First off, the Journal does not claim anything, the authors of papers in it do. And the author of that 130 year-old paper does not claim any such thing, a man named Jules Marcou did (and not in a scientific journal) and the whole article is dedicated to refuting Marcou's theories. Since you clearly haven't bothered to read it, the gist of it is captured well by this single passage "Mr Marcou invites retaliation. His pamphlet is as barren of evidence as the article he published thirteen years ago.".

And even this refutation goes easy on it. The fundamental premise here that Amerigo Vespucci was supposedly named "Alberico" (i.e. a variant of Albert) is simply completely wrong. First because we have letters written in his own hand from 1492 where he spelled it "Amerigho", dating to well before the first 'America' maps (1507). Second because "Amerigo" has a completely different etymology, deriving from Germanic Amal (a people) and ric (ruler),and is well attested in the form "Amalric", "Emeric", etc. (the same ending seen with many Germanic names like 'Henric' and 'Theoderic') The notion that the name was somehow unheard of before 1507 is absurd, as is the idea that it'd actually be Albert, which has a completely different Germanic etymology, namely adal (noble) and beraht (bright).

Not that it really matters what Vespucci was actually named. What matters is that the cartographer Waldseemüller apparently believed it to be his name and labeled the continent after it. The argument against this is on the false premise that the name somehow didn't exist. But even if you'd assume that, it doesn't prove anything about the origin, as the article elaborates on, Marcou's methodology of hunting for names ending with -ic/-ique is simply bogus and -as it says- could just as well be used to prove Greenlanders settled France.

Is this some conspiracy theorist thing? Because the methodology is the same as what you see there, where some crackpot writes a letter to the CIA about purple aliens in their backyard which they promptly dismiss, and then the conspiracy theorists point to the CIA having documents about purple aliens to supposedly give the idea more credibility, relying on people ignoring the actual context. Is that's what's going on? Given that you're trying to attribute the idea to the journal, and not the person whose idea it was, and that you've apparently cross posted this to three subreddits but not read it.