Joacim Näslund

Extended deadline! Until 15 Feb 2026, you can apply for #experimental #PhD position in our group to study species #invasions in the context of climate #warming and #eutrophication together with @kratina.bsky.social, Arnaud Sentis and Otto Seppälä. See bit.ly/4pcWMIV for details.

An broader invitation e-mail sent on Nov 27? That's when we got wind of it at our department.

I checked and from what I can find, apparently they can be on hold without having the IF suppressed - suppression can happen in cases of fraudulent citation patterns, but possibly not when the quality is questioned...

If I remember correctly: if put on hold, they don't recieve an impact factor at all until the issue is resolved (then either removed or get the IF back). But I might not remember correctly....

But then it should not have received a 2024 impact factor (i.e the value published in 2025)?

I see it when I search Journal Citation Reports (the "official" impact factor from Clarivate)... It got a 2024 IF of 8.0.

The New Fish: The Truth about Farmed Salmon and the Consequences We Can No Longer Ignore (paperback book) | Patagonia SE Published by Patagonia, <i>The New Fish</i> reveals the origins of salmon farming and the environmental considerations dismissed in the pursuit of economic gain.

I.e. this one. There is an audiobook in English - that's how I "read" it. eu.patagonia.com/se/en/produc...

The New Fish (by Simen Sætre and Kjetil Østli) - About salmon aquaculture. Good historical view and insight into how government may affect scientific research (in negative ways). Examples mainly from Norway, but also Canada and som other places.

In 1916 the BMJ published an article about the work done by James Shearer, an American physician working in the British Army as a sergeant (because he had no British qualification). He had described a "delineator" which was better than x rays for portraying gunshot wounds. This caused a sensation and a lot of interest — but on investigation the work was found to have been invented. The BMJ published a retraction, but Shearer was tried by court martial and sentenced to death by firing squad.

Next time an institution tells you how seriously it takes research misconduct, ask them if it's *this* seriously. www.bmj.com/content/297/...

The answer to the question in the title is: "Just send it to Science of the Total Environment, they'll take almost anything - no convincing of any editors needed..." They are known for publishing both good stuff and pseudoscience...

Seeing how important rivers, even smaller streams, seem to be for troop movements in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, one would expect the military to basically take over the whole river restoration operation...

Is there any discussion about the military defence value of restored wetlands, rivers, forests etc. in Finland? I have tried to raise the issue a bit in Sweden, with some mixed responses (a general interest, but not really sticking in peoples' minds...)

New review paper titled "Balancing hydropower production and ecology - ecological impacts, mitigation measures, and programmatic monitoring" published in KMAE. With @jnaslund.bsky.social and others. Read it here: www.kmae-journal.org/articles/kma...

We have a list of all known observed species in Sweden. That could be a basis for searching e.g. newspapers, trying to temporally map the observations. At the very least, such an analysis would show that warm-water species have occurred over at least 150+ years.

Yes, I think it has to be a qualitative analysis, with lots of dicussions around "effort"... records depend a lot on who is working where and when...

There are some possible sources that I have not yet looked through, like the yearbook of the Gothenburg Natural History Museum... and newspapers!

I'm working on a data set ;-) Not for that purpose though... The problem is that descriptive faunistic notes of rare species have basically disappeared from the northern European litterature since ca. 1970, creating a long period of data deficiency.

...but it is also a heavily disturbed ecosystem from the fish community point of view, which could leave the area open for colonization.

The now regular occurrence or even establishment of other species is more indicative I think, e.g. thinlipped mullet, golden grey mullet, surmullet, and tub gurnard...

Possibly climate related, but the Skagerrak area has a long history of warm-temperate species popping up every now and then.
To name a few:
Antantic fanfish 1929
Blackspot seabream 1869, 1871, 1879, 1960
Little tunny 1909
Plain bonito ca. 1875
Bouge 1931, 1940, 1959
Oceanic whitetip shark 2004

Inviting a new reviewer at the end of a review process (when people drop out) seems unlikely - but I guess they also need at least two reviewer names on the front page... at least it is transparent that way. But likely some bias as they would look for reviewers that will accept...

A major flaw in the Frontiers process (as it was when I reviewed) is, of course, that when a reviewer doesn't agree on publication and withdraw, then there is automatic consensus on publication among remaining reviewers... This possibly lets flawed manuscripts to pass... Maybe it has changed...

My opinion on Frontiers is not positive either, for many reasons. Their process involves a review and a discussion stage with authors (at least a few years ago), and all reviewers have to agree to publication (or withdraw from the process). Reviewer names are then added to paper front page.

Quite interesting. Review seems simlar to Frontiers' format (except 70% "voting" threshold for publishing, rather than 100%)? Actually not sure how it substantially differs from any other open-review journal..?

Not from the EU and looking to come to Sweden to do reseach? There is a grant for that! Applications taken through December 2025. www.vr.se/english/appl...

@tabstaveley.bsky.social

Couldn't they possibly just walk around it? See: doi.org/10.1016/j.be...

Have no recommendations, but I think PeerJ Preprints closed down several years ago...

Det vanliga verkar vara att 1. nämna något om EBF-mål, 2. få kommentar om att vi inte är i närheten av EBF, och 3. hänvisa till att EU:s gemensamma fiskeripolitik inte tillåter EBF. Men då faller hela målbilden, så varför ens lyfta frågan... helt klart snömos.

Stärker en tes som vi varit näst intill helt säkra på i minst 20 år... Varje gång någon hävdar ekosystembaserad- eller adaptiv förvaltning i sammanhanget havsmiljö/fiske (eller annan miljöförvaltning för den delen) så bör man protestera högljutt...