linked paper is behind a paywall for me, but I read the press release and the paper abstract.
But this line, "researchers have argued that neuroscience studies prove human actions are driven by external stimuli – that the *brain is reactive* and free will is an illusion," [emph added] is **just wrong**. Maybe *some* researchers argue this, but Libet's study (given prominence in the "new analysis") was not driven by external stimuli at all. Subjects were asked only to note the location of a dot at the time *they spontaneously felt like performing an action*. Libet was trying to connect the urge to act with a neurophysiological correlate (an EEG signal), and he found one. The perhaps surprising and newsworthy thing about that research is that the EEG signal proceeded the subjective urge to act by hundreds of milliseconds. That is, researchers could tell from the EEG that a person was going to act about a third of a second before the person did.
That has nothing to do with being "reactive" (are we Scientologists?), and even the people doing these studies had a more nuanced concept of what free will might mean. The punchline of the work isn't whether free will exists or not, but rather that whatever free will might be, it must have a physical implication that is almost certainly mediated through the brain, and, further, this mediation is not (entirely) accessible to introspection. Another way of saying there are things in our brains that aren't in our minds.
The [Wikipedia Libet page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
) isn't a terrible place to find context for the classic experiments.
The authors of the OP paper are philosophers, not neuroscientists, and the language in the press release makes it sound like they have an ax to grind with empiricists invading their turf.
Neuroscientists barely ever sit around debating what counts or doesn't count as free will for the same reason molecular biologists don't sit around debating whether or not viruses are alive. It's always either a pointless debate about the definitions of words *or* it ends up being some science vs religion debate. If you think that god/the human spirit/whatever is in there moving molecules around against the laws of physics, that's fine, but it's pointless to debate you on it because there's no evidence that any molecules in the brain aren't following regular laws of physics and doing regular boring chemistry etc.