Finnish Man Uses Easy Open-Access Journals to Publish Junk Climate Science

Antero Ollila

Antero Ollila: Too long in the sauna?

Predatory open-access journals stand ready to publish junk science that legitimate journals reject for publication. Anyone with a pseudo-scientific idea can write articles supporting or “proving” the idea and quickly and easily have them published in predatory journals.

The articles are then indexed in Google Scholar and other academic databases, such as ProQuest. Here’s the story of one man who’s been writing such articles, Finland’s Antero Ollila.

Antero Ollila is (or was)  an emeritus adjunct associate professor  in Civil and Environmental Engineering at Aalto University in Helsinki. He spent most of his career in industry and came later to academia.

His research denies an anthropogenic etiology of global warming and instead posits that cosmic rays and space dust, among other things, are driving climate change. His research goes against the scientific consensus.

space dust

Olilla: Space dust as a cause of global warming.

Here’s a selection of Ollila’s denial articles published in questionable journals:

Ollila, Antero. (2012). Changes in cosmic ray fluxes improve correlation to global warming. International Journal of the Physical Sciences 7(5): 822 – 826.

Ollila, Antero. (2013). Earth’s energy balance for clear, cloudy and all-sky conditions. Development in Earth Science 1(1): 1-9.

Ollila, Antero. (2014). The potency of carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas. Development in Earth Science 2: 20-30.

Ollila, Antero. (2015). Cosmic theories and greenhouse gases as explanations of global warming. Journal of Earth Sciences and Geotechnical Engineering 5(4): 27-43.

Ollila, Antero. (2015). Clear sky absorption of solar radiation by the average global atmosphere. Journal of Earth Sciences and Geotechnical Engineering 5(1): 19-34.

Ollila, Antero. (2015). Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) amounts and fluxes between the atmosphere, the ocean, and the biosphere. Physical Science International Journal 8(1): 1-17.

 The Journals

All the articles cited above are published in journals whose publishers are included on my list. Only one of the papers had anything like a review process, and it was weak. Most of the papers either lacked Received-Revised-Accepted dates, or they showed three-week turnaround time between submission and acceptance.

The journal Development in Earth Science (note the ungrammatical title) is published by Science and Engineering Publishing Company. This firm claims it’s based in Indiana, but I think it’s really run from China.

The Journal of Earth Sciences and Geotechnical Engineering is published by Scienpress Ltd. It claims it’s based in London. This strangely-named publisher has been on my list for years.

Physical Science International Journal is published by India-based ScienceDomain International. This publisher has been on my list for a long time, and I’ve written about problems with its peer review. I am not surprised to see a junk science paper published among its many articles.

Ollila’s 2012 article is published in International Journal of the Physical Sciences, from Nigeria-based Academic Journals. The article was published in January, 2012, and this journal published five issues in that month. It published 41 issues in 2012.

Conclusion

Ollila nonsense.jpg

More published nonsense from Ollila.

Olilla has discovered the helpful promotional strategy called self-citation. Also, though he uses lots of tables, images, and equations in his papers, I think he just makes stuff up. His science is just babbling. Why do so many emeritus professors publish pseudo-science in predatory journals? What attracts them to the Dark Side?

Predatory publishers are polluting the academic record with junk science. The junk science is frequently included in scholarly indexes, which makes it harder for legitimate scientists to carry out literature reviews.

Worse, such publications add science’s “seal of approval” (publication in a scholarly journal) to non-scientific rubbish. Students read it, and “blog scientists” and journalists use it as source material.

Researchers like Ollila know their article submissions will not survive an honest peer review at legitimate journals, so they flock to predatory journals. In fact, his work would likely suffer a “desk rejection” after a quick review by any competent journal editor.

Hat tip: Dr. John Mashey

47 Responses to Finnish Man Uses Easy Open-Access Journals to Publish Junk Climate Science

  1. pinroot says:

    ” I think he just makes stuff up. “

    No evidence needed, just “you think”. If you had started the article out with that, it would have saved people the need to read it. Maybe that’s why you put it at the end.

    Also, he’s not the first to propose cosmic rays influencing cloud formation, and thus, climate. And keep in mind, most scientific advances are made by going against ‘the consensus’.

    • Nils says:

      What a nice syllogism: “Most scientific advances are made by going against the consensus” (really?), this guy is going against the consensus, and therefore – uh… ?

    • MC says:

      pinroot, which data or sets of data that are published in his papers do you contend are well-researched and verifiable? I’m sure others who are reading this would be happy to take an unbiased look and tell you what they think.

    • Keith Fraser says:

      “And keep in mind, most scientific advances are made by going against ‘the consensus’.”

      Proponents of pseudoscience love to say things like this, along with buzzwords like “disruptive” and “outside the box”. I direct you to this quote by Carl Sagan:

      “But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

    • GDWilliams says:

      You say “most scientific advances are made by going against ‘the consensus”
      Hardly! 99.9% of scientific advances are made by scientists who build on the science of previous scientists, all of whom work(ed) within a set of guidelines known as “the scientific mehod” – otherwise known as “doing good science.”. Only on the rarest of occasions does a scientist make a significant leap forward using nothing but his own intellect to gain insight into the true nature of the universe.

      However, this notion of going *against* science (which is what you are doing when you advocate going against the consensus *as a working policy or procedural method*) is very popular with young-earth creationists, anti-evolutionists, and 911 “Toofers”. . Which one, pray tell, are you?

      • John Mashey says:

        GDWIlliams:
        Don’t waste your time.
        https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/3974340
        https://twitter.com/pinroot
        He retweets Steve Milloy … ie. happy to support somebody who got paid by tobacco companies to help them stay in business, which they do only by addicting them during adolescent brain development. Shame half the regular users will die eventually.

        In my experience, while it is theoretically possible to recover from severe Dunning-Kruger affliction,it I have never seen it happen. Sadly, I have never seen it be anything but a waste of time to try to engage, so straight to mental KILLFILE (I pine for the USENET days).

        Google: site:https://scholarlyoa.com pinroot
        gets only this hit. So, perhaps pinroot read this regularly, but perhaps saw it mentioned elsewhere or uses a Google Alert to pop into any blog that mentions global warming ,for example.

  2. John Mashey says:

    Skeptical Science list of long-refuted arguments.
    #18 It’s cosmic rays.Basic, Intermediate, Advanced.

    On the other hand, Ollila(2015) in JESGE relies on:names some people will recognize:
    [2] Ollila
    [5] Scafetta
    [7] Ollila
    [14] MIskolczi
    [20] McIntyre & McKitrick
    [23] Svensmark
    [24] Svensmark & Friis-Christensen
    [27] Svensmark & Friis-Christensen
    [28] Marsh & Svensmark
    [30] Svensmark
    [32] Ollila
    [36] Scafetta
    [38] Ollila
    [39] Ollila
    [40] MIskolczi
    to pick a few
    Oddly, refutations in credible papers, like those in the SkS pages .. somehow didn’t get mentioned. This idea has been proposed, again and again by Svensmark & others, examiend carefully, and shown wrong. An effect is possible, but its size cannot be large.

    This kind of argument relies on gremlins and leprechauns.
    Somebody uses a lot of math and cherrypicking to find a correlation they like, but without a physical explanation whose numbers work. Magically, gremlins do the work, somehow simulating the well-understood Greenhouse Effect backed by a consilience of evidence.

    But that’s not enough, because that would double the effect. One then needs magic leprechauns that somehow cancel the greenhouse effect, nullifying basic physics lik conservation of energy! This is even bigger magic than the gremlins.

    • justanotherpersonii says:

      Including cosmic ray effects on climate doesn’t necessarily mean getting rid of the greenhouse effect (though I definitely wouldn’t take it as far as this guy would!) In my opinion, the greenhouse effect is real and humans contribute significantly to climate change, but this doesn’t mean that Svensmark can’t be at least partially right.

      I think that its size could quite possibly be large, I mean, just look at what Kirkby et al. 2011 found: (further in, not in the abstract, and it’s paywalled, unfortunately)

      Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere.

      And besides, there are numerous other papers supporting skeptic arguments about cosmic rays (not necessarily that they caused 20th century climate change, but also showing their impact or possible impact on earth’s clouds/climate.) I will give a small sample here.

      There’s…

      this one,

      Solar UV and cosmic ray flux might influence tropospheric temperature during warm seasons, solar maximum or QBO West…The stratospheric temperature correlates with the cosmic ray flux and solar UV at annual level at solar maximum and QBO West.

      this one,

      Results show an indirect indication of possible relationships between the variability of galactic cosmic rays and climate change on a regional scale.

      this one,

      It showed possible influence of cosmic factors on
      cloud covering processes and, thus, climate change…It was detected that, for the latitudes of this region, long-term decreases (negative trends) of seasonal GCR flux are different at CD and CN, which could affect the radiative balance at the Earth’s surface and, as a result, contribute to the climate change.

      this one,

      In this paper we show that bi-decadal variability of solar magnetic field, modulating the intensity of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) at the outer boundary of heliosphere, could be easily tracked down to the Earth’s surface. The mediator of this influence is the lower stratospheric ozone, while the mechanism of signal translation consists of: (i) GCR impact on the lower stratospheric ozone balance; (ii) modulation of temperature and humidity near the tropopause by the ozone variations; (iii) increase or decrease of the greenhouse effect, depending on the sign of the humidity changes. The efficiency of such a mechanism depends critically on the level of maximum secondary ionisation created by GCR (i.e. the Pfotzer maximum) – determined in turn by heterogeneous Earth’s magnetic field.

      this one,

      We consider possible effects of cosmic rays and some other space factors on the Earth’s climate change…In our opinion, the most important of these factors are cosmic rays and cosmic dust through their influence on clouds, and thus, on climate.

      this one,

      Our global simulations indicate that a decrease in ionization rate
      associated with galactic cosmic ray flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum
      reduces annual mean nucleation rates, number concentration of condensation nuclei larger
      than 10 nm (CN10), and number concentrations of CCN at water supersaturation ratio of 0.8%
      (CCN0.8) and 0.2% (CCN0.2) in the lower troposphere by 6.8%, 1.36%, 0.74%, and 0.43%,
      respectively.

      this one,

      Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T)—driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ)—explains 75% of total variability of Earth’s T variations during the period 1926–2011. We have analysed also the factors which could influence the TOZ variability and found that the strongest impact belongs to the multi-decadal variations of galactic cosmic rays.

      this one,

      We have studied conditions in interplanetary space, which can have an influence on galactic cosmic ray (CR) and climate change…We show that long-term Dst variations in these solar cycles were correlated with the cosmic ray count rate and can be used for study of CR variations. Global temperature variations in connection with evolution of Dst index and CR variations is discussed.

      and the list goes on. I don’t think I cited one person on the list you cited of “some people” that I might recognize. I also think I only cited credible journals.

      For further info about what I think is a more balanced and correct view about climate change, see Hypothesis 2a of this paper.

      • John MAshey says:

        1) Cosmic rays
        It’s not enough to have a hypothesis and some correlations, one must do detection and attribution and quantify the effects.

        Skeptical Science #14 is What’s the link between cosmic rays and climate change?

        Anyone serous about this would have at least the PDF of IPCC AR5 WG I “IPCC”) handy

        IPCC has 91 hits for “cosmic ray”, it’s hardly ignored.
        See especially section 7.4.6, which ends:
        “Correlations between cosmic ray flux and observed aerosol or cloud properties are weak and local at best, and do not prove to be robust on the regional or global scale. Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or droplets or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way.”

        2) Regarding other anthropogenic effects besides direct GHG emissions: burning strawmen isn’t very interesting.
        I regularly interact with top-notch climate scientists, some of whose specialties include detection/attribution and things like effect of human land-use changes.
        I don’t know *any* who think GHG emissions are the only anthroogenic effect.

        Search IPCC for “land use: 442 hits.
        Try TS.3 for a short version of “drivers of cliamte change”
        TS3.4 is “Radiative forcing from land surface changes and Contrails” Try Fig TS.6 and TS.7 that quantify the various effects and their uncertianti8es.

      • justanotherpersonii says:

        I would also like to thank you for staying civil in this conversation with me so far, as this type of debate can become quite nasty, as I am sure you know. That goes for both sides of the aisle on this issue, as I have seen both skeptics and alarmists go at each other quite viciously and with slander all around.

      • justanotherpersonii says:

        1) Cosmic rays
        It’s not enough to have a hypothesis and some correlations, one must do detection and attribution and quantify the effects.

        You have a good point, however, it hasn’t only been correlations and hypotheses, there is experimental evidence to suggest that cosmic rays can enhance cloud formation.

        See these such papers.

        Anyone serous about this would have at least the PDF of IPCC AR5 WG I “IPCC”) handy

        IPCC has 91 hits for “cosmic ray”, it’s hardly ignored.

        I agree, the IPCC reports are very useful to have, but we also should look at more recently published literature and literature that wasn’t included in the report. I am glad that the IPCC didn’t ignore this issue, though I don’t think I claimed it was ignored by them.

        However, the IPCC reports aren’t only in support of your view. Indeed, read this part from section 7.4.6.1:

        Statistically significant (but weak) correlations between the diffuse fraction of surface solar radiation and the cosmic ray flux have been found at some locations in the UK over the 1951–2000 period
        (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Harrison (2008) also found a unique 1.68-year periodicity in surface radiation for two different UK sites between 1978 and 1990, potentially indicative of a cosmic ray effect of the same periodicity.

        This isn’t to say, of course, that the IPCC is 100% behind Svensmark’s hypothesis (though it didn’t originate with him), but rather that they do reluctantly admit that there may be some connection between GCRs and clouds.

        Let’s look some more at what WG1 have to say:

        Laboratory experiments indicate that ionization
        induced by cosmic rays enhances nucleation rates under middle and upper tropospheric conditions, but not necessarily so in the continental boundary layer (Kirkby et al., 2011). Field measurements qualitative-ly support this view but cannot provide any firm conclusion due to
        the scarcity and other limitations of free-troposphere measurements (Arnold, 2006; Mirme et al., 2010), and due to difficulties in separating nucleation induced by cosmic rays from other nucleation pathways in the continental boundary layer (Hirsikko et al., 2011).

        There’s also Dr. Brian Tinsley’s view, which the IPCC seems to support, to some extent:

        A small direct current is
        able to flow vertically between the ionosphere and the Earth’s surface over fair-weather regions because of cosmic-ray-induced atmospher-
        ic ionization. Charge can accumulate at the upper and lower cloud boundaries as a result of the effective scavenging of ions by cloud droplets (Tinsley, 2008). This creates conductivity gradients at the cloud
        edges (Nicoll and Harrison, 2010), and may influence droplet–droplet collisions (Khain et al., 2004), cloud droplet–particle collisions (Tinsley,
        2008) and cloud droplet formation processes (Harrison and Ambaum, 2008). These microphysical effects may potentially influence cloud properties both directly and indirectly.

        As for the IPCC’s 7.4.6.3 synthesis, though it is in agreement with many of the papers it cites (of course not every paper it cites will be in support of its position), it is not in agreement with other ones, which is important to note. Take, for example, the paper I have already cited, Effect of solar variations on particle
        formation and cloud condensation nuclei. Look again at this part of the abstract:

        Our global simulations indicate that a decrease in ionization rate associated with galactic cosmic ray flux change from solar minimum to solar maximum
        reduces annual mean nucleation rates…

        This seems to be in contradiction with the IPCC’s synthesis, which says that,

        Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or droplets or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way.

        Of course, that would depend on if ERL’s paper finds decreases that are “climatically significant”.

        In any event, the IPCC isn’t the be-all end-all, and I could offer more papers to support my view, if you would like, perhaps even more than the IPCC cites in that section.

        2) Regarding other anthropogenic effects besides direct GHG emissions: burning strawmen isn’t very interesting.
        I regularly interact with top-notch climate scientists, some of whose specialties include detection/attribution and things like effect of human land-use changes.
        I don’t know *any* who think GHG emissions are the only anthroogenic effect.

        Search IPCC for “land use: 442 hits.
        Try TS.3 for a short version of “drivers of cliamte change”
        TS3.4 is “Radiative forcing from land surface changes and Contrails” Try Fig TS.6 and TS.7 that quantify the various effects and their uncertianti8es.

        I never said that GHGs were the only anthropogenic effect, and neither did that paper. I simply wanted to show you roughly where I stand on this issue, not get into a big debate on the influence of land-use changes and UHI on temperature, though a good summary of those effects is here.

        What the paper did say was this:

        Unfortunately, the 2007 Intergovern-
        mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
        assessment did not suffi
        ciently acknowledge
        the importance of these other human cli-
        mate forcings in altering regional and global
        climate and their effects on predictability at
        the regional scale. It also placed too much
        emphasis on average global forcing from a
        limited set of human climate forcings.

        Perhaps this problem has been resolved in AR5; it would be interesting to see what those authors have to say about it.

  3. tekija says:

    Google shows that the Finnish title of Ollila in Aalto University is “dosentti”. It is a title that a university can give to a researcher for evidence of documented scientific merit. It does not involve employment nor does it entitle to salary. Of note, Aalto University web site does not allow translating “dosentti” in English to any professor level academic title.

    https://into.aalto.fi/download/attachments/1016621/Akateemiset_nimikkeet%20suomeksi%20ja%20englanniksi_OOP.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1331204621000&api=v2

    • MC says:

      Jeff, I was a little worried when you said “Why do so many emeritus professors publish pseudo-science in predatory journals?”. Although you didn’t quantify “many”, I haven’t come across “any” in my field that seem to do so. I think that the above could shed some light on the fact that he’s not recognized as such by the University.

      • John Mashey says:

        MC: let me help this get more precise, as this is a weird pattern not seen in most disciplines and it can seem like fantasyland.

        1) Many credible journals publish real peer-reviewed climate science, ranging from the big general ones like Science and Nature, through general geosciences journals like Geophysical Research Letters through climate-specifics like Climaic Change

        2) Some papers are written by people who strongly reject the consensus on human impact on climate change, often to the point of rejecting basics of physics like Greenhouse Effect or conservation of energy. However, they almost never actually tr
        Most stick to blogs, letters to editors, etc, but some can write papers, although it’s almost mpossible to get them through real peer review, and they almost never bother to attend relevant conferences, like AGU.

        What can they do to get their papers published?

        a) Slip them through weak editorial processes, especially with a friendly editor. The most famous climate case is Pals – Chris de Freitas & co at Climate Research. That got fixed.

        b) Publish them in a journal friendly to anything that rejects mainstream science. The best-known here is UK’s Energy and Environment and Ollila wrote a paper for that, but it’s not open access, so not on Jeff’s list. The challenge here is that it is so well-known as the last resort, so few take it seriously.

        c) Publish in one of these predatory journals, which are not so well-known … and can be trumpeted as peer-reviewed wtih a good-sounding name.

        d) Sometimes, they go further and just invent their own jounal, for which Pattern Recognition in Physics is a classic.

        3) It is not just that emeritus professors do the above, but all too often, people from outside the field decide they can do a lot of math and disprove mainstream science.

        Most younger professors are building publication records in their own fields … but a tiny fraction of emeritus (or long-tenurd older profs) profs decide it is their mission to disprove human effects on climate change. For example on this 308-person petition that Ollila signed, at least 148 are retired/emeritus.

        For instance, another signer, cited by Ollila is:
        “HARDE, Hermann, Professor of Physics (emeritus) at Helmut-Schmidt-University Hamburg, Germany, specialized in laser physics, spectroscopy and gas sensors, former Vice President of the University”

        He published
        H. Harde, “Advanced two-layer climate model for the assessment of global warming by CO2,” Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change, vol. 1, 2014, pp. 1-50.

        That’s
        http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/
        Scientific Online is on Jeffrey’s Publisher list.

        Mocked by knowledgeable guy (“Eli Rabett”, I see him at AGU meetings), alhought I give Harde credit for submitting to EGU.
        http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/03/toy-model.html
        http://rabett.blogspot.com/search?q=harde

        Ollila also references:another signer:
        KAUPPINEN, Jyrki, PhD in Physics, University of Oulu, Finland, Professor of Physics (emeritus), University of Turku, Finland, research activities : IR­spectroscopy, interferometry, gas ensors, and climate change (FINLAND).

        J. Kauppinen, J. T. Heinonenand P. J. Malmi,”Influence of clouds on the global mean temperature,” International Review of Physics, vol. 5 2011, pp. 260-270.
        Well:
        http://www.praiseworthyprize.org/jsm/?journal=irephy
        http://www.praiseworthyprize.com/
        Here are the journals:
        http://www.praiseworthyprize.org/jsm/

        I think Jeffrey removed this from the list, but in general, a physics journal that covers a vast range of topics (but hardly eer climate, from a quick scan) is *not* a credible venue.

        SO, just offhand, in a few minutes, there were 3 emeritus profs publishing in dubious journals. (Some used E&E as well.)

        *Most* retired profs either keep doing good work in their field (like Bill Ruddiman) or move to another field, learn it and contribute (Burt Richter).

        But some…

    • L_C says:

      The Finnish term, ‘dosentti’, is the English equivalent of ‘docent’ (as noted in the document you provided) which, in several parts of Europe, generally breaks down into:

      Full Prof. > Docent > Assistant Prof.

      On Ollia’s LinkedIn page, he describes himself as an Adjunct Associate Professor (emer.), so he supposedly falls into this spectrum. This probably means that, even in lieu of an official position or salary, he could still be entitled, as a dosentti, to lead a research team (PI), lecture, and supervise student projects.

      While I’m not certain what the Emeritus system looks like in Finland, it’s possible for a dosentti’s position to be time-limited, hence it’s also associated with the English title of adjunct professor.

      Overall, what I’m particularly curious about is whether it’s common practice to be both a dosentti and an Emeritus at the same University given that a dosentti, as a type of adjunct, would not hold the same association with the school as an Emeritus. Perhaps this is par the course in Finland, but it seems odd IMO.

  4. John Mashey says:

    “OLLILA, Antero V., Dr.Tech, Adj. Ass. Professor (Emeritus) Aalto University, nine peer-reviewed research papers on the climate change (FINLAND).”

    This claim was included in the recent “300 scientists” (sic) letter to Lamar Smith (R-TX), essentially urging him to waste US tax money harassing NOAA. Smith had the letter added to the Congressional Record, so Ollila’s claim of Professor title is in a permanent US record. Ollila of course is entitled to express his opinion, and claim his papers are peer-reviewed: perhaps he has no clue regarding real peer review. If he wants to be taken seriously, he can propose a talk for EGU or submit papers to credible journals.

    I wouldn’t hold this against Aalto in general, but I hope they understand this is not a plus, since that affiliation is on the papers. (Yes, I support academic freedom, and I understand the issue with emeritus profs (who sometimes forget to mention that. Still, university affiliations are supposed to reflect credibility.)

  5. John Mashey says:

    Back at computer, so more detail for the above:

    1) Lamar Smith, 02/02/16
    ‘I’d like to put in the record a letter signed by 300 independent scientists that expressed concern over NOAA’s efforts to alter historical temperature data.’

    This letter was organized by WIll Happer and associates at CO2 Coalition, although thatwas only known because one guy was careless in sending requests for signers to a big mailing list, not all of whom were sympathetic.

    Many signers are associated with the Heartland Insiitute or other think tanks, a large number from Texas (retired NASA-Houston engineers, typically, plus a strong contingent of petroleum industry folks.). 30% of the signers wishing to waste US tax money to damage science were from outside the US, like Ollila. It’s quite a group.

    One bunch (including 11 of the letter signers) fooled a publisher into allowing a journal in which the editors and friends all reviewed each others’ papers, i.e., even deeper down than Jeffrey’s lists. When this became clear, the publisher canceled it.

    2) Ollila gave the following affiliations, referring back to Jeff’s list of papers (all with yahoo email addresses). He was Emeritus in 2014 paper, but not in 2015 ones.

    2012:A. Ollila (IJPS)
    Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.

    2013 Antero Ollila (DES)
    Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland

    2014 Antero Ollila (DES)
    Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (Emer.), School of Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo,

    2015 Antero Ollila (JESGE)
    Aalto University, Finland

    2015 Antero Ollila (JESGE)
    Aalto University, Finland

    2015 Antero Ollila (PSIJ)
    Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Engineering, Aalto University, Espoo

    Again, I do not hold this against Aalto U.
    I don’t know how the rules work, as they vary by universities, even in US. At many schools, the Emeritus/affiliation can never be withdrawn..

  6. herr doktor bimler says:

    Nigeria-based Academic Journals. The article was published in January, 2012, and this journal published five issues in that month. It published 41 issues in 2012.

    Owned (if anyone cares) by Dr Nyerhovwo John Tonukari, biochemist. Who is also “nigeriarchive.com” and “African Research Laboratories”, and involved in the WASET conference scam, so a broad-spectrum grifter.

  7. Ken Lanfear says:

    To me, the most pernicious effect of predatory publishing is to allow pseudo-science to cloak itself in the veneer of respectability. Reporters, politicians, and the public too often can’t tell the real journals from the fake ones. Those who deliberately choose a journal knowing their weak science will not suffer peer review are the worst kind of charlatans.

  8. Greg says:

    Please, have a look: TANG [HUMANITAS MEDICINE] http://www.e-tang.org

    [Very wide scope, did not find info about fees, alternative medicine.]

  9. Sam says:

    Is this one okay? World wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development. I can’t find it in the stand-alone list. Thanks.

  10. Mike Undersson says:

    Mr. Beall,

    Anyone who reads, thinks, analyzes, compares…etc., is a scientist in someway for what he reads about.
    Do you think that scientists are only those who work with mice, butterflies or apes in a lab or a zoo? You are wrong.
    Science is open to all. It is not limited to those who handle rats or insects in their hands.
    Peer-review is NOT a gauge of quality even if it takes years, and the ‘quality’ you are talking about is very subjective and variable.

    • Keith Fraser says:

      Who is claiming that only zoologists are scientists? A zoologist wouldn’t even be qualified to give a professional opinion on the article discussed here, unless they were also a climate scientist.

    • MC says:

      Although I read and analyzed your comment, my scientific aptitude was measurably decreased as a result.

      • Mike Undersson says:

        No worry, you will recover it with practice and easier analyses. You need to start with analyzing easier comments before to get to complex ones.

  11. John Mashey wrote on February 18, 2016 at 12:21 PM “Ollila of course is entitled to express his opinion, and claim his papers are peer-reviewed: perhaps he has no clue regarding real peer review. If he wants to be taken seriously, he can propose a talk for EGU or submit papers to credible journals. I wouldn’t hold this against Aalto in general, but I hope they understand this is not a plus, since that affiliation is on the papers. (Yes, I support academic freedom, and I understand the issue with emeritus profs (who sometimes forget to mention that.) Still, university affiliations are supposed to reflect credibility.)”
    .
    Within The Netherlands, both the university and the author have a shared responsibility when it comes to the credibility of the scientific output, in a very wide sense, when the author has used the university as his affiliation. A very clear example of this policy is “Flawed science: The fraudulent research practices of social psychologist Diederik Stapel”, the final report of the Levelt Committee ( https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/upload/3ff904d7-547b-40ae-85fe-bea38e05a34a_Final%20report%20Flawed%20Science.pdf ). Stapel was not anymore affilated to UvA (University of Amsterdam) and to RUG (University of Groningen), but both universities have fully taken their responsibility, and thus conducted their own research, within the context / framework of the
    Levelt Committee, for all publications from Stapel with an UvA / RUG affilation. See the report for all details.
    .
    Another example from The Netherlands, once again at UvA, is the report ‘Evaluating the scientific veracity of publications by dr. Förster’ (see http://www.uva.nl/en/news-events/news/uva-news/content/news/2015/07/update-articles-jens-forster-investigated.html ). Jens Förster was at that moment not anymore employed by UvA, and already for quite a while, but that does not imply that UvA was not anymore responsible for papers with an UvA affiliation which were authored by Jens Förster.
    .
    Within The Netherlands, the overarching framework are the VSNU “Principles of good academic teaching and research” (“The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice”, see http://www.rug.nl/about-us/organization/rules-and-regulations/algemeen/gedragscodes-nederlandse-universiteiten/code-wetenschapsbeoefening-14-en.pdf and http://www.rug.nl/about-us/organization/rules-and-regulations/algemeen/gedragscodes-nederlandse-universiteiten/wetenschappelijke-integriteit-12-en.pdf
    Item 10 of the Pre-amble to the Code connects both documents with each other.
    .
    Acting according to the VSNU Code is mandatory, for anyone affilated to any of the 14 research universities in The Netherlands (see http://www.vsnu.nl/en_GB/dutch-universities.html for an overview), and this is already the case since 1 January 2005. RUG, University of Groningen, is an example of a Dutch university where a PhD candidate must promise, during the graduation ceremony, and in public, always to act fully according to “The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice” (see http://www.rug.nl/education/phd-programme/promotieregeling/).
    .
    The well-respected ‘Journal of Sea Research’ ( http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-sea-research/ ) is an example of a journal which states at https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-sea-research/1385-1101/guide-for-authors#8100 :
    “Submission declaration and verification. Submission of an article implies (..) that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out (..)”.
    .
    I tend to think that this guideline implies that all affilations of all authors (so for example also Aalto University) must have approved that the manuscript in question can be submitted to the Journal of Sea Research.

    • tekija says:

      Aalto University is keeping very well hidden how docents are nominated and what is their relationship to specific departments. No information can be found through google, only news about nominations. Some departments also list their currently affiliated docents who vary widely in number. However, a general view can be obtained e.g. from the University of Helsinki Docent Association:

      http://blogs.helsinki.fi/dosenttiyhdistys/docent-and-docenture-in-english/

      which is typical and likely applicable in principle to Aalto as well.

      We also see that docents are NOT listed as part of the Aalto academic faculty structure:

      http://www.aalto.fi/en/about/careers/other_academic_positions/

      In fact, a university can nominate a person to docentship who never was an alumnus and who will never work in the university, only in an outside institution.

      It is also possible to get the title of docent from several different universites and hold all these parallel titles concurrently.

      Of course any university should think twice before nominating anyone docent as it is attaching that person, even in those external cases, to its own name, a connection that can later be exploited:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_B%C3%A4ckman

      The above are all general comments and not intended as specific to the case of Dr. Ollila.

      • John Mashey says:

        Thanks, useful.
        Note: as i posted above, paper affiliations generally didn’t say much except affiliation with Aalto.

    • John Mashey says:

      Thanks, those seem like good policies.

  12. Ari Jokimäki says:

    Ollila also has couple of papers in Journal of Chemical, Biological and Physical Sciences (which is found in the list of standalone journals):

    Analyses of IPCC’s Warming Calculation Results
    http://www.jcbsc.org/issueenv.php?volume=3&issue=4

    Dynamics between Clear, Cloudy and All-Sky Conditions: Cloud Forcing Effects
    http://www.jcbsc.org/issuephy.php?volume=4&issue=1

    Also, the paper in Energy & Environment that John mentioned above is:

    The Roles of Greenhouse Gases in Global Warming
    http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.23.5.781

  13. mich filosa says:

    Can anyone name 3 un-“questionable”, non-“predatory” journals that have published articles that either question or deny the “settled science” of climate change?

    • Ari Jokimäki says:

      Those kinds of papers do sometimes get published in well-respected journals too. Here are just a few that have published that kind of papers: International Journal of Climatology (Wiley), Geophysical Research Letters (AGU), Climatic Change (Springer), Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (Elsevier), Science, Annales Geophysicae (EGU), BAMS (AMS),…

      • This is not very helpful. Can you be more specific and provide, for example, a citation to an article in a Wiley or Elsevier journal that says global warming is the result of space dust?

      • Ari Jokimäki says:

        Mich Filosa asked for three journals that have published papers “that either question or deny the “settled science” of climate change”. So this was not about alternative theories, like space dust. But I can provide a few examples of papers I meant. I have been collecting a list on these climate denier papers and there actually are hundreds of them and perhaps most published by well-respected publishers and journals. So, three examples (I can provide more if needed):

        Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris? – BAMS (AMS)
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%282001%29082%3C0417%3ADTEHAA%3E2.3.CO%3B2

        A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions – International Journal of Climatology (Wiley)
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1651/abstract

        And Elsevier published just recently a really rubbish paper:

        Anthropogenic CO2 warming challenged by 60-year cycle – Earth-Science Reviews (Elsevier)
        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825216300277

      • John Mashey says:

        Try
        https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&q=svensmark&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

        That’s one where somebody has an idea (cosmic rays, if not quite space dust) that might have some effect, but keeps pushing if long after it has been examined carefully and its effect size bounded to be pretty small.

        Those include reasonable journals.

        Now and then, a poor paper slips through a weak editorial process at some reasonable journal that’s not quite in the same field, and people should have said “not for this journal.”

      • Ari – “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions – International Journal of Climatology” Douglas, Christy, Pearson and Singer, 2007 is a case of poor review. Sure this type of work gets published, but those that continually bring it up can’t respond to any of the many criticisms that it immediately received. For instance: RealClimate

        Note the same authors made similar claims with earlier papers and were shown to be wrong then as well. Just same ol’, same ol’.

  14. s klein says:

    It is clearly (from much of the above) a bloody shame that folks capable (even modestly) of adopting something approximating the scientific method believe this “ability” qualifies them to self-label as scientists.

    Science is more than method adoption (else we confuse necessary with sufficient). Science (as opposed to uninformed application) requires education as well as training. Asking questions of nature is a hopelessly random exercise unless the questions posed are ones that have the backing of intelligently formulated theory and informed inferential capabilities on the part of the “asker”.

    One thing that clearly emerges from the posted conversation is that many on board are not capable of engaging in science save in the most trivial sense.

    Sad.

  15. Hugo van den Berg says:

    “Why do so many emeritus professors publish pseudo-science in predatory journals? What attracts them to the Dark Side?” Because most reviewers even for “good” journals seldom know what they are talking about these days; it’s tedious and a short-cut is wanted, since time is running out. Remember, this is their last shot at pursuing their dream of achieving Newtonesque stature in the sciences, with a legacy that resounds down the ages. Even, even, even Roger Penrose, with so much legitimate achievements, has fallen prey to this, though he seems to be strictly an arXiv man.

  16. aveollila says:

    It was interesting to read your opinions about the “climate denier” as I have been called sometimes. I have had a five years nomination as dosentti ending in Janauray 2013. Dosentti is recommended to translate as “Adjunct Associate Professor” and according to the Finnish practice I can use wording Emeritus after my title. Some people have doubted that I am a Civil Engineer but I used to be a process and an automation engineer. Now you can say that I have no idea about climatology. Just one example. Kiehl and Trenberth have used US Standard Atmosphere 76 in calculating the portion of CO2 in the GH phenomenon. How it is possible that this choice went through the strict review process? And even now the result of this study 26 % is the most referred number. It is totally wrong because of the totally wrong atmosphere composition.
    I have calculated the effects of GH gases using the spectral analysis, which is the only method to do it. I do not deny the warming effects of GH gases but there two simple reasons, why AGW theory is wrong in numbers. There is no positive water feedback, which anybody can see just by looking at the RH trends since 1948. It reduces the CO2 effect by 50 %. According to my studies, the equation of Myhre et al. (RF=5.35*ln(CO2/280)) is calculated in the fixed RH conditions as one researcher SHI specifies in his article and he has found the same results as Myhre et al. Based on these calculations, in the present warming of 0.85 C, the portion of CO2 is about 0.25 C.
    I have one paper, where I have combined the competing theories (The Sun theory and the space dust (Astronomical Harmonic Climate Model)). The correlation between the observed temperature and these models is very high indeed and much better than the AGQ theory. Let us wait 5…10 years and we are much wiser.
    I am ready to send my latest paper for review, if the paper of Soden et al. will go through the same process.

  17. John Mashey says:

    See comments by Richard Telford, including this one:
    “Peer review helps improve papers and gives them some credibility, and prevents the manifestly wrong papers from being published. …

    The best you can hope for is that your paper is ignored, as you and the editors ignored the first reviewer. The paper is dreadful, it should never have been submitted, let alone published. … (more)”

  18. John MAshey says:

    ScienceDomain International’s publication of
    “Ollila, Antero. (2015). Anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) amounts and fluxes between the atmosphere, the ocean, and the biosphere. Physical Science International Journal 8(1): 1-17.”
    at least documents its
    review history.

    The 3 reviewers for this technical carbon-cycle paper were:
    Bharat Raj Singh, School of Management Sciences, Uttar Pradesh Technical University, India
    https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=pBWwqTIAAAAJ&hl=en
    Professor of Mechanical Engineering
    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Bharat+Raj+Singh

    Peter Stallinga University of the Algarve, Portugal
    http://www.stallinga.org/AcadActiv/AcademicActivityPS.html
    He is at Center for Electronics Opto-Electronics and Telecommunications, CEOT, labels Climate “a hobby” and rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.

    Robert Jandl
    Natural Hazards and Landscape (BFW), Vienna, Austria
    http://www.oeaw.ac.at/wissenschaft-mitglieder/kommissionen/kommission-klima-und-luftqualitaet/r-jandl/
    He seems a credible and well-published scientist, but his review seemed cursory, consisting of a single sentence in the first round, so the extent of review is unclear.

  19. Achukwu says:

    Mr. Beall, can i have a list of your so called legitimate journals.

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: