Final answer:
Other scientists would likely approach the claim of developing a new theory with skepticism and scrutiny, requiring multiple replicated studies and evidence before accepting it as a new theory.
Step-by-step explanation:
When a researcher claims to have developed a new theory, other scientists would approach the claim with caution and critical analysis. The validation of a theory requires much more than just one set of data supporting a single hypothesis. The scientific community would expect the hypothesis to be rigorously tested through multiple studies and experiments.
Additionally, a theory is generally accepted when it is supported by a wealth of data and has withstood extensive testing and peer review. In fact, other scientists would likely attempt to replicate the study or gather additional evidence before fully accepting the new theory. If the study's results are replicated consistently by other researchers, the hypothesis could then begin to be considered as a new theory.
Skeptical scrutiny is fundamental to the scientific process, so the initial reaction to a claim of a new theory would be to examine the methodology, analyze the data, and determine if the hypothesis can be independently verified and whether it stands up against existing theories and data. In conclusion, scientists would be cautious in their reception of the new theory and would need further evidence before reaching a consensus.