Talk:OMICS Publishing Group

Active discussions

COI editing of this pageEdit

Sockpuppets of Srinubabuau6
Confirmed: Jack1144 (talk · contribs· Omics Group Inc (talk · contribs· Computerinformatics (talk · contribs· Openaccesssupporter (talk · contribs·  · Scholarscentral (talk · contribs· Appdroid (talk · contribs· Sarakadam (talk · contribs· Myfilm11 (talk · contribs· Movies1432 (talk · contribs· Lizia7 (talk · contribs· Srinubabuau6 (talk · contribs· Monicagellar 08 (talk · contribs)
Likely: Rich1982 (talk · contribs· Matthew Jacobson 4 ! (talk · contribs· Shreyagupta1401 (talk · contribs· Henrymark20 (talk · contribs· Chicago1432 (talk · contribs· Paulwood99 (talk · contribs)

Some really good sourcesEdit

@Smartse, JzG, and Banedon: This Canadian source[1] discusses WASET and OMICS.

Another Canadian source[2] 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 [3]
SCOPUS has dumped a lot of OMICS journals.[4]
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.[5] 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. [6] (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"Edit

@Banedon, Andy Dingley, and Doc James: 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.[7] There's some background related to the Sweatman here[8] and here[9]. Both of those discussions have contributions from socks of Firedrake.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FireDrake/Archive. See also this. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Forgot this. The journal is used in 3 articles.[10] Pinging @Joe Roe: 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 [11]. 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 discussionEdit

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

Journal of Defense Management redirects here. Why?Edit

? 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)


According to this, OMICS has been excluded from Crossref, meaning that it's journals don't have valid DOIs any more. Those that are displayed are apparently fake (p. 4). I have not added this to the article, because I have no access to the complete article on The Geyser and the second source is a PhD thesis, which I'd rather not cite. Perhaps somebody here has access to The Geyser or can find another adequate source. Given the importance of correct DOIs for accessing articles, this is a major thing. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

According to the Crossref board minutes, the following motions have been passed:
  • To ratify the account termination, for cause, of OMICS Publishing Group (Member ID 2674); Ashdin Publishing (Member ID 2853); Scitechnol Biosoft Pvt. Ltd. (Member ID 9225); and Herbert Publications PVT LTD (Member ID 4912).
  • That the Executive Committee's May 29, 2020 termination of certain Crossref members linked with former Crossref member OMICS is hereby ratified.
Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Return to "OMICS Publishing Group" page.