Talk:Pulsus Group

Offshore company

As mentioned in the sources OMICS is offshore company to Pulsus Group journals, [1], [2] "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" OMICS is just an offshore company to Pulsus Group journals. So I am removing OMICS references and links. 182.75.33.158 (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• No you wont. That's all based on claims by OMICS themselves and not what other, independent sources say. --Randykitty (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Business model

Hi Randykitty We need the business model should be placed at Pulsus Group article. Readers should understand the business model, they are doing service support to societies not owning the content/journals , with your permission I am keeping, please edit if you need proper style Jessie1979 (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty In the source [3] Dr. Ralph Chou, editor-in-chief of the Canadian Journal of Optometry, said that the Canadian Association of Optometrists has cancelled their contract with OMICS and will be finding a new publisher by the end of the year. The editor in chief is not resigned, they went for different publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessie1979 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am editing as per the source, please let me!Jessie1979 (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• The resignation of the EICs is in only one of the two sources, so I have moved that up to directly behind the statement. --Randykitty (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty In one Para graph William Jia, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia’s Brain Research Centre, said he was invited to be an editor at the surgery journal and agreed, but never ended up doing any work for OMICS. He now says that if there is a problem with the peer-review process at OMICS, he would like to remove his name from the editorial board. “I don't want to be associated with that,” he said. He is the OMICS Editorial board member not Pulsus In another Para graph "In some cases, the chief editors of affected journals have resigned" But no details.

So the statement of editor-in-chiefs resignation is wrong Jessie1979 (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• The source is crystal clear: "In some cases, the chief editors of affected journals have resigned". That clearly does not refer to someone who agreed to become an editor and then had second thoughts. --Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

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) 09:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

We can proceed with business model. As it using for all open access publishers. Jessie1979 (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

History

Hi Randykitty Thank you for clarity. We should add founder name and his comments at history.

Robert Kalina started up the publishing company in 1984 to provide Canadian doctors with an alternative to American journals. --- The former owner of Pulsus said, “OMICS realizes that they are on the predatory publishers list and had made a commitment to us to change their ways"

Hi Randykitty I am planning to add following at history as Pulsus journals are owned by societies and OMICS is doing service support, please advice?

As per present owner statement, Andrew John publishing and Pulsus are reputable publishing houses and both of them are running under Pulsus publishing now. Majority of the journals hosted by these companies are supervised by reputed medical societies, publisher has minimal role on editorial policy and practice. OMICS employees process PDF formatting,design and hosting there is no control on content and editorial practice of Pulsus Group journals. OMICS is doing this type service to some journals including 80 years old Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, this journal content and articles belongs to "Indian Pharmaceutical Association". [4] Jessie1979 (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Don't think this is a good idea. It all sounds very nice, but it is only sourced to what OMICS themselves say. Given their seedy track record, we cannot just take their word for it. Consider also that the major people at Pulsus have left and will be replaced by people chosen by OMICS... frankly, I'd be surprised if any society-owned journals are going to stay with Pulsus as long as it is owned by OMICS. --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• • Thank you Randykitty, I suggest as per the source we can keep. We can do edits based on the development of future pulsus publishing track record, I hope this is a wiki policy. As per my understanding Pulsus business model different, publishing service to societies/ not owned the publishing journals. OMICS business model is owning the journals & IP. Please advice? Jessie1979 (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you propose, but I think that at this point, we have said all that need and can be said. We have to base ourselves upon the sources and upon what those sources have verified themselves. There is absolutely nothing that we can say about the future of Pulsus, we shouldn't use a crystal ball to try to predict that. Nor should we use the pronouncements of Pulsus' new owners as an indication of what the future holds. As for OMICS' business model, as far as I can see it is simply to squeeze as much money out of the research enterprise as they can (by publishing crappy but cheap journals and organizing crappy but cheap "conferences"). Perhaps they are going to change their ways as their CEO promised in this interview, but we'll have to wait and see whether that actually is going to happen. --Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• • HiRandykitty, my understanding is these two companies business model is different, and it should be clear to readers. I would be happy if you keep your inputs to the proposed paragraph. I know you are senior editor and advice me in this aspect. Jessie1979 (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

As per talk [5], let me edit accordingly. Pulsus Group is 32 years old company and it has its own business model, no need to keep OMICS sources here? We can keep the acquisition sources. Similarly Future Medicine is an independent prominent publisher from UK and no need to keep OMICS sources here. Jessie1979 (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Updates

Pulsus journals are 49 with 15 societies. as per website/their open access week news. Updating the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijps1934 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Randykitty As mentioned in the PR[6], Pulsus headquartered in London, UK and with it’s offices in Ontario, Canada and Hyderabad, India. Can we add location at lead, office location is important for local employment. Jessie1979 (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Request locking or blocking of new accounts from editing article. Last three edits regarding Pulsus Group conducting meetings are likely from sockpuppets. Cursory research reveal both IPs are from Bharti Airtel, located in the same city, and even the same coordinates. 222.124.120.36 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

New Source

Pulsus provides healthcare services.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.253.137 (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pulsus 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/20160917143148/https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ to http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
• 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/20161012004314/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/09/29/scam-publisher-omics-international-buying-legitimate-journals/ to https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/09/29/scam-publisher-omics-international-buying-legitimate-journals/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

COI tag (May 2023)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Applus2021 Johannnes89 (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Johannnes89, that's a big drawer full of socks! Nevertheless, I don't think the COI and ADVERT tags are needed: there are several editors here that keep an eye on this article and delete any spammy stuff immediately. --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the advice and for keeping an eye on this article! I noticed too late that the contributions were mostly reverted by you & other editors. Johannnes89 (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• No problem, just let us know if we missed something. --Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)