Talk:OMICS Publishing Group/Archive 2

Publication of "acceptance letters"
At least some OMICS journals are now publishing "acceptance letters" from some Editors. See e.g.

This is interesting — apparently it's a response to the criticisms, but it is also a higher degree of transparency (on this specific point) than I've seen with any other journal. I think it should be mentioned in the article as a 'response by the publisher'. —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC))

Reliable sources to make neutral
This article is like a negative attach article. The following sources are useful to make it neutral. Company employees 1500+ and turnover  Service-  in Association with Government of Andhra Pradesh to make StartAP for sunrise new state of AP. 61.16.142.82 (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The first is a PR product with no reporting. The second and third say nothing substantive about OMICS, they are just passing mentions.  --JBL (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition, the article is neutral. Please see WP:NPOV. We need to report reliable sources in a neutral manner. If the sources are critical of a subject, then our article will, in consequence, be critical, too. The only way this article will ever become more positive about OMICS is if reliable sources speak positively about the company. Given the way they apparently have behaved up till now (and given how they go about trying to get this article changed), my guess is that this won't happen anytime soon. --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Paranoia?
Are we being paranoid by archiving everything that OMICS-affiliated editors may write on this talk page? The source quoting 1500 OMICS employees, and the suggested change of logo for the publishing arm of the group both look acceptable to include in the article to me. Banedon (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Is writing style of English in normal story of The Hindu newspaper in most times so grammatically and stylistically weird as it is to be in the linked source? Makes suggestion perhaps could be lack of having editorial control. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely suspicious, but if the Wikipedia article on The Hindu can be believed, it's a legitimate newspaper. Checking out the home page of the source as well (i.e. not just the OMICS article) indicates the same; the headlines are related to the Brussels bombing, which is what I would expect of a newspaper. Banedon (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, one of The Hindu's articles currently cited in the article is decidedly negative on OMICS as well,, ref #7 as of time of writing. Banedon (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my point is that The Hindu usually has a reasonably good standard of writing. In contrast the stylistic, erm, "distinctiveness" of the linked story suggests in may have been a PR piece that was printed verbatim (or nearly so). Lots of papers do that. WP:NEWSORG is relevant. The number of employees is not a huge deal either way, even if they might be less than objective. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Interviews are not always considered reliable, even if they appear in RS like The Hindu, because newspapers not always check what interviewees say. But I agree with SBHB: who cares whether the figure is 150 or 1500? --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone. --JBL (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I care because of 1) accuracy and 2) completeness. In the same way I notice removed a comment from a probable OMICS-affiliated IP that provided some sources for the revenue of OMICS. If those sources are reliable, I don't see why they shouldn't be included. One of the two sources mentioned by the IP is this same interview published in The Hindu, which as argued by SBHB above I'm a little dubious about the reliability. The other however looks reliable enough. If nobody objects I'll include it in the article. Banedon (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether that's a reliable source. The IP argued that it was based on it being listed by Dun & Bradstreet. However, that doesn't mean much, it just means that a company does business in the US. Obtaining a D&B listing is exceedingly easy (you just go online and fill out their form; I have a D&B number...). --Randykitty (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair point. I did some quick back-of-the-envelope calculations and the numbers seem improbable as well: if we estimate an average APC of $1000 per article (seems reasonable given OMICS APCs in this article), and assume the conference arm represents 50% of revenue, then $95 million total revenue would indicate about 42,500 articles published per year. That's tremendous. Comparatively Hindawi's output was 13,000 articles per year in 2011. I'm inclined to regard the sources as unreliable in that sense. The latest edit reverted by mentions an award by HYSEA. Some quick Googling indicates the award is not very notable - certainly the awarding body for example doesn't have a Wikipedia page. Further while the award is supposedly the 24th awarded in an annual event I'm unable to find information of the award winners prior to 2011. As a result I'm also inclined to not add it to the article. Banedon (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Reasons for my request to change this Wikipedia article are given below. All these latest points are missing from this Wikipedia page. I await the requested edits
The reasons for my request to change this Wikipedia article are given below. All these latest points are missing from this Wikipedia page. I await the requested edits

1.	The word "predatory" – No associated supportive evidence found. Theoretically and ethically no concrete evidence with example which reflects the OMICS group as predatory.

In fact as per the meaning of predatory_open_access_publishing as given in the Wikipedia url below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open_access_publishing -

it involves charging publication fees to authors without providing the 	editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals – The contention here is OMICS does offer editorial and publishing 	services with legitimate journals and charges fees for this service.

2.	Publishing Activities: Publishing Activities: No reference of the following article has been made. It does not seems to be fair. Wikipedia should be unbiased.

•	[|Dr. Srinubabu Gedela received the Young Scientist Award - Seoul, South Korea, 2007]

3.	About OMICS Group and the Promoter The second paragraph in the:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group is full of very 	old stuff which ceases to have any authenticity.

The latest update on OMICS Group should be linked in the last paragraph.

Contribution to Research and Society

[|Success and giving back to society]

About the Promoter - Dr. Srinibabu Gedela

4. About OMICS hiring and donation

[|Contribution to Science and Employment - OMICS: the Global publishing company to hire 150 candidates]

5. Awards to students

Shay Liu, a junior at Paul Laurence Dunbar High School, received the Best Poster Award after his oral presentation at the OMICS International Conference on Big Data Analysis and Data Mining, held May 4 and 5, 2015 in Lexington. Shuyi registered for the conference on his own, not with a school group, because it was intended for university professors, Ph.D. holders and other research professionals. His topic was CUDA-based parallel line integral convolution on GPU for high-performance visualization of large flow data. The award was based on recognition of his research's quality, novelty and significance.

Read more here: [|Best Poster Award presented to a budding scientist school boy by OMICS Group in Lexington]

22 Nobel Laureates Support the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Biology - Published by OMICS Group International. 22 Nobel Laureates Supporting the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Published by OMICS Group International - 2014

6. Paragraph on Action by US government agencies is a one-sided story and opinion. It looks so biased. Wikipedia should allow this.

The following link should also be added: Reply to FTC

[	FTC-Allegations.pdf Reply by the Solicitor to FTC]

6.	Awards for OMICS International Awards received by OMICS International — Preceding unsigned comment added by RLConline (talk • contribs) 12:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So you think press releases and the opinions of the company's employees somehow negate the findings of reliable independent sources? Not here they don't. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The only input (besides the nom and after a relist) wasn't very enthusiastic. (closed by a page mover).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

OMICS Publishing Group → OMICS International – The company has renamed, as mentioned by Beall in one of his latest blog posts. Beall is not an authority on OMICS's name, but I consider it the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back: after all, the company's webpage as currently given by the article already links to a company that calls itself OMICS International. In one of the talk page archives here it was argued that only the publishing arm is notable, but I would disagree with that now since OMICS conferences are also generating some notoriety. Renaming the article seems like the obvious thing to do. Banedon (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting.   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh. The sources used on the article give the name as "publishing group".  I don't hugely object to a rename, as long as a redirect is kept.  But it would help to see the independent sources that discuss the conference side of things.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

CC licensed images
OMICS is publishing medical content including useful images with Wikimedia compatible Creative Commons licenses. A post at WikiProject Medicine questions some of these images, saying that they seem to be watermarked to indicate copyright by publishers other than OMICS.

Is there anyone knowledgeable about OMICS who might comment on this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  22:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Source

 * https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/02/predatory-publishers/

 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  03:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Lead Source
OMICS Group is able to grow from 10 journals in 2009 to 700 journals by 2016 and publishing 50,000 articles yearly and readers also increased from 10,000 in 2009 to 15 million by 2016. 

Previous lead source is four years old, we should keep recent update for readers. 182.75.33.158 (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't agree with the edit. It doesn't provide the context very well. The source is evidently a statement by OMICS in response to controversy after they bought over a couple of reputable Canadian journals . That purchase should be given in the article, and OMICS' response can be given there; the current edit however is insufficient in coverage and, as presented, rather non-neutral. Banedon (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC).

Readers may not believe wikipedia if lead statements are untrue. OMICS Publishing journals are 700 and at lead section it is showing 200 journals in 2012? Wikipedia is a reliable source of belief, we should keep recent updates and reliable sources. 182.75.33.158 (talk) 08:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, Gedela, now that's a really reliable source for how good OMICS is! Here are two references about OMICS takeover of two Canadian publishers and buying journals from a third one about the consternation this has caused in the Canadian research community. Perhaps someone can work these into this article, I have no time at this moment. --Randykitty (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (this is the source mentioned by Banedon, but formatted)
 * Given an opportunity i would like to work. As mentioned in the sources OMICS is offshore company to Pulsus Group journals,,  "OMICS Group staff  will do only hosting, PDF formatting and design, there is no control on content and editorial practice of Pulsus Group journals. OMICS Group is doing this type service to many journals including 80 years old Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, this journal content and articles belongs to "Indian Pharmaceutical Association". OMICS have an agreement with 100+ societies for this type of service support" like that OMICS is an offshore company to Pulsus Group journals.182.75.33.158 (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's all what OMICS says. And it seems evident what value we should attach to anything they say: nothing at all. If there's a source independent of OMICS then something like this could be added, but given their track record, I don't think we should use anything OMICS says beyond "OMICS denies all this and claims that it is doing a wonderful job". --Randykitty (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's all what OMICS says. And it seems evident what value we should attach to anything they say: nothing at all. If there's a source independent of OMICS then something like this could be added, but given their track record, I don't think we should use anything OMICS says beyond "OMICS denies all this and claims that it is doing a wonderful job". --Randykitty (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you understand that OMICS is an offshore company to Pulsus Group journals? Then why OMICS sources  placed in Pulsus Group article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.75.33.158 (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I've blocked this user per the ban on representatives of OMICS. SmartSE (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Business Model
Can we keep following business model like other publishers Scientific Research Publishing

OMICS publishes fee-based open-access journals (Gold OA) under Open Access Creative Commons Attribution License. Payments are incurred per article published. Authors and contributors are permitted to archive their work (Green OA). Can archive postprint (ie final draft post-refereeing), and the publisher's PDF version may be used.|&mode=simple&la=en Runku4g (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, SHERPA doesn't completely source this, as it notes that individual journals may deviate from the general policy. In any case, the issue is already addressed in the next section. --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Just checked Scientific Research Publishing  at SHERPA, similarly notes that individual journals may deviate from the general policy ]. It's common format. OMICS Publishing Group is a lengthy article, clear business model is required.Runku4g (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the article on SCIRP needs modification. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We actually do not have a section named "business model" for most articles on academic publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Randykitty, I am not interested in prolong discussions. I just checked almost all Open Access publishers wiki pages kept the section "Business Model" P.S. Hindawi Publishing Corporation,ScienceOpen, PeerJ, ELife, Frontiers Media and Scientific Research Publishing. Even PLOS kept as Financial model. Previous editors kept this format for better identification, let us follow the same criteria for OMICS. Appreciate your inputs. Runku4g (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I am keeping Business model in the OMICS article as it is common section for all open access publishers. Runku4g (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You won't be "keeping" it unless there is consensus among editors here that it should be added. At a minimum, it can't be kept because it lacks a reliable source...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, What consensus? We can keep Article processing charge link also. But, all most all wikipedia open access journal articles publishers kept section "Business Model" P.S:Hindawi Publishing Corporation,ScienceOpen, PeerJ, ELife, Frontiers Media, Scientific Research Publishing and PLOS. We can keep article processing charge/business model/financial model for business clarity. Runku4g (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What useful information is in the section you want to add and not already in the "Publishing activities" section? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, i just gone through "publishing activities" section, previously checked the business model only. Let's rename it as "Business model" like others publishers with few changes for existing content.

OMICS operates on an open access model, wherein the author pays for publication and the publisher makes the articles available for free. Authors and contributors are permitted to archive their work (Green OA). Can archive postprint (ie final draft post-refereeing), and the publisher's PDF version may be used.|&mode=simple&la=en According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, some open access journals are legitimate, while others are vanity publications "that accept virtually any article to collect fees from the authors." There is not always a clear distinction between the two. The publication fee for OMICS journals vary from the low hundreds up to $2,700. OMICS also charges a withdrawal fee (stated as 30% of the article processing charge) should a paper be withdrawn more than a week after submission www.omicsonline.org/article-processing-charges.php.

sorry for confusion. Runku4g (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To me a "business model" section should focus on information I would find very boring and not useful to include: what kind of legal entity they are set up as, what taxes they pay, how their internal accounting works, etc. The current "publishing activities" is a better fit for what we actually want to describe, which is what they require of their authors and readers. And as other editors here have already said, your "let's make it like the articles on other publishers" argument carries little weight with me: why not instead make those other articles like this one? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur with David Eppstein. Instead of having a business model section for all OA publishers, we should have a central article on OA publishing (or predatory OA publishing) and link every article about a publisher to that one. Banedon (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Let us proceed with "Publishing activities & Business Model" with few additions for OMICS article as above. I am doing the changes for other publishers also along with few additions. As Banedon indicated we can create a common article on Open access publishing fee (can add predatory open access publishing fee section). OR we can add sections to the existing Article processing charge, from there we can link to all open access publishers. Runku4g (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Business model is a common word, even layman can understand. Wiki content should be simple to understand. Runku4g (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So is fraud. What's your connection to OMICS, by the way? I note that virtually all your (very few) edits concern OMICS or Pulsus. You're arguing here with people who have vastly greater experience of Wikipedia, and advancing what seems to be a PR agenda. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We have articles on all that: open access, article processing charge, predatory open access publishing. --Randykitty (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate, I have to do more comments/suggestions in this article only, not other articles where I edited. Please check. Good aspect is, we will get quality output after thorough discussion with experts. Suggestion, we can proceed with "Publishing activities & Business Model" section for all publishers. Section title(s) Journals/Publishing activities can only understand by scholars not by regular readers. We are writing wiki content to all type of readers. Runku4g (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You "forgot" to answer the question about your connection to OMICS. 23:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

ConferenceSeries
Just popping a couple of sources here about their conferences:. SmartSE (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They seem unable to resist the lure of filthy lucre :-( Guy (Help!) 22:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Bloomberg piece
Plenty of information that the article is lacking has been published in Bloomberg. SmartSE (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I added a little about the revenue & the motivation for founding, don't see much else to add though. The article could mention the collaboration with the pharmaceutical companies, but I don't see a good reason to single out the industry. Banedon (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

is following are suitable for sources? [] PR- 111.93.22.62 (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on OMICS Publishing Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151022141644/http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/12/18/the-omics-publishing-groups-empire-is-expanding/ to http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/12/18/the-omics-publishing-groups-empire-is-expanding/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510131448/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/government-accuses-open-access-p.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/05/government-accuses-open-access-p.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160605042104/https://scholarlyoa.com/2013/01/25/omics-predatory-meetings/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2013/01/25/omics-predatory-meetings/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161106003123/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/13/bogus-british-company-accredits-omics-conferences/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/10/13/bogus-british-company-accredits-omics-conferences/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Some really good sources
This Canadian source discusses WASET and OMICS.

Another Canadian source in French also discusses both. Universities are being scammed but worse respectable academics are cooperating, publish or perish! Allied Academies is a similar organisation recently bought by OMICS and is discussed in this source. I'm going to write something about on all of these to take somewhere, probably Jimbo's page. Doug Weller talk 09:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:RGW applies though. Material from the source you linked is already in the article as well, in the section "conference sting". Banedon (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we can report what reliable sources say. The LaPresse source isn't used yet. An even better source is


 * SCOPUS has dumped a lot of OMICS journals.


 * New owner of two Canadian medical journals is publishing fake research for cash, and pretending it's genuine


 * PubMed has banned OMICS, but not very successfully." PubMed may be consciously or unwittingly acting as a facilitator of predatory or unscrupulous publishing."


 * The DeSmogBlog ran an article about them a few months ago in relation to a climate conference. Doug Weller  talk 14:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a need to add sources to statements that are already well-sourced though? Almost everything you listed is already in the article. The Bloomberg source is currently #1 in the references. Scopus dumping OMICS journals is also in the article (CTRL + F "Scopus"). Acquisition of Pulsus & Andrew John Publishing has its own section, with sources attesting to the decline in publishing standards. Pubmed banning OMICS is in the lede, and while some OMICS journals may have slipped through, that seems more suited to an article on Pubmed than on OMICS. The only source not mentioned is the DeSmogBlog article, but again there is not much new in there. The material on climate science is clearly not suited here (but rather in an article on the climate change controversy or similar). The article clearly implies that OMICS is predatory, but that's already well-covered in this article. The only thing that could be added is to say that OMICS is organizing conferences for climate change deniers, but I am not sure that is important. Clearly someone (not necessarily acting with predatory intentions) is going to be organizing such conferences, and usually there's some disclaimer that says "the material in this conference does not necessarily represent the position of the organizers". Banedon (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we now have a better source than Retraction Watch. Allied Acadmies still isn't mentioned. But if you are saying there's nothing in these sources that belongs in the article, and that none of them that aren't used in the article aren't newer or better, ok. Doug Weller  talk 14:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Allegations made by FTC against OMICS have not been proved at the court, court gave preliminary injection to OMICS stating, cease any misrepresentations and submit required information to FTC. OMICS responded and expressed their cooperation to support FTC in providing necessary documentation. 223.237.5.121 (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "court gave preliminary injection to OMICS"
 * I think you mean, "court gave a preliminary injunction against OMICS" Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Athens Institute for Education & Research and the "Athens Journal of History"
and anyone else, before I go to RSN I want to confirm that the "Athens Institute for Education & Research" is related to OMICS and specifically the "Athens Journal of History" which has published this dubious article. There's some background related to the Sweatman here and here. Both of those discussions have contributions from socks of Firedrake.Sockpuppet investigations/FireDrake/Archive. See also this. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Forgot [www.omicsonline.org/conferences-list/4th-annual-international-conference-on-nursing this]. The journal is used in 3 articles. Pinging who alerted me to this. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hum not sure User:Doug Weller. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OMICS and the Athens Institute have collaborated to run/sponsor conferences [www.omicsonline.org/conferences-list/4th-annual-international-conference-on-nursing]. But cooperation on that level happens between legitimate and unrelated organizations all the time, so I'm not convinced that this is evidence of much. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

"Cellular & Molecular Biology" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cellular &. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Journal of Defense Management redirects here. Why?
? Arminden (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because, at least according to WorldCat, it's a journal published by OMICS, and because generally for journals from predatory publishers we redirect to the publisher (so that people looking up the journal can see that it's a journal from a predatory publisher) rather than having a separate article about the journal itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)