Relativity is not an easy concept. Special relativity is hard enough, and General relativity really ups the ante; I am not well-versed in anything beyond the basics of the latter, but one of the notions of GR is that freefall in a uniform gravitational field is actually an inertial frame, i.e. non-accelerating, which is not a concept present in Special Relativity.

Which appears to be the linchpin behind the argument presented here: In Twin Paradox Twist, the Accelerated Twin is Older

In 1905, Einstein described the ideas behind the twin paradox to demonstrate the effects of time dilation according to special relativity. In 1911, physicist Paul Langevin turned the concept into a concrete story involving two hypothetical twins. Ever since then, scientists have offered various explanations for exactly why this aging paradox occurs, and whether it is even a true paradox at all.
As Abramowicz and Bajtlik note in their study, it is often claimed that the twin paradox can be explained by the acceleration of the traveling twin that occurs when he turns around to go back to Earth. Abramowicz and Bajtlik show, however, that it is not the acceleration that causes the age difference in most cases. By presenting a scenario in which the accelerated twin is older at the reunion, the scientists show that the final time difference between the twins often depends only on their velocities as measured with respect to an absolute standard of rest, and not on acceleration.

First of all, a note that “absolute standard of rest” is not something that is part of the original twins paradox. Which is because in 1905, there was only Special Relativity. The scenario presented is of the twins near a large mass, and one of them in a Keplerian obit, and thus not accelerating according to General Relativity. The notion of absolute rest is in contrast to accelerations and rotations, which can be distinguished, while motion in special relativity cannot. The mixing of the two frameworks isn’t even an instance of the reporter mucking things up — it’s presented in the ArXiv paper that way.

It is often claim that the resolution of the classical
twin paradox should be the acceleration of the “travel-
ing” twin: he must accelerate in order to turn around and
meet his never accelerating brother. The twin who accel-
erates is younger at the reunion. Here we challenge this
notion. We start with describing a situation in which,
like in the classical version of the paradox, one of the
twins accelerates, and the other one does not accelerate.
Quite contrary to what happens in the classical version,
the accelerated twin is older at the reunion.

That’s because you have changed the parameters, and are no longer describing the classical twin paradox.

I have no complaint about the physics. I just don’t think the authors should feign surprise at the result, as if it were somehow unforeseen that changing conditions could yield a different answer. The answer should not be surprising at all, because what they describe is one twin being at rest, and the other in an orbit. Which is exactly what would be described by an observer on a non-rotating planet, and another on a satellite. Maybe a satellite which is part of a navigation platform, able to communicate with a receiver and quadrangulate position and local time, with the modification that the satellite isn’t orbiting at a different distance from the planet.

All of this is pointed out in “Relativity in the Global Positioning System” by Neil Ashby. In section 5 there’s a graph of the results of differing orbital distances, and below some threshold we see that the satellite will age more slowly than someone on the planet surface. I’m not sure how old it is, but the update posted in June 2007 says

I have updated the text in quite a few places, such as eliminating the word “recently” which is no longer really recently.

So the notion is definitely not new, nor should have been surprising.