Tuesday, May 31, 2022

IN CANADA'S TAR SAND PATCH, CLIMATE GRIFT BEGAN
           WITH A SINGLE BOGUS POLAR BEAR JOURNAL

                                UNLIKE THIS OFFERING:
BOREAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH  IS NOT A JOKE
HERE WE GO AGAIN 

NATURE  May 31 2022

Want to know whether that journal is scamming you? 

Introducing the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker 

Hijacked journals mimic legitimate journals by adopting their titles, ISSNs, and other metadata. Usually, hijacked journals mirror legitimate journals without permission from the original journal. 

In rare instances, publishers will buy rights to a legitimate journal but continue the publication under considerably less stringent publishing protocols and without clearly noting to the reader the change in ownership or publication standards (sometimes known as “cloned” journals). 


Scholars can be duped into publishing in hijacked journals – many of which require fees – by offers of fast publication and indexing in databases such as Scopus; being indexed in such databases is viewed by many universities and governments as a mark of legitimacy. 

Even the WHO’s COVID literature database has been fooled. We’re hoping to put an end to that sort of thing: Introducing the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker. 

Tracking these journals is no mean feat, but knowing which journals may have been hijacked is vital to the world of publishing integrity. Anna Abalkina became involved in the process when she and her colleagues, investigating allegations of plagiarism, came across several titles including the Journal of Talent Development and Excellence, which drastically increased its indexing of papers in Scopus in 2020, and Waffen-und Kostümkunde, a journal which cited a paper on psychology absolutely unrelated to the weapons and costume specialization of the journal. 

Abalkina then began analyzing these journal archives and found overlaps with other apparently hijacked journals, devoting huge swaths of time locating and cross-checking the validity of journals suspected of hijacking or of being hijacked. In partnership with Retraction Watch, Abalkina created the Retraction Watch Hijacked Journal Checker. 

This resource is dynamic; more journals will be added as their hijacked status are uncovered. 

Have a title for consideration? 

Elsewhere in the wizarding world of science  retreads,  in an editorial gambit worthy of Monty Python, Willie Soon and Sally Balunas have been invited back by Willie's Sinophone pals for another round of  regurgitative self-citation of work published in  resurrected D-list  pay-for play journals next to nobody reads in the pages of one such resurrected D-list  pay-for play journal that next to nobody reads:

Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 

Volume 21, Number 6

INVITED REVIEWS • THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS FREE ARTICLE

How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate

, , , , , , Valery M. Fedoro,

,

,  and 


© 2021 National Astronomical Observatories, CAS and IOP Publishing Ltd.
, , Citation Ronan Connolly et al 2021 Res. Astron. Astrophys. 21 131

JOURNAL INFORMATION

2009-present 

 Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics

  • 2009-present 
    doi: 10.1088/issn.1674-4527
    Online ISSN: 1674-4527
    Print ISSN: 1674-4527
 2020 Impact factor  1.469   Citescore                       2.5

JOURNAL HISTORY

2001-2008

Chinese Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Here's an edifying snippet of what they're about:

… there have also been many reviews and articles published over the same period that reached the opposite conclusion, i.e., that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability. 

For example: Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouël et al. (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouël et al. (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Lüning & Vahrenholt (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouël et al. (2019a, 2020a); Mörner et al. (2020); Lüdecke et al. (2020).

Meanwhile, other reviews and articles over this period have either been undecided, or else were these dissenting scientific opinions in the literature not reflected in the various IPCC statements quoted above? 



at