Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
OMG at least one BEST paper has passed peer review
- Thread starter IanC
- Start date
- Banned
- #22
o Krakatoa, 1883: 21 km^3 (69.4 billion tons) ejected 50 miles high, weather affected for five years
o Tambora, 1815: 100 km^3 (330.7 billion tons) ejected 21 miles high,weather afffected for 2.5 years
o Krakatoa's explosion has been estimated to have been equivalent to 200 million tons of TNT.
o Mt Pinatubo, the most powerful volcanic explosion of the last century, was one order of magnitude smaller than Tambora - roughly 10 km^3 ejected. With 14 times the explosive force of all of World War II, the effect of its 1991 eruption may be seen on the graph two posts up.
o Explosives expended by all sides during all of World War II: Approximately 7 million tons. (including Fat Man's 21 kT and Little Boy's 16 kT.
Now explain how probable it is that the dramatic cooling of 1941, that lasted for 38 years could have been caused solely by aerosols from military explosives.
o Tambora, 1815: 100 km^3 (330.7 billion tons) ejected 21 miles high,weather afffected for 2.5 years
o Krakatoa's explosion has been estimated to have been equivalent to 200 million tons of TNT.
o Mt Pinatubo, the most powerful volcanic explosion of the last century, was one order of magnitude smaller than Tambora - roughly 10 km^3 ejected. With 14 times the explosive force of all of World War II, the effect of its 1991 eruption may be seen on the graph two posts up.
o Explosives expended by all sides during all of World War II: Approximately 7 million tons. (including Fat Man's 21 kT and Little Boy's 16 kT.
Now explain how probable it is that the dramatic cooling of 1941, that lasted for 38 years could have been caused solely by aerosols from military explosives.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #23
Are you talking about some change other than the selection of the baseline?
good grief! do you believe that changing the baseline of a data set can change the rank ordering?
- Banned
- #26
Never mind. I found the usual crap on WUWT in which the immediate and completely unsupported conclusion was that every change Hansen made was made to exacerbate the appearance of global warming. WUWT's contributor seems to have made absolutely NO attempt to find out why GISS adjusted/altered/corrected their data.
Here is a good discussion from GISS about the changes.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
News
2014-01-21: The December 2013 data have been posted. A NASA news release about the temperature anomaly for calendar 2013 has been posted. Also, Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University has written a discussion of the results (PDF).
Please address all inquiries about the GISTEMP analysis to Dr. Reto Ruedy.
Also participating in the GISTEMP analysis are Dr. Makiko Sato and Dr. Ken Lo. This research was previously led by Dr. James E. Hansen, now retired.
History
The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models. Most prior temperature analyses, notably those of Murray Mitchell, covered only 20-90°N latitudes. Our first published results (Hansen et al. 1981) showed that, contrary to impressions from northern latitudes, global cooling after 1940 was small, and there was net global warming of about 0.4°C between the 1880s and 1970s.
The analysis method was documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes. They obtained quantitative estimates of the error in annual and 5-year mean temperature change by sampling at station locations a spatially complete data set of a long run of a global climate model, which was shown to have realistic spatial and temporal variability.
This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming. These methods include inference of surface temperature change from vertical temperature profiles in the ground (bore holes) at many sites around the world, rate of glacier retreat at many locations, and studies by several groups of the effect of urban and other local human influences on the global temperature record. All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which now stands at about twice the magnitude that we reported in 1981. Further affirmation of the reality of the warming is its spatial distribution, which has largest values at locations remote from any local human influence, with a global pattern consistent with that expected for response to global climate forcings (larger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, larger at high latitudes than low latitudes, larger over land than over ocean).
Subsequent improvements (Hansen et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2001) to the original analysis included use of satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations in the United States are located in urban and peri-urban areas, the long-term trends of those stations being adjusted to agree with long-term trends of nearby rural stations.
Current Analysis Method
The current analysis uses satellite observed nightlights to identify measurement stations located in extreme darkness and adjust temperature trends of urban and peri-urban stations for non-climatic factors, verifying that urban effects on analyzed global change are small. A paper describing the current analysis was published (Hansen et al. 2010) in Reviews of Geophysics in December 2010. The paper compares alternative analyses, and address questions about perception and reality of global warming. Alternative choices for the ocean data are tested. It is shown that global temperature change is sensitive to estimated temperature change in polar regions, where observations are limited. We suggest use of 12-month (and n×12) running mean temperature to fully remove the annual cycle and improve information content in temperature graphs. We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade, despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature. Record high global temperature during the period with instrumental data was reached in 2010. After that paper appeared, version 3 of the GHCN data became available. The current analysis is now based on the adjusted GHCN v3 data for the data over land. The ocean data are now based on NOAA ERSST for the sake of simplicity, replacing a prior concatenation of Hadley Center's HadSST1 and the satellite-based NOAA (Reynolds) OISST.
We maintain a running record of any modifications made to the analysis, available on our Updates to Analysis page.
Graphs and tables are updated around the middle of every month using the current adjusted GHCN-v3 and SCAR files. The new files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months.
The GHCNv3/SCAR data are modified to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.
The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change.
Programs used in the GISTEMP analysis and documentation on their use are available for download. The programs assume a Unix-like operating system and require familiarity with FORTRAN, C and Python for installation and use.
Special Topics
Annual Summations
NASA news releases about the GISS surface temperature analysis were issued for 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 (discussion), 2009 (discussion), 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, and 2004.
We also provide here more detailed discussions of global surface temperature trends for 2011, 2008, 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001.
Special mid-year notes have also been posted regarding temperature anomalies in November 2010, summer 2010, July 2010, January 2004, and October 2003. There was also a NASA news release about summer 2010.
Anomalies and Absolute Temperatures
Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. Indeed, we have shown (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) that temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of the order of 1000 km. For a more detailed discussion, see The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature.
Table Data: Global and Hemispheric Monthly Means and Zonal Annual Means
Plain text files in tabular format of temperature anomalies, i.e. deviations from the corresponding 1951-1980 means.
Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, LOTI)
Global-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
Northern Hemisphere-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
Southern Hemisphere-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
Zonal annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent completed year
Note: LOTI provides a more realistic representation of the global mean trends than dTs below; it slightly underestimates warming or cooling trends, since the much larger heat capacity of water compared to air causes a slower and diminished reaction to changes; dTs on the other hand overestimates trends, since it disregards most of the dampening effects of the oceans that cover about two thirds of the earth's surface.
Means Based on Land-Surface Air Temperature Anomalies Only (Meteorological Station Data, dTs)
Global-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
Northern Hemisphere-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
Southern Hemisphere-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
Zonal annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent complete calendar year
Gridded Monthly Maps of Temperature Anomaly Data
Users interested in the entire gridded surface air temperature anomaly data may download netcdf files containing selected series on a regular 2°×2° grid or the basic SBBX binary files. Note: These files are large.
Compressed NetCDF files (regular 2x2 degree grid)
Land-Ocean Temperature Index, 1200km smoothing (23 MB)
Surface air temperature (no ocean data), 250km smoothing (9 MB)
Compressed basic subbox grid series (equal-area grid)
Surface air temperature, 1200km smoothing (27 MB)
Surface air temperature, 250km smoothing (9 MB)
Sea surface air temperature (ERSST), currently used (30 MB)
Sea surface air temperature (HadR2), used until Nov. 2012 (30 MB)
Also available are various FORTRAN programs and instructions to create (time series of) regular gridded anomaly maps from the basic files. Be sure to read the README file for discussion of the files' binary format.
README.txt
mkTsMap.f
SBBX_to_nc.f
SBBX_to_1x1.f
SBBX_to_txt.f
Here is a good discussion from GISS about the changes.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)
News
2014-01-21: The December 2013 data have been posted. A NASA news release about the temperature anomaly for calendar 2013 has been posted. Also, Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University has written a discussion of the results (PDF).
Please address all inquiries about the GISTEMP analysis to Dr. Reto Ruedy.
Also participating in the GISTEMP analysis are Dr. Makiko Sato and Dr. Ken Lo. This research was previously led by Dr. James E. Hansen, now retired.
History
The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models. Most prior temperature analyses, notably those of Murray Mitchell, covered only 20-90°N latitudes. Our first published results (Hansen et al. 1981) showed that, contrary to impressions from northern latitudes, global cooling after 1940 was small, and there was net global warming of about 0.4°C between the 1880s and 1970s.
The analysis method was documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), showing that the correlation of temperature change was reasonably strong for stations separated by up to 1200 km, especially at middle and high latitudes. They obtained quantitative estimates of the error in annual and 5-year mean temperature change by sampling at station locations a spatially complete data set of a long run of a global climate model, which was shown to have realistic spatial and temporal variability.
This derived error bar only addressed the error due to incomplete spatial coverage of measurements. As there are other potential sources of error, such as urban warming near meteorological stations, etc., many other methods have been used to verify the approximate magnitude of inferred global warming. These methods include inference of surface temperature change from vertical temperature profiles in the ground (bore holes) at many sites around the world, rate of glacier retreat at many locations, and studies by several groups of the effect of urban and other local human influences on the global temperature record. All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which now stands at about twice the magnitude that we reported in 1981. Further affirmation of the reality of the warming is its spatial distribution, which has largest values at locations remote from any local human influence, with a global pattern consistent with that expected for response to global climate forcings (larger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, larger at high latitudes than low latitudes, larger over land than over ocean).
Subsequent improvements (Hansen et al. 1999; Hansen et al. 2001) to the original analysis included use of satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations in the United States are located in urban and peri-urban areas, the long-term trends of those stations being adjusted to agree with long-term trends of nearby rural stations.
Current Analysis Method
The current analysis uses satellite observed nightlights to identify measurement stations located in extreme darkness and adjust temperature trends of urban and peri-urban stations for non-climatic factors, verifying that urban effects on analyzed global change are small. A paper describing the current analysis was published (Hansen et al. 2010) in Reviews of Geophysics in December 2010. The paper compares alternative analyses, and address questions about perception and reality of global warming. Alternative choices for the ocean data are tested. It is shown that global temperature change is sensitive to estimated temperature change in polar regions, where observations are limited. We suggest use of 12-month (and n×12) running mean temperature to fully remove the annual cycle and improve information content in temperature graphs. We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade, despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature. Record high global temperature during the period with instrumental data was reached in 2010. After that paper appeared, version 3 of the GHCN data became available. The current analysis is now based on the adjusted GHCN v3 data for the data over land. The ocean data are now based on NOAA ERSST for the sake of simplicity, replacing a prior concatenation of Hadley Center's HadSST1 and the satellite-based NOAA (Reynolds) OISST.
We maintain a running record of any modifications made to the analysis, available on our Updates to Analysis page.
Graphs and tables are updated around the middle of every month using the current adjusted GHCN-v3 and SCAR files. The new files incorporate reports for the previous month and late reports and corrections for earlier months.
The GHCNv3/SCAR data are modified to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped.
The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change.
Programs used in the GISTEMP analysis and documentation on their use are available for download. The programs assume a Unix-like operating system and require familiarity with FORTRAN, C and Python for installation and use.
Special Topics
Annual Summations
NASA news releases about the GISS surface temperature analysis were issued for 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010 (discussion), 2009 (discussion), 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, and 2004.
We also provide here more detailed discussions of global surface temperature trends for 2011, 2008, 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001.
Special mid-year notes have also been posted regarding temperature anomalies in November 2010, summer 2010, July 2010, January 2004, and October 2003. There was also a NASA news release about summer 2010.
Anomalies and Absolute Temperatures
Our analysis concerns only temperature anomalies, not absolute temperature. Temperature anomalies are computed relative to the base period 1951-1980. The reason to work with anomalies, rather than absolute temperature is that absolute temperature varies markedly in short distances, while monthly or annual temperature anomalies are representative of a much larger region. Indeed, we have shown (Hansen and Lebedeff, 1987) that temperature anomalies are strongly correlated out to distances of the order of 1000 km. For a more detailed discussion, see The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature.
Table Data: Global and Hemispheric Monthly Means and Zonal Annual Means
Plain text files in tabular format of temperature anomalies, i.e. deviations from the corresponding 1951-1980 means.
Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, LOTI)
Global-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
Northern Hemisphere-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
Southern Hemisphere-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
Zonal annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent completed year
Note: LOTI provides a more realistic representation of the global mean trends than dTs below; it slightly underestimates warming or cooling trends, since the much larger heat capacity of water compared to air causes a slower and diminished reaction to changes; dTs on the other hand overestimates trends, since it disregards most of the dampening effects of the oceans that cover about two thirds of the earth's surface.
Means Based on Land-Surface Air Temperature Anomalies Only (Meteorological Station Data, dTs)
Global-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
Northern Hemisphere-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
Southern Hemisphere-mean monthly, seasonal, and annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent month
Zonal annual means, 1880-present, updated through most recent complete calendar year
Gridded Monthly Maps of Temperature Anomaly Data
Users interested in the entire gridded surface air temperature anomaly data may download netcdf files containing selected series on a regular 2°×2° grid or the basic SBBX binary files. Note: These files are large.
Compressed NetCDF files (regular 2x2 degree grid)
Land-Ocean Temperature Index, 1200km smoothing (23 MB)
Surface air temperature (no ocean data), 250km smoothing (9 MB)
Compressed basic subbox grid series (equal-area grid)
Surface air temperature, 1200km smoothing (27 MB)
Surface air temperature, 250km smoothing (9 MB)
Sea surface air temperature (ERSST), currently used (30 MB)
Sea surface air temperature (HadR2), used until Nov. 2012 (30 MB)
Also available are various FORTRAN programs and instructions to create (time series of) regular gridded anomaly maps from the basic files. Be sure to read the README file for discussion of the files' binary format.
README.txt
mkTsMap.f
SBBX_to_nc.f
SBBX_to_1x1.f
SBBX_to_txt.f
- Thread starter
- #27
Do you have links to the original publication of these three graphs - where we might see the author's comments?
nope. properties says its from a jo nova article. I copied it from a tread I bumped a few days ago.
are you new to the idea that GISS graphs have repeatedly changed shape over the past few decades, and especially over the last few years?
or perhaps you think someone has altered the graphs to make Hansen and GISS look bad? hahahaha.
- Thread starter
- #28
Never mind. I found the usual crap on WUWT in which the immediate and completely unsupported conclusion was that every change Hansen made was made to exacerbate the appearance of global warming. WUWT's contributor seems to have made absolutely NO attempt to find out why GISS adjusted/altered/corrected their data.
Here is a good discussion from GISS about the changes.
....
it beggars belief that every change increases the trend (with the exception of the hastily prepared fix of the Y2K bug discovered by McIntyre).
I was really hoping that GISS would provide a coherent explanation for the hijinx that went on with the Reykjavik temperature history two years ago. they were politely asked, they said they would respond, and then they ignored it. perhaps it was too embarrassing.
there is a huge difference between a general description of how their methodology works, and the actual numbers that their computer code spits out.
- Banned
- #30
and here
A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011 | Geoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview
"Received: September 24, 2012 Accepted: December 02, 2012 Published: December 07, 2012"
is a link to BEST's peer reviewed work
Abe - this is what was said about the journal before one of the BEST papers was published in Volume One, Issue One. OMICS Publishing Launches New Brand with 53 Journal Titles | Scholarly Open Access
I dont know what happened with the peer review when the BEST papers were originally submitted to a recognized journal, all I know is that they didnt get published there.
you dont think it is fishy that only one of the four(?) papers has been published, and even that one in a brand new pay-for-publish journal, but I do. we are three years down the road from when BEST was put in the public eye by press release.
This review is the work of :
Jeffrey Beall
I work as a librarian at Auraria Library, University of Colorado Denver, in Denver, Colorado.
An academic librarian for over 22 years, I have published extensively in the areas of metadata, full-text searching, and information retrieval.
My interest in scholarly open-access publishing began in 2009 when I reviewed the publisher Bentham Open in The Charleston Advisor, a journal that reviews electronic resources.
********************************************************************
who gives a tip of the ol' lynch-lid to Anthony Watts for tipping him off to the new journal and who seems to disapprove of the work of non-English speakers. Impressive source.
- Thread starter
- #31
and here
A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011 | Geoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview
"Received: September 24, 2012 Accepted: December 02, 2012 Published: December 07, 2012"
is a link to BEST's peer reviewed work
Abe - this is what was said about the journal before one of the BEST papers was published in Volume One, Issue One. OMICS Publishing Launches New Brand with 53 Journal Titles | Scholarly Open Access
I dont know what happened with the peer review when the BEST papers were originally submitted to a recognized journal, all I know is that they didnt get published there.
you dont think it is fishy that only one of the four(?) papers has been published, and even that one in a brand new pay-for-publish journal, but I do. we are three years down the road from when BEST was put in the public eye by press release.
This review is the work of :
Jeffrey Beall
I work as a librarian at Auraria Library, University of Colorado Denver, in Denver, Colorado.
An academic librarian for over 22 years, I have published extensively in the areas of metadata, full-text searching, and information retrieval.
My interest in scholarly open-access publishing began in 2009 when I reviewed the publisher Bentham Open in The Charleston Advisor, a journal that reviews electronic resources.
********************************************************************
who gives a tip of the ol' lynch-lid to Anthony Watts for tipping him off to the new journal and who seems to disapprove of the work of non-English speakers. Impressive source.
just out of curiousity---where was Watts mentioned? the criticism of the group of journals was written in May12, long before the BEST paper was submitted in Sep12, and the skeptic world was scrambling to find out anything about the journal when it accepted the BEST paper in Dec12.
the racist insult was SOP for you guys too. nice touch
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
SSDD - I'm sure that the warmers will say that the adjustments to the US temps are neutral. Some went down, some went up. Its just a fluke that it increases the warming trend.
Sure some went down...more than 97% of those downward adjustments are prior to 1960 however...I am still waiting for a reasonable and rational explanation for why one would adjust temperatures prior to 1960 at all....much less overwhelmingly down. And of course some went up...the vast majority after 1959. Doesn't logic demand that as urban sprawl spreads, temps should be adjusted down to compensate for UHI? Any idiot can see that by adjusting up after 1959, they are increasing any miniscule warming that may have happened due to solar output being at its highest point at the end of the 20th century for hundreds and hundreds of years.
- Banned
- #35
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
And which part of that do you think is a rational explanation for over 97% of the downward adjustments to the temperature record being prior to 1960?
And I saw a lot of talk about urban heat, but must have missed the part about why adjusting UP is the correct way to deal with increased temperatures due to more land coverage. Care to try to offer a rational, scientifically sound explanation?....because that certainly wasn't one.
- Thread starter
- #37
Abe - this is what was said about the journal before one of the BEST papers was published in Volume One, Issue One. OMICS Publishing Launches New Brand with 53 Journal Titles | Scholarly Open Access
I dont know what happened with the peer review when the BEST papers were originally submitted to a recognized journal, all I know is that they didnt get published there.
you dont think it is fishy that only one of the four(?) papers has been published, and even that one in a brand new pay-for-publish journal, but I do. we are three years down the road from when BEST was put in the public eye by press release.
This review is the work of :
Jeffrey Beall
I work as a librarian at Auraria Library, University of Colorado Denver, in Denver, Colorado.
An academic librarian for over 22 years, I have published extensively in the areas of metadata, full-text searching, and information retrieval.
My interest in scholarly open-access publishing began in 2009 when I reviewed the publisher Bentham Open in The Charleston Advisor, a journal that reviews electronic resources.
********************************************************************
who gives a tip of the ol' lynch-lid to Anthony Watts for tipping him off to the new journal and who seems to disapprove of the work of non-English speakers. Impressive source.
just out of curiousity---where was Watts mentioned? the criticism of the group of journals was written in May12, long before the BEST paper was submitted in Sep12, and the skeptic world was scrambling to find out anything about the journal when it accepted the BEST paper in Dec12.
the racist insult was SOP for you guys too. nice touch
you may have missed this Abe. where was Watts mentioned as tipping the librarian off?
- Thread starter
- #38
my memory must be fading. here is the second BEST paper published. on UHI effect.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/Influence%20of%20Urban%20Heating.pdf
published in Volume One, Issue Two of the same fourth rate journal. back in Sep or Oct 2013. 8 or 9 months after issue one. I guess sales have been poor.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/96723180/Influence%20of%20Urban%20Heating.pdf
published in Volume One, Issue Two of the same fourth rate journal. back in Sep or Oct 2013. 8 or 9 months after issue one. I guess sales have been poor.
- Thread starter
- #39
This review is the work of :
Jeffrey Beall
I work as a librarian at Auraria Library, University of Colorado Denver, in Denver, Colorado.
An academic librarian for over 22 years, I have published extensively in the areas of metadata, full-text searching, and information retrieval.
My interest in scholarly open-access publishing began in 2009 when I reviewed the publisher Bentham Open in The Charleston Advisor, a journal that reviews electronic resources.
********************************************************************
who gives a tip of the ol' lynch-lid to Anthony Watts for tipping him off to the new journal and who seems to disapprove of the work of non-English speakers. Impressive source.
just out of curiousity---where was Watts mentioned? the criticism of the group of journals was written in May12, long before the BEST paper was submitted in Sep12, and the skeptic world was scrambling to find out anything about the journal when it accepted the BEST paper in Dec12.
the racist insult was SOP for you guys too. nice touch
you may have missed this Abe. where was Watts mentioned as tipping the librarian off?
Abe??? you besmirched Watts but you dont seem to want to actually show the reference. is there a reference or did you simply insult him recklessly? SkS style, eh?
- Banned
- #40
OMICS Publishing Launches New Brand with 53 Journal Titles | Scholarly Open Access
I have no proof, but when I first read this article, I saw the "hat tip" at the bottom addressed to Anthony Watts, not Anthony Watkins. That is the source of my comment that Watts had tipped off the author, Jeffrey Beall. I could have been wrong or it could have been changed.
My racist comment was solely in response to Mr Beall's apparent impression that it was significant and meaningful to point out that SciTechnol was an Indian company and to chastise them for their poor English. I wager their English is a damn sight better than Mr Beall's Hindi.
*************************************************
OMICS Publishing Launches New Brand with 53 Journal Titles
SciTechnol
The logo for OMICS Publishing Groups new brand SciTechnol.
India-based OMICS Publishing Group has just launched a new brand of scholarly journals called SciTechnol. This new OMICS brand lists 53 new journals, though none has any content yet.
We learned of this new launch because the company is currently spamming tens of thousands of academics, hoping to recruit some of them for the new journals editorial boards.
The new site, the URL of which is SciTechnol :: International Publisher of Science, Technology and Medicine, includes a barely-literate mission statement. In part, it reads,
Based on the scientific necessity and demand, SciTechnol leads international scientific journals. SciTechnol aids the viewers to have access to its journals. SciTechnol provides wide range of online journals containing the latest research from a broad spectrum of subject areas. For further information on SciTechnol online journals, visit SciTechnol Index.
This poorly-written mission statement is an indication of a shabby and unprofessional operation. The editorial board solicitation spam emails are also poorly-written.
OMICS Publishing group has exploited many young researchers by inviting them to submit article manuscripts, leading them through the editing and review process, publishing the article and then invoicing the author.
In most cases, the authors have no idea that an author fee applies until they receive the invoice. We documented this practice in an earlier post. Will OMICS continue this unethical practice with its new brand?
We note that one other open-access publisher is also launching new brands. Perhaps OMICS is copying the strategy of Hindawi, which has recently launched ISRN and Datasets.org.
Hat tip: Anthony Watkinson
****************************************************************************
I have no proof, but when I first read this article, I saw the "hat tip" at the bottom addressed to Anthony Watts, not Anthony Watkins. That is the source of my comment that Watts had tipped off the author, Jeffrey Beall. I could have been wrong or it could have been changed.
My racist comment was solely in response to Mr Beall's apparent impression that it was significant and meaningful to point out that SciTechnol was an Indian company and to chastise them for their poor English. I wager their English is a damn sight better than Mr Beall's Hindi.
*************************************************
OMICS Publishing Launches New Brand with 53 Journal Titles
SciTechnol
The logo for OMICS Publishing Groups new brand SciTechnol.
India-based OMICS Publishing Group has just launched a new brand of scholarly journals called SciTechnol. This new OMICS brand lists 53 new journals, though none has any content yet.
We learned of this new launch because the company is currently spamming tens of thousands of academics, hoping to recruit some of them for the new journals editorial boards.
The new site, the URL of which is SciTechnol :: International Publisher of Science, Technology and Medicine, includes a barely-literate mission statement. In part, it reads,
Based on the scientific necessity and demand, SciTechnol leads international scientific journals. SciTechnol aids the viewers to have access to its journals. SciTechnol provides wide range of online journals containing the latest research from a broad spectrum of subject areas. For further information on SciTechnol online journals, visit SciTechnol Index.
This poorly-written mission statement is an indication of a shabby and unprofessional operation. The editorial board solicitation spam emails are also poorly-written.
OMICS Publishing group has exploited many young researchers by inviting them to submit article manuscripts, leading them through the editing and review process, publishing the article and then invoicing the author.
In most cases, the authors have no idea that an author fee applies until they receive the invoice. We documented this practice in an earlier post. Will OMICS continue this unethical practice with its new brand?
We note that one other open-access publisher is also launching new brands. Perhaps OMICS is copying the strategy of Hindawi, which has recently launched ISRN and Datasets.org.
Hat tip: Anthony Watkinson
****************************************************************************
Similar threads
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 140
- Replies
- 63
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 143
- Replies
- 79
- Views
- 944
- Replies
- 96
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 25
- Replies
- 420
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 8
- Views
- 13
- Replies
- 108
- Views
- 345
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8043
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-