Talk:OMICS Publishing Group/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

History

As per my knowledge we should include the history of the group as following

The Group, with the help of Human proteome organization initiated to start Open Access journal in proteomics at 6th Annual HUPO World Congress, South Korea in 2007. Perhaps, started its first open-access journal, the journal of proteomics & bioinformatics in 2008 with the founding editors Srinubabu Gedela, Richard Simpson, Richard D.Smith , Fuchu He , Cathy Wu , Helmut Meyer and Kazuyuki Nakamura later Dick Smith was appointed as Editor-in-Chief. The Noble laureate Koichi Tanaka also contributed a paper to the 4th volume inaugural issue of this journal in 2011.

Negatives and positives about the published articles

One of the OMICS Group's journals, the Journal of Earth Science & Climatic Change, published a paper written by Otis D. Williams that theorized a formative connection among Stonehenge and global climate change. This seems to indicate a lack of peer review and the article was later removed by the publisher without a retraction notice being published. In contrast, a paper published in the Journal of Bioterrorism and Biodefense that challenged aspects of the FBI's investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, received some media attention.

One/two wiki editors are intentionally deleting the important sources of this article without proper reason. Negative/positive credit should go the publisher of the journals along with respective journal.

So far this Group is conducted more than 50 conferences in USA but, it was not mentioned even deleted as per wiki revision history and mentioned only one in India? It is a clear evidence of important sources deletion intentionally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich1982 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Okay, first: you must use one account only in editing this article; that means not also editing without being logged in. If you use multiple accounts to edit, you will be blocked for using WP:SOCKPUPPETS. Second, I have no idea what it means to say "as per my knowledge we should..." edit in a particular way. We edit here according to Wikipedia policies/guidelines, using sources that meet the relevant policies/guidelines such as WP:RS. On your first source listed above (hupo.org): that source does not say anything at all about OMICS Publishing Group, so I don't see how it is meant to be useful to explain the origins of the company. It is true that sources are being deleted intentionally -- because they do not work to support the text you are adding and/or they do not meet the WP:RS policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for update and guidance! For any article / group history is required. So, I am trying to pick the data about the group start-up. I would be happy if you could help in editing as per wiki guidelines instead of deleting all data. This Group is trying to do something to the scientific community through Open access journals and conferences. I am providing the details of positives and negatives of review processing. Even though they are individual journals but negative/positive should go the publisher. I am collecting the information regarding conferences.

So far this group is conducted around 80 conferences including 3rd World Congress on Biotechnology at Hyderabad Hydrology & Water Expo at San Antonio and International Conference & Exhibition on Virology at Las Vegas.

The Group, with the help of counsel members of Human proteome organization initiated to start Open Access journal in proteomics. Perhaps, started its first open-access journal, the journal of proteomics & bioinformatics in 2008 with the founding editors Srinubabu Gedela, Richard Simpson, Richard D.Smith , Fuchu He , Cathy Wu , Helmut Meyer and Kazuyuki Nakamura later Dick Smith was appointed as Editor-in-Chief. The Noble laureate Koichi Tanaka also contributed a paper to the 4th volume inaugural issue of this journal in 2011.

One of the OMICS Group's journals, the Journal of Earth Science & Climatic Change, published a paper written by Otis D. Williams that theorized a formative connection among Stonehenge and global climate change. This seems to indicate a lack of peer review and the article was later removed by the publisher without a retraction notice being published. In contrast, a paper published in the Journal of Bioterrorism and Biodefense that challenged aspects of the FBI's investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, received some media attention. Rich1982 (talk) 10:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If required please keep following in further reading section:

• Richard J. Simpson, "[www.omicsonline.org/ArchiveJPB/2008/April/01/JPB1.i.pdf Inaugural Editorial]." Journal of Proteomics & Bioinformatics, April 2008. Accessed November 19, 2012.
• R. F. El-Kased1, C. Koy1, P. Lorenz2, H. Montgomery3, K. Tanaka et al., "[ www.omicsonline.org/0974-276X/JPB-04-001.pdf Inaugural issue volume 4, 2011]." Journal of Proteomics & Bioinformatics, January 02, 20011. Accessed November 19, 2012. Rich1982 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

References

• Rich1982, I have gone through your recent edits incrementally, with edit summaries that hopefully explain clearly why I removed any stuff. Please don't re-add this material without first discussing here why you think my edits were not justified. Please don't remove critical references from the article, either. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Randykitty, as usual you deleted all content, for any group/journal start-up founding members are important. JPB is the first journal of this group. Please read their biography where it was mentioned as founding members of this journal. This is the reason why i provided their biographies reflecting to their individual University web pages. Readers should know the founding editors of the group's first journal. How the group was started is important. I would say it is intentional deletion.

As per wiki neutrality, we should provide both positive and negative. Your intentional editing is towards negative and removing all positive points. So, you are requested to place the removed content.Rich1982 (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• As I explained in the edit summaries, who those founding editors were are not important for THIS article. If there were an article on the journal, this info would go there, but that article was deleted after an AfD. Therefore, now including this info here is a surreptitious way of circumventing that community decision. In addition, several of the "references" that you added just gave a biography of these persons, without mention OMICS or the journal. As per WP:UNDUE and a whole slate of other WP policies, this material is not suitable for inclusion in this article. The only (minor) point that is slightly of importance for this article is that the first journal was started in 2008, which is the information that I have left, together with a reference to the editorial. --Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• BTW, this edit makes it very difficult for me to assume good faith. I'll leave it up to others to revert this and your last edits, as I am already violating the spirit (and possibly the letter) of 3RR (but so are you). --Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Randykitty, we should include the Noble laureate Koichi Tanaka contribution towards first Open Access journals in proteomics.Rich1982 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, we shouldn't. This kind of thing is not even mentioned in articles on the journals themselves (see for example Nature, which has published dozens of Nobel Prize winners, but the only mention is a case where people won the Prize after it was rejected by Nature), even less so then in the article on the publisher. And what is you justification for putting back "references" to faculty pages and such that don't support the statements you make? Or the removal of a reference with a totally misleading edit summary? --Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Their blog

Please discuss before editing of this article. In 2012, OMICS Publishing Group has launched Scholars Central which is a database of all Open Access journals and articles. It also contains information of all the scientific conferences that are to be held all over the globe. In order to provide better visibility to its journals and conferences OMICS has created eclinical central, epharma central, emedical central, and escience central with all the journals and conferences related to their respective subjects. And also a blog which describes day to day scientific updates.Rich1982 (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

References

How is that encyclopedic? "better visibility" equates to publicise. Where is this discussed in independent reliable sources? Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller, this is just publicity for their products. I'm going to remove it. Please don't re-add (or add other promotional stuff) before discussing it here on the talk page. thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nomoskedasticity, Thanks for your contributions. I would like to know your opinion regarding intentional deletion of edits without providing editing summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group.Rich1982 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What? I didn't delete anything -- I merely made the paragraphs more coherent. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you deleted one important added reference, if you feel it is not such a big deal, then don't make undo again without proper edit summery? It is my opinion, let me know your opinion. Rich1982 (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think I did -- I only moved the sentence you added to the previous paragraph. In each version there are six references. If you still think I'm wrong, please do let me know, stating which reference is missing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty, Please go through the above discussion on 11-20-2012. Rich1982 (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• And? I don't see any consensus about adding the stuff that you just were edit-warring about. As I have noted above, it's becoming more and more difficult to assume good faith from your side. You only edit this article and you only seem to be interested in changing it in such a way that the publisher looks better. I cannot but assume that you are somehow connected to this publisher and would direct you to our conflict of interest guideline. --Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty and Nomoskedasticity, I am sorry if I am wrong regarding edit-war. Let me know your intention to un-popularizeRich1982 (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC) the group.

What? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nomoskedasticity, What is not the answer for intentional deletion of edits, please discuss before intentional deletion of others edits, sorry if i am wrongRich1982 (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Given the way this edit deleted information, my only response for now is: you first. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nomoskedasticity I would like to add following sentence OMICS Publishing Group is a publisher of approximately 250 open access journals in a number of academic fields with the support from 20,000 editorial board members (http://pharma.financialexpress.com/sections/market-section/1341-criteria-of-speaker-selection-is-important-to-convey-the-quality-level). In my opinion, we should pick both positive and negative points from the respective references to follow the wiki neutrality. From Nature article you collected negative point instead of neutrality sentence. Rich1982 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• We don't give information about numbers of editorial board members for publisher's like Elsevier (because it is basically impossible to independently verify) and I see no reason to do this differently here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty and Nomoskedasticity, i would like to add one paragraph regarding this group conferences. This group is conducting around 70 scientific conferences per year in multiple cities around the world. Following references i would like to include, let me know your opinion.

http://pharma.financialexpress.com/sections/market-section/1341-criteria-of-speaker-selection-is-important-to-convey-the-quality-level

http://news.indiamart.com/story/omics-group-organize-three-day-pharma-conference-171427.html

http://www.biometricupdate.com/201303/omics-group-announces-2nd-international-conference-on-biometrics-and-biostatistics/

http://pharmabiz.com/Services/ProjectTenders/PrintArticle.aspx?aid=72244&sid=1

http://www.pharmabiz.com/PrintArticle.aspx?aid=63172&sid=1

http://pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=72330&sid=2

http://www.mumbainews.net/index.php/sid/213333964/scat/b8de8e630faf3631

http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=47046

http://www.contify.com/stories/38249856?fromSearch=news&sort=approved_on&page=1&q=&timeline=&company_tags=OMICS%20Group%7CN&internal=false. So far they conducted around scientific conferences in different countries like Australia, China, India and USA. Please don't delete without discussion.Rich1982 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately we are discussing. As for the proposal: you need to become acquainted with WP:RS. Most (and perhaps all) of the sources you suggest do not meet this policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity and Randykitty, why you are removing important references (financialexpress.com) regarding positive points of the group. What is your confilct interest with this group to making it completely negative. Chicago1432 (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hey Rich, are you aware of the policy concerning using a new account to circumvent a block? --Randykitty (talk) 8:06 pm, Today (UTC+2)

• I have opened a sockpuppet investigation here. --Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they have a conflict of interest (read WP:COI) but they can answer for themselves. But since you think they must answer your question I expect you to answer the same question - do you have any relationship with this publishing company in any way ? Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am a speker at todays OMICS Group conference in Chicago. Chicago1432 (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are, darling -- you, "Rich", and "Henry". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Nomoskedasticity and Randykitty, it is your minimum responsibiloity to come to the discussion before removing important edits done by other editors. Chicago1432 (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• All these "important edits" have been discussed ad nauseam. Stop pushing your POV. --Randykitty (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Demands an Explanation from Randykitty

• Hello Randy kitty..

Thank you for the reply on the talk page and sorry if I have frustrated you on the talk page..

I don’t understand what kind of joke did you find in the context..

I have few concerns about this article..Go through them and I expect an answer for all these concerns

1) Check, You have stated third party references as reliable.so can you please let me know why information related to OMICS Group published in pharma financial express has been deleted?

2) If you could please go through the NYT and Nature, there are both Positive and Negative statements about the Group, can you let me know why only negative is being highlighted and positive is being deleted all the time.

3) To my knowledge, the theme of the article published in NYT and nature should be picked rather than pasting the lines from the source. If lines are to be included both negative and positive lines should be included. Why did you skip this??

4) Please check these links http://www.nature.com/nnano/pricing/index.html

http://www.nature.com/srep/faqs/openaccess-faqs.html

http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/apcfaq/howmuch

www.omicsgroup.org/journals/instructionsforauthorsJAMK.php

www.omicsonline.org/instructionsforauthorsPhysiol.php

Every publishing group charges Article Processing Charges (APC) and it differs from subject to subject and country to country. So, can you explain me why only OMICS processing charges are being highlighted??More over in the nature article regarding $2700 APC it has been stated that they were unable to contact author. How can this be justified??

Randykitty, I expect an answer for all my concerns....Henrymark20 (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I said, only those who aren't sockpuppets... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur. You won't get any more replies from me: WP:Don't feed the trolls. --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

Request for [[WP:CONSENSUS] I was unable to find "'Some academics have been listed for OMICS conferences without their agreement; the company has also been slow to remove the names of editorial board members who requested to terminate their relationship with OMICS activities."'these lines anywhere in the NYT article...When these sentences are being deleted by wiki editors a neutrality dispute is being raised.So, please suggest accordingly...Paulwood99 (talk) 16:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing you haven't clicked on "Page 2" of the article. It's all right there in the last 6 or 7 paragraphs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The article states in a neutral way what the sources say. If you want the article to say that this is a wonderful publisher, all you have to do is convince a reliable source to say that. My guess is that you'll have a hard time finding anyone willing to say anythign positive about them (I keep getting spam from them to publish in journals that are not even in my field, to attend meetings that are not in my field and those that are in my field have "distinguished" speakers, organizers, editors, and editorial board members that nobody has ever heard of). As far as I'm concerned, there is a clear consensus here (remember that unanimity is not needed for consensus) that the article is neutral and I move for the POV tag to be removed. --Randykitty (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

As a first-time editor of this page, I have read through the discussions as well as the sources and strongly agree with the consensus that no POV tag is needed. I also note with distaste the sockpuppetry in evidence above. The OMICS group is notable entirely or almost entirely because of the negative publicity it has generated. The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Science and Nature have covered the issues involved and are unimpeachable sources. As I found it today, the article did not even seem to me to fully reflect the weight of the sources. Hence my edits. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"Scientific conferences"`

Can we please get some closure on this edit. My view: the source (interview with the director of the company, [1]) is not the sort of thing that is sufficient to justify the claims -- the director can claim anything at all in the interview, there's no sense in which this is a secondary source. Beyond that, the material itself falls foul of WP:TOPIC -- this article is about OMICS Publishing Group, but the material in question is about conferences organised by the parent company, "OMICS Group". If there were an article on OMICS Group, then perhaps... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting points. I propose the following: let's move this article to "OMICS Group" with one subdivision, "OMICS Publishing Group". The latter would be basically the article we have now. We would need a lead, which could be very brief and which could mention that the group organizes conferences and has a publishing subdivision. That they have conferences can be verified from their homepage and from the financialexpress interview. I agree with Nomoskedasticity that we don't have any independent sources to say anything more. --Randykitty (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the conferences activity is sufficiently important to justify restructuring the article in that way. There's just not enough sources meeting our standards to indicate that the conference activity is notable (having received some of the spam emails about them myself, I suspect the conferences are just as "predatory" as the journals, though apparently there aren't sources to prove it yet). I'm not wildly opposed to it, but I don't think there are good reasons to do it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The Group is conducted around 100 scientific conferences and listed another 75 to conduct in this academic year. If you are making the page negative then it is very difficult for the attendees (arund 25,000) to get the reimbursement from thier University/Institute. I am happy with thier conferences, we are here to help the scientific community. In my opinion let us create one more page with the name OMICS Group Conferences. Please help in this. If required I will provide references. Chicago1432 (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL suggests quite strongly that there is no basis for a separate article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not proposing to create a separate article, merely renaming this one so that a single sentence on the conferences can be included. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that about your idea above; my comment immediately above was a response to Chicago1432 (probably obvious, but just in case). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)If you have independent references in reliable sources, then those are welcome, of course. Up till now, I have not seen any negative coverage of these conferences (and no positive either). Frankly, looking at those conferences, they mostly seem to have overblown names ("International", "World", "Summit"), the websites contain multiple grammatical errors, the speakers mostly seem to be mediocre at best, the photo galleries show half empty lecture rooms with 30-50 attendees, and the registration fees are very (VERY) high, so I don't expect much coverage anytime soon. Nevertheless, this is just my impression and without sources that won't go in the article. What I propose above would be a neutral statement that OG organizes scientific meetings. Nothing less, nothing more. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please let me know following are sufficient. http://pharma.financialexpress.com/sections/market-section/1341-criteria-of-speaker-selection-is-important-to-convey-the-quality-level

http://www.biometricupdate.com/201303/omics-group-announces-2nd-international-conference-on-biometrics-and-biostatistics/

http://pharmabiz.com/Services/ProjectTenders/PrintArticle.aspx?aid=72244&sid=1

http://www.pharmabiz.com/PrintArticle.aspx?aid=63172&sid=1

http://pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=72330&sid=2

In my opinion Pharmabiz is the leading pharma news magzine along with Financial express. Please clarify? Chicago1432 (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That sort of trade industry publication doesn't count as real journalism, in my view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, look like press releases to me. --Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Pharmabiz and Financialexpress are leading news coverage magzines. These articles are about news coverage of OMICS Group Conferences, if required i will search few more. If you are making the page negative then it is very difficult for the attendees (arund 25,000) to get the reimbursement from thier University/Institute. Please understand my concern about the speakers and participants. Upon your approval i will proceed for new article creation.Chicago1432 (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I think what you probably mean is that it will make it hard for participants to agree to attend your conferences and you will then make less money. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am discussing the concerns about the speakers and attendees not for money. Wikipedia is a platform for enhancement of scholars and not for negative campaign. With your support i would like to create the new page for OMICS Group conferences as they are conducting the conferences from last five years in different parts of the world (around 100 completed and listed another 75).As alwyas your support will improve thequality and clarity of the article- OMICS Group Conferences.Chicago1432 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• A separate article for OMICS Conferences is at this point absolutely out of the question. Good sources first, then we can have an article. --Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• I do agree with Randykity suggetion regarding renaming of OMICS Publishing Group to OMICS Group.In future will go for separate OMICS Group Conferences page?

Contents of OMICS Group including, Founding, OMICS Group Conferences, OMICS Publishing Group, Other services, Further reading, References and External links. Chicago1432 (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I don't want to disturb the present page of OMICS Publishing Group, I would like to one or two more pargaphs. To support the director ship of director Dr. Gedela Let us add the referece Srnubabu.com OR <Chicago1432 (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those sources is the sort of thing that is contemplated by WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

References

I added one line about their conferences with strong reference like india well known news pager Deccan Chronicle. They are conducting huge number of conferences, but I have only 3 strong references. I think every editor will agree that. MD of OMICS Group opinion also, I mentioned. It shows his view only, not ours. So, all editors support me.User:sarakadam

The article in the Deccan Chronicle is a passing mention of someone affiliated with OMICS -- it contains no usable information about either OMICS or it's conferences. (Indeed, it does not even assert that the conference is an OMICS conference.) --JBL (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"No content"

Reference is not fair to say journals are not having content, It was the opinion of somebody. Author can check if the content is there are not www.omicsonline.org/open-access-journals-list.php sarakadam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarakadam (talk • contribs) 07:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors, we must strive to follow what is reported by reliable sources. The Chronicle of Higher Education is without doubt a reliable source, and individual editors' views of its fairness or bias are of no import. It is not our role to conduct original research to determine whether the source is "right". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Keepcalmandcarryon, please give reason for reverting? Myfilm11 (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The edits introduced errors (such as inappropriate symbols before place names) and were otherwise undesirable. For example, "journal editors and conference speakers" is correct. The change is not, as there is no such thing as a "journal speaker". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's unclear why the "parent company" should be the same thing as the publishing group, since the latter appears to be part of a larger group along with the conference-organising arm. There is also no evidence I'm aware of that OMICS organises business meetings. Even if they did, I don't know what relevance that would have to this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Changing of article title from "OMICS Publishing Group" to "OMICS Group"

Hello... Content related to OMICS Group Conferences and other activities of OMICS can't be listed under OMICS Publishing Group Article as the title and content would be different. So, I feel article title can be changed to OMICS Group as all other activities of OMICS can be listed under OMICS Group Title...

Snits (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Solution: don't bother with the conferences stuff at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, except to the extent the two are mentioned together in reliable sources. The link to the OMICS conferences website is practically spam. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

US offices

I've removed the claim that they have offices in Los Angeles and Henderson, Nevada, which wasn't in the cited source. ([www.omicsonline.org/contact.php Their website] lists an address in Los Angeles, but the zip code given is in Westlake Village, California.) January (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

• OMICS provides titles for approximately 250 journals, but many have no content. No latest reference is provided and according to website they have more than 300 journals. Add some reliable reference.

• Charges may be as high as US$3600. Justify the statement with adequate latest reference.

As per the website, group is not charging US$3600. See: [www.omicsonline.org/article-processing-charges.php Article Processing Charges] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth sunny (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• The references are to reliable sources and are from 2013 and 2012, respectively, which is recent enough. I'll remove your tags. --Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Content Controversy

Because this is a very controversial page: I seek advice

• OMICS Publishing Group wikipedia page says that it has 250 journals but this content was written in 2012. However, recent news says that they published around 350 journals and 55000 articles. So, is it okay to that old content is still there in old wikipedia page; should we not refresh the content. One Two
• OMICS Publishing Group Wikipedia page says that the organization is based in Hyderabad, India. However, when I searched it locates it to USA (different locations) in yellow pages of USA? Can I correct that? Or will someone, probably a better experienced user will take the charge. Yellow Page 1 Yellow Page 2 Yellow Page 3
• Above links also tell me that the Group has acquired several journals: may be 50 and one of them, when I searched one of them: La Prensa Medica, its a 100 year old journal. Cannot we add this?

Monicagellar 08 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources you mention appear to be reliable sources (in WP lingo). The first two are, it seems, published copies of OMICS press releases and so have no value as secondary sources. The yellow page entries are obviously not RS. (Also, it's extremely common among newer open access publishers to maintain an address at a US mail-forwarding service in order to appear to be based in the US.) -JBL (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• So, to consider: I found these links on web MTI; TOI; Yahoo. Don't know, but it doesn't looks like self released. Well I am not sure if you care, however, was digging in and found them relevant.Monicagellar 08 (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

From the Metro India source: "Headquartered in Hyderabad and offices in Henderson, Palo Alto, Los Angeles, and Romania, OMICS is acknowledged world over for its 350 open access journals, 25,000 editorial team, 3 million readers, and more than 1,00,000 facebook followers." Pure press release. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality, we can do the whitewash with following references

The Hindu; Times of India; Yahoo Monicagellar 08 (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see why the sources that you give (I cannot read the second one, by the way, except for the headline the rest is too fuzzy) justify putting POV and notability tags on this article. What is NPOV here? And why do you think the notability of this group is in doubt? There's ample sources on their low-quality products (journals, meetings), suing Beall, etc. --Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Randykitty, I found a few more

The Hindu BusinessLine; TheHindu; TheHindu About educational society Times of India clear article In my opinion this organization is doing good for education and research Monicagellar 08 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course you do. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In case it's not clear: there is precisely 0 chance of any of this promotional garbage being used for any purpose anywhere in Wikipedia. Stop wasting everyone's time. JBL (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion advertised to WikiProjects

I don't really care how this dispute turns out, but it's important enough to get more eyeballs on it so that we have a quality article or articles. I've advertised this at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#OMIC Publishing Group, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#OMIC Publishing Group, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Open#OMIC Publishing Group. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OMICS Group/Separate page required

Please see for notability: written that the group is into various businesses:

• Educational Society- Holding around 6000 students from primary school level to degree level

• Films and movies- turnover of INR 300 Crores / 65 Million USD Business as per the box office records

• Conferences- only publishing group organizing scientific conferences; world-wide conferences and the largest conference organizer; organizing around 100 conferences per year

• Health TV Channel- 1st Health Channel; monitored exclusively by OMICS Group; operating in English, Hindi and Telugu languages

• Scientific Alliance- Collaboration with more than 150 non-profit scientific associations

• Journals- operating 350 open access journals for the sake of disseminating knowledge for free

Since Journals is just a part of the business, a general page is of course required.

To prove the matter, please refer to reliable sources published on OMICS Group page

A case should be opened for discussion and consideration with above notability Lizia7(talk) 05:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You are really boring, can't you find something useful to do with your time instead of this promotional nonsense? --JBL (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that the statements above are true, and assuming for the sake of argument that reliable, independent sources provide significant coverage for each topic which you propose to have a separate article for exist, then you make a good argument that separate pages are allowed. However, that is not the same as making making a good argument that separate pages are a good idea. Please read WP:PAGEDECIDE before pursuing this further. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Whitewash, again

In recent days, two articles have been created, OMICS Group and OMICS Group Creations. The first basically contains most of the info given here, but with the same attempts at downplaying the problems and exaggerating the importance, size, and quality of this company. I have redirected that article here, although perhaps this article should be moved to that title. The "Creations" article seems to be mainly written by its director. I have no time to check the references to see if they actually even mention this outfit, or whether this is just a bunch of POV/SYNTH crap. More eyes on those articles are needed. --Randykitty (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• OMICS Group is not only into Publishing, but also contains a Conference Group, Educational Society and OMICS Group creations. Hence, creating/having an OMICS Group page is required to add these lines of businesses also. It will not be possible to add those controversies or businesses in here. Better have a general OMICS Group page. Srinubabuau6 (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• Another page in this attempted walled garden: Sri Satya Sai School & Jr College. --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• One more: Indian Textile Accessories & Machinery Manufacturer's Association. --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• And another one: Nestle Institute of Health Sciences. There may be more, but currently no time to dig further. --Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Randy Kitty find enclosed reference times of India paper: http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=TOINEW&BaseHref=TOIH/2014/02/10&PageLabel=9&ForceGif=true&EntityId=Ar00902&ViewMode=HTML Srinubabuau6 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

another PR today : 22 Noble laureates supporting journal with OMICS: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/22-nobel-laureates-supporting-journal-080858316.html Srinubabuau6 (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Press releases (which make up all of the sources you are mentioning) are not reliable sources. Please knock it off. --JBL (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There is also OMICS Creations. --JBL (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Redirected here. --Randykitty (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's my attempt at a list of articles known to be part of this family; most probably deserve to be deleted, though I imagine this will be easier once the sock-puppet investigation is done:

• OMICS Creations
• OMICS Group Creations
• Sri Satya Sai School & Jr College
• Indian Textile Accessories & Machinery Manufacturer's Association
• Nestle Institute of Health Sciences
• Spanish_Society_of_Materials
• Semi-Conductor_Society
• International_Society_for_Ceramics_in_Medicine
• American_College_of_Lifestyle_Medicine
• Federation_of_Asian_Biotech_Association

Also worth noting: the heavy spamming around the OMICS movies has included things like changing the producers of movies -- not sure what to make of this. --JBL (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

A range of accounts were blocked after the investigation described at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral. These accounts had in common that they were promoting the OMICS group in a way that violated Wikipedia community guidelines. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

OMICS Publishing Group → OMICS Group – The mass of SPI/COI/sockpuppet editors have one good point, namely: OMICS has a variety of arms, of which publishing is just one (albeit the one with the best coverage in reliable sources). It would be more natural to retitle this article with the name of the central company; then any details about its various businesses can be included in a single article, rather than spawning stub/promotional/copy-vio articles about its non-notable branches. There was some initial discussion about this here. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC) --JBL (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The article as it currently exists only describes the publishing group. Reliable sources have not been presented covering other aspects of this organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is beacause the current article is titled "OMICS Publishing Group." Once it is retitled "OMICS Group" then it will be easy to adjust per Randykitty below to give appropriate mention of the various branches. --JBL (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis Could you share some of the sources that will be used to establish this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

To establish what? That the company uses the name "OMICS Group"? This already appears in several of the current sources (CHE, NYT, Nature, etc.). That they run conferences? This is covered in the NYT article. Most of the other stuff shouldn't be included now, but could potentially be included in the future if RS's ever exist. --JBL (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Support I disagree with Joel B. Lewis that the sources establish that this organization works outside of publishing. All notability that I see is for publishing, and no one is presenting reliable sources which say otherwise. The NYT source does not seem to do this either. However, the publishing arm of this organization is frequently called OMICS Group, and sometimes called OMICS Publishing Group. I think this article can simply be renamed to OMICS Group only to refer to the publisher, and if other sources confirm that it does other things, that information can go here as well. Perhaps this article should have been named OMICS Group in the beginning. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• SupportWeak support All that would be needed would be to add a phrase ("They also are active in blah blah"), referenced to their homepage. OMICS Group is the parent of OMICS Publishing Group (unless I am mistaken), so to describe the publishing activities under "OMICS Group" does not appear to be illogical. --Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Meh -- it's not illogical, but it's also not necessary, and it will likely open the door to more POV-pushing & padding. I'm inclined to stick to the title that captures the core activity for which the company is actually notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't feel very strongly about this and I could certainly live with that, too. --Randykitty (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The POV-pushing and padding is already going on; my feeling is that giving this article the shorter name might help concentrate it, rather than having it all dispersed (see the list above). Like Randykitty, though, I don't feel very strongly about this. --JBL (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Assume good faith – A separate article is required for OMICS Group. Can I revert the page to OMICS Group or otherwise simply this section can be added to the page as it is (with the links not clashing itself). Well also assuming that I am not pushing any POV Lizia7 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You certainly cannot do this unilaterally, least of all when there is a notified discussion about it currently taking place. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think that it is more than clear that consensus is against Lizia7's proposal. --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a good time to mention that Lizia7 has (finally :) ) been blocked as a sock-puppet. --JBL (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: With all the chopping and changing above, I can't figure out who supports what. @Bluerasberry, @Randykitty, @Nomoskedasticity, please can you clarify your position below this line. Thanks!

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• Support the proposed move. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I responded to an NPOV board post on this article and was pinged here. I would normally have a strong leniency towards consolidating articles and naming it based on the parent company unless both were unquestionably notable. However, in this case the subsidiary is notable and the parent doesn't seem to be. Additionally, the open source journals seems to be their primary activity. So I would treat it the way we often do articles about companies and products, where we typically combine the two and name the article based on whichever is more notable. Thus because the article is named OMICS Publishing, should not prevent us from adding 1-2 sentences regarding its affiliation with OMICS Group and saying that they do this and that. We should follow the sources not the corporate structure. That being said, even if a very negative article is warranted/supported by due weight, it is only natural for me to question the neutrality of an article like this... CorporateM (Talk) 16:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Removal of referral to FTC

Re [2], I can't undo it due to subsequent edits but it appears to have removed relevant information which was confirmed by the source. January (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I am very suspicious of the changes being made by CorporateM (talk · contribs) - which include removing a negative statement linked to the Nature website as "unreliable", and his extremely aggressive manner in which he is apparently trying to take WP:OWNership of this article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not very good about leaving detailed edit-summaries. I checked the source, but it only briefly mentions that a letter was sent to the FTC. As far as I can tell there is no indication that the FTC took an action, provided a response, or even that they read the letter. I think just "so and so sent a letter to the FTC" is just not significant enough to be of historical note. CorporateM (Talk) 16:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sting operation

I've started giving the article a once-over. It seems the strong negative/controversial slant is right and proper, but some of the content was not directly supported by the sources, were mis-attributed, needed copy-editing, or other odds and ends. I could see how it would be difficult to remain neutral and write in a dis-passionate way about something so close to home for the Wikipedia community (academic sources).

Anyways, this source from Science Magazine regarding their sting operation does not actually mention OMICS Publishing Group. However, this personal blog from Beall specifies that it was included in the sting operation and that it did accept the fraudulent paper.

Given the context, it is not hard to believe that OMICS would accept a fraudulent paper, however I'm also not sure I trust Beall's personal blog as the only source verifying they rejected it. He is an advocate against predatory publishing and is involved in a real-life dispute with the article-subject. OTOH, he is an expert and his list appears to be credible and well-regarded. I also have this thought in my mind that any org can sue a critic than claim they lack credibility because they are locked in a dispute.

Thoughts on how to handle it? CorporateM (Talk) 18:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Given the torturous history of this article, it is absolutely not a good idea to give this "a once-over" without first consulting other people here on the talk page. I strongly recommend that you self-revert to the version just before you started editing and then discuss any issues one by one here on the talk page. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Also, you obviously haven't tried very hard to settle the question you're asking about here: the Science article has all sorts of supporting data at most one click away: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60/suppl/DC1 I second Randykitty's suggestion. --JBL (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Best not to wade into things size 9s when a lot of people are watching this page. The last version is here. CorporateM (talk · contribs) - please stop trying to bully your changes onto the article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I was not aware this article had a "tortuous history" or that there were so many editors so heavily invested in it, but was merely engaging in routine editing. Much of the article text did not appear to be directly supported by the sources and the article-structure appeared very random. It gave me the impression of being a coatrack article, rather than an encyclopedic document of the debate regarding an organization best-known for alleged predatory publishing. I myself do not have enough of an interest to tediously discuss each edit before making it - I'd rather avoid all such controversial articles that lend themselves to hostile argument between editors entirely and move on to other pages that require improvement. CorporateM (Talk) 20:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It is always a good idea to check an article's edit history and talk page before you start s major overhaul... --Randykitty (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is overwhelmingly negative but this is reflective of the coverage this company has received in reliable sources. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Nature, Science Insider and NYT sources are not opinion pieces and it is legitimate to present material from these sources as statements rather than part of a debate. Re Jeffrey Beall, I assume OMICS didn't actually initiate a lawsuit since that's not mentioned in the article. He's no more in dispute with OMICS than he is with any other publisher who objects to being on his list, which I imagine most of them would do so I don't think Beall becomes any less credible as a source as a result of the legal threat. January (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've fixed some organisational problems. I've also restored a passage about "slow to remove names" -- that's clearly in the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I would prefer to return more fully to the earlier version. Much of the "publishing activities" section has to do with criticism. I would change it myself, but I'm very busy rewriting Jesse James to describe his "banking activities". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Author fees and criticism section

The article seems to be contradicting itself over author fees, the publishing practices section says "OMICS journal authors pay a publication fee of up to $2,700", the criticism section "Charges may be as high as US$3600". Also worth noting that separate criticism sections are discouraged per WP:CSECTION. January (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2015

OMICS International a standing acronym for Open Minds International Conferences & Symposiums is an amalgamation of Open Access publications and worldwide international science conferences and events. Established in the year 2007 with the sole aim of making the information on Sciences and technology "Open Access", OMICS Group publishes 500 online open access scholarly journals in all aspects of Science, Engineering, Management and Technology journals. OMICS Group has been instrumental in taking the knowledge on Science & technology to the doorsteps of ordinary men and women. Research Scholars, Students, Libraries, Educational Institutions, Research centres and the industry are main stakeholders that benefited greatly from this knowledge dissemination. OMICS Group also organizes 300 International conferences annually across the globe, where knowledge transfer takes place through debates, round table discussions, poster presentations, workshops, symposia and exhibitions. Sidcrick5 (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 13:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think that Sidrick5 would like to replace the current lead with the promotional text that he pasted above... Given the solid references for the criticisms, I'm afraid that they are wasting their (and our) time. --Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because of --122.169.214.165 (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposing changes to OMICS Publishing Group page

I would like to propose several changes to this page but want to offer my suggestions here before actually making any revisions. Summarizing my proposed changes:

• I noticed there are some statements that are repeated. I would like to delete the redundant statements.

Agreed. fgnievinski (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• There are some statements that are outdated; for example, the first paragraph mentions OMICS' 200 journals; there are currently 350. Also, the second paragraph states that OMICS publications are not accepted for listing in PubMed Central. That is no longer true. OMICS journals are now indexed in PubMed Central. (For example OMICS' Journal of AIDS & Clinical Research has 84 articles indexed in PubMed Central.) I think these statements should be updated.

Agreed. fgnievinski (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Third, I suggest that the "predatory" label be removed. Every reference that calls OMICS a predatory publisher uses Jeffrey Beall as its source. Beall's labeling of hundreds of publishers as "potential, possible or probable predatory" publishers is controversial as shown by the section "Counterpoints to Beall's criticisms" in his own Wikipedia profile. Labeling OMICS as "predatory" in the lead section makes it appear that the label is beyond dispute while actually Beall's labeling of hundreds of publishers as predatory is disputed. The predatory label is discussed in depth in the "Criticism of publishing practices" section. So I propose removing it from the lead section. Also, I suggest mentioning Jeffrey Beall by name in the “Criticism…” section, rather than just “Beall’s List,” so that an internal Wiki link to his page can be added.

I disagree quite strongly with removal of "predatory". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I also disagree; if you want to discuss this, please do so at Talk:Predatory open access publishing. See also how the lede is worded in, e.g., MDPI. fgnievinski (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• Finally, I could not find the assertion, "These observations have led critics to assert that the main purpose of the publisher is commercial rather than academic" in either of the two references given. I would suggest removing it.

Please let me know if you disagree with any of my proposed revisions. Thanks!

Goattender (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

With a bit more time, I'll come up with the reference that supports "commercial rather than academic". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's poorly sourced, it can be removed on the basis of WP:ORIGINALSYNTHESIS. fgnievinski (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In response to the feedback from Nomoskedasticity and fgnievinski, I checked out the lead for MDPI, another publisher that has been called predatory by Jeffrey Beall. So I’d like to back off on my earlier suggestion of removing the predatory label from the lead and instead propose the following wording for the lead which follows that which was agreed upon after much discussion for MDPI. I also removed “According to a 2012 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education about 60 percent of the group's 200 journals have never actually published anything” from the lead because the OMICS site currently lists 700 journals. By clicking on each listed journal it appears that every journal has by now published at least one article.

OMICS Publishing Group is a publisher of open access journals in a number of academic fields. It is part of the OMICS Group, based in Hyderabad, India. It issued its first publication in 2008 and currently publishes about 700 journals.

Quote: As for removing the "no articles" statement -- I don't see why it has to be removed, it can simply be updated. It was true in 2012. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Then mention the 200 journals in 2012 and 700 journals in 2015? fgnievinski (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

OMICS is considered a predatory open access publishing company publishing journals of dubious quality by Jeffrey Beall. OMICS has responded to criticisms by avowing a commitment to open access publishing and threatened Beall with a US$1 billion lawsuit.

"avowing a commitment to open access publishing" seems vacuous to me; it'd be notable if a third party would vouch for OMICS, as OASPA did for MDPI. I'd leave only the lawsuit in the lede. fgnievinski (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with fgnievinski.Goattender (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

As for my other proposed changes, the only other one which aroused any opposition was my proposal to remove "commercial rather than academic" because it did not appear to be supported by the listed sources. Nomoskedasticity said that might be able to find a reference but so far he has not. Please advise as to whether the unsupported statement should be removed at this time or if we should allow Nomoskedasticity further time to find a supporting source.Goattender (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

From the Chronicle article used as a source for that statement: 'Mr. Beall defines a "predatory" publisher as one whose main goal is to generate profits rather than promote academic scholarship. Such publishers, he said, "add little value to scholarship, pay little attention to digital preservation, and operate using fly-by-night, unsustainable business models." OMICS has earned Beall's "predatory" distinction...' It's a straightforward application of Beall's definition of "predatory". As for removing the "no articles" statement -- I don't see why it has to be removed, it can simply be updated. It was true in 2012. More generally: calling it an "open access academic publisher" implies it is the same as other open access academic publishers. That's not true, and I object to an opening sentence that implies it's true. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur with fgnievinski on this point. It seems to me that the fact that they published 200 publications in 2012, 300 in 2013, 400 in 2014, etc. is not notable. What’s notable is how many publications they publish now.Goattender (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to change the definition of predatory publishing so as to remove the context of academic publishing, please discuss at Talk:Predatory open access publishing. As it currently stands, predatory publishers deal with scholarly material and academic authors in a commercial (and predatory) setting. So it's both commercial and academic. fgnievinski (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's an impressive misreading of my comment. I haven't suggested removing the "academic publishing" component of the opening sentence; rather, I've objected to removing the "predatory" component of the opening sentence. As for the sentence you wanted to remove, I've demonstrated how the source supports it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I did not suggest removing the predatory designation from the lead. I only suggested moving it from the opening sentence to the third sentence. In my opinion, labeling OMICS as predatory without qualification is defamatory while stating that Beall considers them to be predatory is OK. I note that this same subject was discussed in depth on the MDPI talk page and the conclusion was to use wording very much like what I suggested above.Goattender (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Quoting from your post that began this section: "Third, I suggest that the 'predatory' label be removed." So huh. Now, it's true that you later backed away from that idea. But there has been so much interspersing and reorganization of this section that it has become very hard to know who posted what in response to something someone proposed. On top of that: this talk page is chock full of posts from "people" who have been trying to whitewash the article for years. I put "people" in quotes because it is almost certainly a matter of one person -- many of the accounts contributing to earlier sections have been identified as sockpuppets (go ahead, click on "Monica Gellar" or "Lizia7. So I'm still pondering how an editor shows up to this article after not being active for more than a year, has a total of 42 edits since 2013, etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

If you don’t mind, I’d rather stick to discussing the issues revolving around updating this page rather than engaging in personal attacks. From your last post, it sounds like you now understand that I am not proposing removing “predatory” from the lead but rather re-organizing the lead in accordance with what was agreed to after long discussion on the MDPI page. Even in my post that began the section I was only suggesting that one “predatory” label out of five in the document be removed because using the term without providing the source seemed to me to be defamatory. But fgnievinski suggested looking at the MDPI wording and it looked even better than what I originally proposed. Looking through the section I do not see any disagreements on your part with what I proposed that have not now been resolved. Am I missing anything? Goattender (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes: I disagree with removing "predatory" from the first sentence, for the reasons I have given above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I sourced the statement about predatory in the lead. May I suggest Goattender go ahead and make smaller changes in separate edits, so that any specific contentions can be reverted by Nomoskedasticity and discussed here as necessary. The update about 700 journals currently seems innocuous. fgnievinski (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I will make the changes that I proposed as separate edits so that they can be reverted and discussed individually.Goattender (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

To avoid unnecessary reverts, the normal process would be to propose the edit here and then gain consensus for it. If one wishes to do it in the form of a diff, it's possible to implement the edit and then self-revert. Given that it's clear that the edit(s) you have in mind do not have consensus, the suggestion that you should simply proceed and do it was not the wisest thing... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Goattender: Please slow down and suggest changes here before editing the article. Information that is 'out of date' should not be removed as it is part of the company's history regardless of whether it is still true or not. In this edit you added sources which don't mention OMICS (or only extremely briefly mention OMICS in the case of this one) and create a false balance by raising doubts about the other reliable sources which discuss OMICS in detail. This, and citing a pubmed search as a justification for removing information are examples of original research which is forbidden here. If there are no new sources stating that OMICS is no longer predatory or that Beall's claims have been shown to be incorrect, then the content of the article shouldn't be changed. (For the benefit of others, please note that I have asked Goattender whether they have any conflict of interest). SmartSE (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Of relevance to this discussion is this source from August 2015 which demonstrates that RSs are still labelling OMICS as predatory. SmartSE (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Is OMICS Publishing Group (Hyderabad) and OMICS Group Inc (Henderson) are same? I would like to update Revenue according to the Hoover’s Inc., a Dun & Bradstreet Company. http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/revenue-financial.OMICS_GROUP_INC.9842eca4429c8e85.html http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-profile.OMICS_GROUP_INC.9842eca4429c8e85.html Dentking07 (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are the same. See for example their advertising blurb [www.omicsonline.org/Advertising-With-Us.pdf here] (at the bottom of the last page). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

They're the same in a general sense, except that the "publishing group" is a subsidiary of the "group". So if we use revenue from the parent, we'll be including revenue that they get from other operations, e.g. running conferences & who knows what else. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Shall we update Parent Company Sales (mil) 80.636, Employees 1,000. They are Magazine Publishers as per D&B [3] . Dentking07 (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes this company also conducts conferences can we create separate pages for scientific conferences organizers like Cambridge Healthtech, Barnett Live Seminars etc. This info required to scientific community as very few private scientific/academic organizers are there.Dentking07 (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, there was a failed proposal (above) to move this article to "OMICS Group". Since we decided not to do that, I'm not sure it's a good idea to enter information about the parent company. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC).

I am confused get back with interesting story? let me do research? Dentking07 (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In 2014 Times of India reported 350 journals [4] and in 2015 ABC reported 700 journals and 50% of them are defunct [5] in 18 months they got 100% growth? it is unusual?

My interest is to create a page for their conferences OMICS Group Inc [6], there claiming 1000 global events but listed only 650, their investments in to other conferences companies [7] [8] . Their conferences/parent wiki article is required along with their revenue per registration [9], this info is useful to Academic/scientific community. This essential information is required especially to KPMG, PWC to analyze the perspectives of scientific/academic conferences. I would like to link this new article to OMICS Publishing Group from where they are earning the money. All the sources are informative and acceptable Dentking07 (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

New article creation

With reference to above discussion let me proceed with new article creation for this group conferences and registration fee overview.Dentking07 (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is probably worth making sure that this wasn't already tried. I have some recollection that it was done but then deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it was, and the article about the larger company was deleted because (1) it was mostly an attempt by OMICS-related sockpuppets to avoid criticism and (2) there is very little independently sourced information about the larger company. One trace of this discussion is at Talk:OMICS Group, but there must have been more. --JBL (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Started editing.Dentking07 (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It would have been helpful to provide the link OMICS Group Inc. --JBL (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Done, also linked from other relevant pages. Dentking07 (talk) 09:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This page shows 200 journals and OMICS Group Inc shows 700 journals? confused? Wikienglish123 (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As per the talk OMICS Group Inc was created, yes as per recent reference 700 journals and as per 2012 reference 200 journals. It is clear. Dentking07 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This article was created as per talk page [10], and conferences sources [11], [12], [13] and their parent company sources [14] are reliable, recent and well established articles from reputed news magazine. As per talk shall let me remove the deletion tag at OMICS Group Inc Dentking07 (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Of the four sources you mentioned in this post: the first is simply an announcement and involves no coverage whatsoever. The second mentions the existence of a conference but says nothing about it beyond its existence and that it was "intended for university professors." The third is totally promotional, and also provides almost no coverage of the larger company; substantively, it says almost nothing aside from quotes by the founder of OMICS. The fourth is just a business listing with no substantive coverage or content. This absence of decent sourcing is why the article was deleted before, and it's why the article will probably be deleted again. --JBL (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me add some more recent references for their conferences and other business, and I am deleting the deletion proposal. Dentking07 (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I do agree with Banedon, DGG and Randykitty, I am merging the sister concern article OMICS Publishing Group with the parent article OMICS Group Inc. I am not sure to imply disputes/controversies to parent article from sister concern. can be checked later, I am copying all disputes/controversies to parent.Dentking07 (talk) 05:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as explained above there are no sources demonstrating that OMICS Group Inc is notable. If anything is to be merged, it is to take a small amount about the conferences from OMICS Group Inc and include it here. SmartSE (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note Any article should be merged from sister concern to parent, publishing arm OMICS Publishing Group is a sister concern of OMICS Group Inc, parent company is conducting conferences and other businesses and not sister company. I hope it was clear. Dentking07 (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the base article - not any new article

Wikienglish123 just made this article a redirect. Nomoskedasticity reverted this.

OMICS Group Inc is new - see history.

OMICS Publishing Group is the base article - see its much longer and more useful history and the activity is on the talk page here.

If someone wants a rename or merge, change the name of this article. The content here should not be merged to a newer article because that confuses the history.

I have no comment about whether a rename or merge is useful, but I do want the history here preserved. Why is a new article necessary? Why not just rename this one? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure who that editor is, but I've reverted as well. Needs some investigation... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Perfect admin can do, i can help if required Wikienglish123 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

False data on Wikipedia OMICS Group Inc and OMICS Publishing Group pages

Editor now blocked for socking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. Our company received the letter from PubMed regarding inappropriate usage of PubMed logo in April 2013, it was resolved and later more than 200 journals listed [15]] in PubMed, and 2000+ articles indexed in PubMedCentral from our journals from last three years. You are requested to add the reply from our director published in the same science source [16]. ie Queried about HHS's allegations, OMICS Group Managing Director Srinubabu Gedela forwarded ScienceInsider an e-mail the company received last fall from Dionne in which he agreed to serve as an OMICS editor-in-chief. Dionne was then at NIH and said he needed clearance first. In other e-mails forwarded by Gedela, Srivastava agreed to be a journal editor and conference organizer. Gedela also supplied a scanned hand-written note by Srivastava from 2010 that essentially matches his quote on the OMICS site. The above statement in brief is required at wikipedia page of OMICS to keep neutrality. This false wiki data is affecting 1000+ employees of OMICS, you are requested to keep neutrality. Given permission i would like to edit the same. JSSPK (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC) JSSPK Can you please answer the following questions? What exactly is the false text that you want corrected? What statement do you want added to this article? Is your statement the entire block of text above? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you, I would like to change following on priority Action by US government agency In April 2013, OMICS received a cease-and-desist letter from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It alleged OMICS used images and names of employees that either no longer worked at NIH or did not provide their permission.<ref name=science/> OMICS responded by modifying its website and providing emails and letters from NIH employees. Those employees said they did not provide permission for their names to be used in marketing materials.<ref name=science/> It should be re-written as Trademark Infringement Notice from DHHS In April 2013, OMICS received a trademark infringement letter against the in appropriate usage of logos from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). OMICS responded and forwarded ScienceInsider an e-mail the company received last fall from Dionne in which he agreed to serve as an OMICS editor-in-chief. Dionne was then at NIH and said he needed clearance first. In other e-mails forwarded by Gedela, Srivastava agreed to be a journal editor and conference organizer. Gedela also supplied a scanned hand-written note by Srivastava from 2010 that essentially matches his quote on the OMICS site[17]. According to this information the first paragraph of also should be modified. Request-It should be done on priority basis JSSPK (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Your rewrite is just a copy and paste of the source - i.e. a copyright violation. Please write it in your own words. SmartSE (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

COI Disclosure

Editor now blocked for socking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi this is Anita, I am an employee of OMICS Contribute majorly to company related articles OMICS Group Inc and OMICS Publishing Group + I will disclose the COI on my edits.JSSPK (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

COI-Declaration

Editor now blocked as a sock puppet of User:Dentking07, associated with User:Scholarscentral. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, This is kumar An employee of OMICS work on the removal/editing of defamatory content on our organization @ Wikipedia, please allow me Joinopenaccess (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Dear Editors,Theroadislong,Goattender, Blue Rasberry , Banedon, Randykitty,Fgnievinski. With reference to the above request, I am proposing following edits at OMICS Publishing Group Wrong statement -Action by US government agency- at Wikipedia OMICS page letter was received and rectified by OMICS three years back, the statement should be modified as Trademark Infringement Notice from DHHS In April 2013, OMICS received a cease-and-desist letter from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). It alleged OMICS used images and names of employees that either no longer worked at NIH or did not provide their permission.<ref name=science/> OMICS responded by modifying its website and providing emails and letters from NIH employees. Those employees said they did not provide permission for their names to be used in marketing materials.<ref name=science/> The above sentence is completely modified to make the OMICS Publishing Group page defamatory, My proposal is Trademark Infringement Notice from DHHS In April 2013, OMICS received a trademark infringement letter against the inappropriate usage of names, trademarks, logos from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). OMICS responded and forwarded email communication the company received confirmation from Dionne in which he agreed to serve as an OMICS editor-in-chief. In other e-mails communication forwarded by Gedela, Sudhir Srivastava confirmed to be a journal editor and conference organizing committee member. Dr Gedela, Director also provided a scanned hand-written note by Sudhir Srivastava that essentially matches and confirms his quote on the OMICS testimonial site[18]. For wiki editors clarification OMICS has 200+ journals in NLM [19]] and 2000+ articles indexed in PubMedCentral from our journals from last three years [www.omicsonline.org/NIH-funded-articles.php]. Please maintain the neutrality of Wikipedia as maintaining for other Academic publishing companies. Regarding predatory list maintained by Jeffrey Beal, You are requested keep it at controversies section as maintaining at other publishers like Bentham Science Publishers, Dove Medical Press, Libertas Academica, MDPI and recently added Frontiers Media etc The same info has been notified to Wikimedia foundation through our director and legal team. Appreciate your help and intervention to keep Wikipedia standards. Upon approval/confirmation/after a few days of request i will start editing. Please understand our concern as this defamatory content is affecting 1000+ employees of OMICS. Joinopenaccess (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC) I am not willing to implement any of your changes as you appear to be making legal threats and it's not at all clear exactly what material you consider defamatory. Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Not only that, but it's clear that this is another sock of Scholarscentral (talk · contribs). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC) In addition, what "Joinopenaccess" is writing is misleading. Not a single OMICS journal is included in MEDLINE. And although apparently some authors upload their manuscripts to PubMed Central (leading to the indexing in the NLM database that you link to above), I cannot find any OMICS journal in the PMC journal list. The text currently in the article is completely supported by the source. The proposed revision just adds the weak excuses that OMICS came up with to explain away their misleading statements on their website. Note, BTW, that Sudhir Srivastava mentioned above to have agreed to become an editor is not listed as such any more... --Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Dear Randykitty, Nomoskedasticity and other editors, there are about 2000+ articles indexed in PubMedCentral from journals of OMICS Publishing Group so the word cease-desist/PubMedCentral no longer accepts articles/journals wording should be removed. It is a misleading information about OMICS. You are requested to read the letter received from DHHS[20] which is available at above science source. NIH informed to OMICS, stop erroneous use of PubMed logo, OMICS clarified and confirmed the same and notified to DHHS regarding PubMed logo will be used by OMICS according to the DHHS requirements. Later OMICS journals articles are accepting by PubMedCentral from last three years. Please understand. Joinopenaccess (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Joinopenaccess, please don't make the mistake of thinking that we are morons. Not a single OMICS journal is covered by PubMed Central. Yes, NIH-funded authors are required to upload their manuscripts, even if they publish it with you, but that doesn't mean that your journals are "indexed". You know very well that this is not the case, as your website now scrupulously avoids making the claim that they are. (Like [www.omicsonline.org/indexing-molecular-biomarkers-diagnosis-open-access.php this page], for example, even though some articles published in this journal have been uploaded into PMC by their authors). You just have a page with "NIH Funded Work", suggestively linking to the manuscripts uploaded to PMC. --Randykitty (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC) It is an unnecessary argument and please understand the objective of letter from DHHS, If PubMed/DHHS completely banned OMICS publications they would have been circulated to their staff not to submit any research to OMICS publications, OMICS is publishing approximately 500+ articles every year from DHHS/NIH. So ban of OMICS Publication (as indicated in Wikipedia) is wrong statement. Paragraphs at Wikipedia were intentionally modified to make OMICS defamatory, It is not Action by US Government It is Trademark Infringement Notice and it was rectified by OMICS. Like other Academic publishing companies (listed by Jeffrey beall predatory list) Wikipedia pages all controversies should be kept at controversies section but OMICS Wikipedia page was started with Predatory publisher, it is a clear behavioral evidence that few editors are working to make OMICS Wikipedia page defamatory. Any organization can get the notice by regulatory/Government agencies, OMICS also received and rectified the errors i.e. erroneous use of PubMed logo. Joinopenaccess (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC) I read the source vs. your proposed changes and I find your proposed changes to be unfair. The source is clearly negative on OMICS, and while you are correct that OMICS did provide some (emphasis on "some") evidence that Sudhir Srivastava and Raymond Dione wrote what OMICS says they did, your proposed changes also neglect the responses that they later gave. Quoting from the source currently used, "Srivastava told ScienceInsider that although he wrote the note in a guestbook at an exhibit booth, he did not agree to have it used in the brochure" (see later sentences as well that highlight dubious practices used by OMICS), and "[Dionne] said he agreed to become editor after he retires from NIH in 2 weeks and had asked OMICS not to use his NIH affiliation". If anything, the section should be expanded with more criticism from the source, which I am now going to do. Banedon (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Thank you for reply, as referenced in DHHS letter on top the title of the paragraph should be named as Trademark Infringement Notice from DHHS instead of Wrong statement -Action by US government agency- at Wikipedia OMICS page Joinopenaccess (talk) 08:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC) What's wrong with the current section title? After all, it is action by a US government agency. The current title is more appropriate than "Trademark infringement notice from DHHS" as well in my opinion, given the contents of the section. Banedon (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC) 1. If the meaning is the same please go with the title "Trademark infringement notice from DHHS" 2. There is no ban on OMICS Publications as explained so first paragraph should be modified. US Government never questioned OMICS about quality, the letter is about trademark infringement and it was rectified and from last three years there are about 2000+ articles published by OMICS funded by National Institute of Health, the originator of the letter. This an evidence that there is no ban on OMICS Publications. 3. The word predatory should be kept and controversies section only as wiki editors following for other Academic publishing companies like Bentham Science Publishers, Dove Medical Press, Libertas Academica, MDPI and recently added Frontiers Media etc. Joinopenaccess (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC) 1) meaning is clearly not the same 2) the lede, if that's what you're referring to, does not claim that there is a ban or any content quality-based objections to OMICS journals / articles 3) I cannot understand your sentence. Banedon (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC) 1. If the meaning is not the same then there is a clear evidence that few Wiki editors framing sentences to make OMICS Wikipedia page defamatory to avoid these controversies please go with the title "Trademark infringement notice from DHHS" as per DHHS letter subject. 2. There is no ban on OMICS Publications as explained above, US Government never questioned OMICS about quality, the letter is about trademark infringement. We request the redrafting of first paragraph here also there is a clear evidence that Wiki editors framing sentences to make OMICS Wikipedia page defamatory 3. The word predatory should be kept at controversies section only, like other Academic publishing companies, Bentham Science Publishers, Dove Medical Press, Libertas Academica, MDPI and recently added Frontiers Media etc. Note: It is not personal attack on any wiki editor, but the wiki content should follow wiki standards of neutrality. Joinopenaccess (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC) 1) Accusations of bad faith do not help 2) I don't see how the letter being about trademark infringement changes anything about the section 3) Several of the publishers you mention already have the word 'predatory', or its variants, in the lede. Further, what is written in the lede is commensurate with what the publisher is known for, and in this case as OMICS is most known for its dubious publishing practice. As the source referred to says, "I [Beall] receive more complaints about OMICS' practices than I do about any other open-access publisher." That said, I'm going to make what will possibly be a controversial edit by modifying the lede. Other editors, feel free to revert if you disagree. Banedon (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia should publish the truth from reliable prominent sources, not the opinions by competitors/representative from companies engaged in similar business. There is no ban on OMICS Publications as explained, US Government never questioned OMICS about quality, the letter is about trademark infringement. After receipt of letter from DHHS/National Institute of Health OMICS rectified the error and later OMICS Published 2000+ [21][www.omicsonline.org/NIH-funded-articles.php] articles from last three years funded by DHHS/National Institute of Health , it is a clear evidence that there is no ban of OMICS Publications. We request the redrafting of first paragraph OMICS Publishing Group as there is a clear evidence that few Wiki editors framing sentences to make OMICS Wikipedia page defamatory The word predatory should be kept at controversies section only, as wiki editors following for other Academic publishing companies like Bentham Science Publishers, Dove Medical Press, Libertas Academica, MDPI and recently added Frontiers Media etc. Wikimedia should publish the truth then only people respect if it is becoming a platform for defamatory content for competitors then no one is going believe wikimedia content. Please don't spread lies through wikipedia, Please respect the truth. Refer the links for proof [22][www.omicsonline.org/NIH-funded-articles.php] Joinopenaccess (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Purely for the benefit of anyone else who might be interested: "Landis references an e-mail sent from an NIH staffer to the OMICS group last September saying that PubMed Central will not accept any OMICS Publishing Group journals because the '[National Library of Medicine's] selection group has raised serious concerns about the publishing practices of your organisation.'" Source: [23]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Dear Nomoskedasticity Can you please understand the letter received three years back by OMICS. Objective of letter is OMICS Should stop erroneous usage of PubMed and their staff names should be stopped. OMICS responded and rectified the PubMed logo error at that time, and NIH staff names also using according the guidelines. OMICS supposed to submit XML files to PubMedCentral to index its journals, it was not happened and journals are not indexed by PubMedCentral. Now OMICS is getting support from National Institute of Health and Published 2000+ articles from DHHS/National Institute of Health Funding from last three years. But there is no ban on OMICS Publications as mentioned in Wikipedia. Can you lease understand the truth and concern. I would like to edit the same after permission. Joinopenaccess (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC) The word 'ban' doesn't even appear in the article. I have no idea what you are talking about. Banedon (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

OMICS International

Considering the company's webpage refers to itself as "OMICS International", perhaps this article should be renamed to that instead? Banedon (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. WP:COMMONNAME generally governs in these instances, and though I'm not familiar enough with the sources to say for sure, I rather expect "OMICS Publishing Group" (or just OMICS) predominates within them. However, this being a company, I think there might be an argument to be made to utilize their official title. Certainly COMMONNAME directs us to switch to the new name if a significant number of newer sources utilize it, even if there is a heavier body of older sources using the old name. However if newer sources stick with the old name, we are meant to as well. Again, I am not familiar enough with the sourcing here to know which is the trend, or even if "OMICS International" shows up at all. It's also possible that "OMICS International" is not the incorporated name of the company, even if it shows up on their website. That might be branding, or it might refer to some other parent or subsidiary classification of the OMICS family of companies. In any event, a census of the sources compared against the above policy should give a decent roadmap on the issue. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• We've recently been through this: [24]. No real point in doing it again. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that AfD is relevant. The problem now is that the infobox gives OMICS' website as www.omicsonline.org/, and if one clicks on that, one ends up at a page for a company with a slightly different logo + a slightly different name, which curiously isn't named "OMICS Group Inc" either. As it is, I'm seeing an argument for this article being outdated. Banedon (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant?? A sockpuppet created an article on the parent company; this was then deleted, with the result being "redirect" to this article -- because it was determine that the parent company is not notable. This is entirely relevant to the notion that we should rename the article to refer to the parent company. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Versions of this proposal have been made before. I have made the case a couple of times that the article should have a broader name, but there has been pretty clear consensus against me (with supporters of the current arrangement taking the not unreasonable view that almost all sources are about the publishing arm). --JBL (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If the perspectives voiced in the AfD are indeed relevant, it is worth noting that four different editors (that is, every other editor who addressed the issue but yourself) made it explicitly clear that they weren't concerned with what the ultimate title of the article was and that each of them simply wanted to make sure that there was only one OMICS article, whatever the title may be. You were the only party to stake out a firm claim on what you thought the only proper title could be. So let's be careful with the facts, because when you say "We just went through this; no real point in doing it again" and then link toa discussion, you seem to be implying that the discussion resulted a consensus on this issue, which, looking at it, it certainly did not. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

That might be an argument for deletion review re the way the AfD was closed. I'd be surprised if it got traction, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Time for a ban?

Rather than carry on wasting our time conversing with socks, is it time to bite the bullet and seek a ban on any editors representing OMICS? SmartSE (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes -- or, alternatively, we could just ignore them... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

On second thought: it's clear that some editors won't ignore them, so I'd encourage seeking a ban. I'd do it myself, but perhaps best to see whether you or someone else would feel more confident about doing a better job with the proposal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I was hesitant about a ban at first, as I always try to be as even-handed as possible. However, given the discussion in the section immediately above, rational discussion clearly not possible. I support a ban. --Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Draft of a proposal: Site ban for Joinopenaccess (talk · contribs) and any other editor representing OMICS Publishing Group -- mainly on grounds of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral which shows long-term/on-going/recent repeated attempts to use sockpuppets for blatantly promotional purposes. In addition, implied legal threats e.g. here (with emphasis on alleged "defamatory" editing by other editors). This disruption has been going on for many years now -- see this section of the OMICS talk page, giving other sockpuppet cases, as well as the archive indicating the nature of the "participation" from representatives of the company.

Comments/revision invited, before posting it to ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making a start. I've made a few small changes:

We propose a site ban for Joinopenaccess (talk · contribs) and any other editor representing OMICS Publishing Group -- mainly on grounds of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Scholarscentral/Archive which shows long-term and on-going attempts to use sockpuppets for promotional purposes and to remove well-sourced negative content. In addition, implied legal threats e.g. here (with emphasis on alleged "defamatory" editing by other editors). This disruption has been going on for many years now -- see this section of the OMICS talk page, giving other sockpuppet cases, as well as the archive indicating the nature of the "participation" from representatives of the company.

It is probably also worth mentioning the recent deception regarding whether they are listed in pubmed or not which Randykitty unearthed. I had thought believed them but obviously without any RS saying so the article wasn't going to change. Now I realise that some of their articles are listed on pubmed but that's due to the authorship, while other papers in the same journal are not indexed. It may also be good to include this source to allay and doubts that the article is out of date as Goattender alleged above. SmartSE (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. I was thinking that you guys might like a demonstration of how none of OMICS's journals are indexed by the NLM catalogue. In advanced searches, "publisher" is one of the options, so searching for OMICS[Publisher] resulted in 167 OMICS journals for me. Ctrl+f or other ways of searching on your browser for "Not currently indexed for MEDLINE" will result in a total of 166 hits (that other 1 lacks any indexing information), ergo: None of the OMICS journals are indexed. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've opened a thread at ANI: [25]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Randykitty, SmartSE Can you please understand the letter received three years back by OMICS. Objective of letter is OMICS Should stop erroneous usage of PubMed and their staff names should be stopped. OMICS responded and rectified the PubMed logo error at that time, and NIH staff names also using according the guidelines. OMICS supposed to submit XML files to PubMedCentral to index its journals, it was not happened and journals are not indexed by PubMedCentral. Now OMICS is getting support from National Institute of Health and Published 2000+ articles from DHHS/National Institute of Health Funding from last three years. But there is no ban on OMICS Publications as mentioned in Wikipedia. Can you lease understand the truth and concern. I would like to edit the same after permission. Joinopenaccess (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"Permission denied." WP:CONSENSUS and multiple independent/reliable sources are not in agreement with what you claim, which seems like part of the consistent problem. DMacks (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If this article was appropriately worded there would have been no substance to this conflict. That is the consistent problem. In the article opinions are expressed as if they are facts and are mixed in with facts without regard for article context. There is also far to much "it has been suggested" and "some observers" type of wording. The article reads like an attack article, intent on piling up as much negative criticism of OMICS as it can find, regardless of the quality of that criticism. Ironically, because it is all done in such an over the top manner, I think the article actually has the effect of neutralizing legitimate negative criticism. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you point out the sentences you think are problematic? Banedon (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that Tiptoe exaggerates the severity of the problem some, but having taken another look at the article in light of the AfD (be it certainly unwarranted), there are issues here and there. I think the biggest single problem with neutrality is the lead sentence, which currently reads: "OMICS Publishing Group is a publisher of open access journals that is widely regarded as predatory." The problem is that the "widely regarded" is supported by one source, and that the internal link for "predatory open access publishing" is reduced to one word, obfuscating the meaning of the word as the source employed it and leading to a more generally sinister semantic tone. That just doesn't seem appropriate when we are combining these concepts in one breath with the very definition of the subject. I'd suggest this reading instead: "OMICS Publishing Group is a publisher of open access journals. The business, a member of the OMICS Group family of companies based in Hyderabad, India, has received criticism that it operates a predatory publishing model." Just some thoughts that do not alter the substantive reading of our sources but might go some way to adding some nuance to tone and flow. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The 'widely regarded' bit is easily remedied, since virtually every source calls OMICS predatory. I've gone ahead and moved four of them from later in the lede to the first sentence. I'm not so sure about the other change you propose however — the term 'predatory' is pretty common in this subject — and will leave that edit for someone else. Banedon (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Banedon, you just compound the npov problem. Opinions are opinions, not facts. Weasely "widely regarded" and six (or sixty sources) don't change that! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

What would you say qualifies as proof that OMICS is "widely regarded" as predatory then? Banedon (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

TTTTMF: There are better words: appraisal, characterisation, description -- etc. In your usage, "America is a democratic country" would be an opinion. That's silly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The facts and the opinions need to be completely separate. Any lede content that needs six references has something seriously wrong with it: the lede is just meant to summarize the article content. Snow's suggestion has merits but I think the opinion needs to be separated further, into a separate sentence and ideally into a separate paragraph in the lede. Wording like "widely regarded" is OR unless a source says it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no problem with presenting a widespread characterisation/appraisal/description in the lede. Doing this is essential to summarise the article content. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

How about this then: Jeffrey Beall compiles a list of predatory publishers that is widely followed (sources for this are easy to find). Beall considers OMICS predatory, in fact he considers OMICS one of THE most predatory publishers out there. Is that good enough for you? Banedon (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps Tiptoe's point, though he has not articulated it in these terms, is that it is WP:SYNTHESIS to determine that OMICS is "widely" regarded as predatory simply because we've compiled a list of sources who view it in this manner. We would need multiple high quality sources that explictly use the phrase "widely regarded as predatory" (or some close approximation thereof, to include that kind of wording in the article, especially in the lead, and most especially in the lead sentence.

As to my own point on the meaning of predatory, there are two policy principles that more or less obligate use to use the full phrase rather than just the word "predatory". First off, all links anywhere on the project, regardless of their purpose, are supposed to use the full title of the article wherever possible, and especially in any instances where there might be any possibility of confusion as to the meaning (See WP:PIPE/WP:NOPIPE for just two examples of explicit wording on community consensus in this area). The other policy principle, also enshrined in numerous policies, is that we are meant to write articles for a general audience and under the assumption that our reader will not be familiar with idiomatic uses of particular terms relative to a given field. Therefore that "predatory" is used in our sources in a short-hand manner does not remove from us the responsibility of making the distinction explicitly clear for our purposes of writing a Wikipedia article. Between these two widely supported editing principles, I think it's very clear that we need to make that link more explicit. And note also that policy does not allow us to lean on the excuse that anyone can follow the link to see the precise meaning intended; we are meant to assume that a reader will not follow any links and precise meaning should be clearly derivable from the content of the text alone. In this instance we should probably use the full article title (it would be easy enough to employ that wording in the prose), but at the very least, it needs to be considerably more clear than it is now. My suggested text above was meant to be a compromise between the flow of the current text and the explicitness mandated by policy. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You convinced me. I edited the lede, it should be improved now. I am still unsure about spelling out the full form of "predatory" though - perhaps someone else can make that edit if necessary. Banedon (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks good to me now, actually, seeing as the word/link is now better contextualized in the statement you moved it into. In fact, I think you did a good job in general of arranging the statements and balancing the basic factual elements against the significant body of criticism the company has faced. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that those are improvements; it should have been obvious in the discussion above that I would object. I doubt I'm the only one. So we'll need a discussion that produces consensus for those changes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain what you are objecting to in the edit, and why? Banedon (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the first paragraph of the version as edited by Banedon is far superior. The rest of the lede in that version still has flaws. From what I can see of the sources, the "United States government" has not "questioned the validity of peer review" - that whole thing is a red herring. It is a copyright issue, and it is a U.S. National Institutes of Health not US government. The peer review issue does seem to be at the heart of the alleged problems with the company's publications, However I do not think that is expressed clearly in the article. It is buried under trivia. The word "Predatory" appears to me to be a jargon word in this context, and in this form seems to have been coined by Jeffrey Beall as an attack term for the sole purpose of implying certain business models are automatically a negative thing. I have not fully read all the various sources, but there seems to be arguments that OMICS's type of business model exists because of peer review issues existing within more mainstream publications (huge delays in getting papers published). The issue about whether OMICS has been abusing this business model by not doing proper peer reviews or by making false assertions about its publications or reviewers is a separate issue. My point is things in the article need to be separated out more: a much more careful ordering of its content to reveal these separate issues, and of course a rigorous separation of facts from claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

OMICS's business model exists not because of "peer review issues" in mainstream publications but because of its owners' desire for profits. You might consider this speculation on my part, but it's no more speculation than your notion. I continue to reject your "separation of facts from claims" in regard to the characterisation as "predatory"; I won't repeat my specific points. Your opinion about Beall's work is going to get in the way of cooperation on articles on this topic. Separately from all of that: a fair number of editors have been involved in this article for quite some time, so any changes to long-standing text (most of all the lead) should happen via normal processes of building consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is actually you who appear disinterested in co-operation. After several years of sustained conflict with OMICS-related editors you seem to have lost sight of the purpose of this article (which is to be read by people who are neither editors or OMICS employees) or the standards it should follow. You should not be editing this article to kick OMICS where you think it hurts most, or to gain personal triumph over those editors. I think you need to step back a bit. I'm sure all the legitimate criticism of OMICS can be put in the article, it just has to be placed and worded in a better way in order to stop the article reading like an attack article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Banedon's version of the lede is completely inappropriate. OMICS would not be notable if it weren't for the fact that the journals they publish and the meetings they organize are so bad, that this generates coverage in multiple reliable sources (and Beall's blog is very respected and certainly one of the RS). Writing a lede that just says that this is a company that publishes OA journals and organizes multiple conferences each year, with as only critical note the fact that some of those journals didn't publishers articles until 2012, gives a completely incorrect impression of the content of the article. A lede should summarize an article. The whole article is about how bad the journals and meetings are. That is not because this article is NPOV, that is because all RS about this company write about them because they produce crap. NPOV means that our article should reflect what sources say. If you can come up with RS that are independent of this company and write how wonderful this group is, we can start talking about how to integrate that in this article. At this point, however, there simply is nothing positive to say. Perhaps the wording can be made a bit smoother and encyclopedic, but nothing like Banedon and Tiptoethrutheminefield suggest. --Randykitty (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the article is part of the lede too isn't it: according to WP:LEDE, "The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading". That said, I think 1) Tiptoethrutheminefield is a bit less familiar with the topic than other editors here (Beall certainly does not think ALL open access publishers are predatory), and 2) I think the difference between the version we have right now and my edited one is not very big. If we keep the one currently in the article, that's fine; there are better things to do than argue over which one to use. Banedon (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

With respect, the statement that "OMICS would not be notable if it weren't for the fact that the journals they publish and the meetings they organize are so bad, that this generates coverage in multiple reliable sources" strikes me as highly indicative of a WP:Original research mentality with regard to this topic. And this is not withstanding the fact that I agree with you as a matter of fact that this is probably the case. But if you are going to object to changes made on this project which were the result of discussion dependent on actual policy predicated on community consensus, you need to address those policy considered. Banedon made the changes he did because he was compelled by such arguments, after initially opposing such changes.

So let's look at those issues. Tiptoe, for all of his lack of grace in discussing these issues which is setting him back considerably, did raise very important concerns about WP:SYNTH. We cannot, on this project, draw the conclusion that, just because we happen to have five sources that say that OMICS uses a predatory publishing model, that "it is widely viewed as having a predatory publishing model", even if each of those sources is a high-quality WP:RS. We couldn't do it if we had five dozen sources. We would still need a source which explicitly states that the company is "widely regarded" as having this trait. What we have now is a textbook case of synth; a statement which is not in any one source is being deduced from the combined sense we get about the subject from multiple sources. That is manifestly against our most basic policies on WP:verifiability.

Likewise, there's the issue with the use of the term "predatory"; per WP:PIPE, WP:NOPIPE, and a slew of other guidelines regarding using plain language and distinguishing between multiple meanings of a term, rather than utilizing industry jargon in an unqualified manner where it might confuse the reader with regard to exactly what the meaning of the term is in a given article's context (or indeed, in this case, potentially creating considerable bias in how the subject is received). We have to make the topic being linked to here more express; this is unambiguous with regard to multiple policies and general editorial sense.

So by all means, let's discuss the particulars, but let's not pretend this article could stand for some improvement. Every article can stand to benefit from some adjustment and, bluntly, this one more than most. I don't mean to insult any of the hard-working volunteers in this space, but having come here as a fresh set of eyes this week after seeing the ANI discussion and the high emotions running there, it is my honest opinion that some of the good-faith contributors here have let years of dealing with bad-faith SPAs push them into very entrenched positions on the content of this article. I sympathize that the hardline/status quo approach was probably seen as a necessity at times, but with the socks currently cleared out, its time to take advantage of a more good-faith environment and look at the nuances that need to be addressed here. So when Nomoskedasticity says "I disagree that those are improvements; it should have been obvious in the discussion above that I would object. I doubt I'm the only one. So we'll need a discussion that produces consensus for those changes.", I agree that anyone who has a perspective on this matter should stand up and be counted, but those who oppose the changes are going to have to do better than "this is how we've done it for a while" and provide substantive arguments based in broader community consensus. So let's talk policy, folks! Snow ^{let's rap} 04:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm busy right now in RL, so only a short response on the main points. 1/ If all sources are about how bad the journals/meetings are, I don't think that it is OR to say that "OMICS would not be notable if it weren't for the fact that the journals they publish and the meetings they organize are so bad, that this generates coverage in multiple reliable sources": without the criticism, we would have zero sources and zero notability. That's not OR, that's logic. 2/ I have never said that the article cannot be improved. As far as I am concerned, given that all sources state this, our lead should simply be "is a predatory open access publisher". That gets rid of the possible SYNTH with "widely regarded" as well as the PIPE issue. This has been criticized by the OMICS editors with the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument that we don't say this so explicitly for other predatory OA publishers. This is correct, the reason being that for those publishers we often only have the inclusion on Beall's list whereas here we have a slate of very good RS that say this, which has made OMICS more or less the textbook example of a predatory OA publisher. 3/ You don't mention it, but the "US government" thing needs to be re-phrased, in accordance with the sources. --Randykitty (talk) 11:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but, I really think you need to refresh yourself on what we mean we talk about WP:SYNTHESIS on this project; no matter how ironclad you think your case is for you personally drawing the conclusion that OMICS is "widely regarded" as predatory (again, I agree it is), you still need a source which explictly says as much or it unambiguous synthesis. Please remember, the standard is WP:Verification, not WP:TRUTH. We can be as confident as we like of the burden of proof that supports our deductive reasoning for our own perspectives, but for the encyclopedia we are just not allowed to connect those dots and present those perspectives. This is not even a borderline case but rather as cut and dry as synth comes. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess my answer was too brief. I kind of agree that "widely regarded" would need a source that uses this phrase. I proposed that, given that multiple RS state that this company is a predatory open access publisher, that we follow these sources and modify the lede to remove "widely regarded" and simply write "is a predatory open access publisher". --Randykitty (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the exact wording is tough; "is" still sounds absolutist and like a bit of a leap from the sources to me, but if we say, "has been associated with a predatory publishing model" (for example), then it begs a "by Sources X, Y, and Z", which is not really ideal for the lead, since it should be summarizing the aspects of the company itself, and not the sources we use to establish them. But it's a WP:Weasel issue if we don't... A bit of a catch-22, which is why I found Banedon's approach kind of elegant, because it sidestepped that issue. But I'm sure there's some middleground wording here.

On another point, I neglected also to re-raise the piping issue in my last comment. I meant to respond to your comments by noting that I'm not arguing for the removal of the term predatory in its entirety--WP:PIPE, WP:NOPIPE and the other policies I've obliquely referenced wouldn't be relevant to such a discussion. Rather the point is only that if we are going to have an internal link to Predatory open-access publishing, that link should not be piped to just the word "predatory" as that is potentially confusing and biasing for the reader; policy tells us not to assume that our readers will follow or examine that link to know the exact meaning of "predatory" being employed, not to assume that they have familiarity with industry jargon such that they can deduce it from context. That is, we can and should just de-pipe the link and work it's wording into the statement. Besides, that way, for readers who are unfamiliar with the concept, they are now are more likely to realize the relevance of that link and follow it for a better understanding of just what it is that OMICS is being criticized for, which is the entire point of having that internal link, really. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

"Predatory open-access publishing" is a jargon phrase, coined by Jeffrey Beall to advance his personal bugbear. It is pov rhetoric that completely distorts the widely accepted meaning of "predatory". Every use of the phrase can be traced back to Beall. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is PoV rhetoric, but it's become the standard terminology in this field. This is the "widely accepted meaning" of predatory, at least in the context of publishing. And as mentioned above, Beall is THE authority in this field. Banedon (talk) 05:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Few Edits

archiving discussion started by banned editor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As per the discussion at [26] , [27] the OMICS Publishing Group article should be rewritten. Most of the editors were suggested to re-write the article but it was not happened. I am an employee of OMICS, I can edit after disclosure of Conflict of Interest according to the administrators notice board conclusions. According to the Predatory open access publishing following are included in predatory list Bentham Science Publishers, Frontiers Media, Libertas Academica, OMICS Publishing Group, Scientific Research Publishing and World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology. But for OMICS Publishing Group predatory word kept as 'widely regarded as predatory'. It should be moved to second paragraph in the lead as it was maintained for other publishers included in predatory list. I request comments and suggestions on this proposal, i will start editing after one or two days. 61.16.142.82 (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC) You should not edit the article, because you (and all other representatives of OMICS) are site banned per the ANI case you linked. In fact you could reasonably be blocked for writing on this talk page too. With regards to the second part, there was some discussion about it two sections above, but it's since petered out. Simply counting votes would lead to something like 2.5 v 2 (counting myself as 0.5, since I don't feel strongly either way); on the other hand it seems like neither Snow Rise nor Tiptoethrutheminefield feel strongly about it either, since neither have pressed on with dispute resolution. Personally I'd simply leave the article as it is. There are better things to do than argue over something so minor. On another note, I haven't cross-checked all the publishers you listed, but Libertas Academica is not currently on Beall's list. Banedon (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Jeffrey Beall should get a login and stop using IP addresses. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC) What on Earth makes you think that Beall would use an IP address, geolocating to Mumbai, to defend OMICS??? BTW, Beall does have a user account here under the name of Denverjeffrey. --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC) Apologies to Denverjeffrey - when I made the post I did not think (or, rather, I did not consider the possibility) that Jeffrey Beall had a Wikipedia account. I was not actually thinking the IP was Beall, but that it might as well be since the IP's wording seemed to claim that a pov phrase coined by Beall can be used as a label on Wikipedia to stick unquestioningly onto any publication that Beall has labeled with that term. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC) I respect the decision of ANI Case, where it was clearly noted that OMICS representatives can do reasonable editing after Conflict of interest (COI) disclosure. According to that I am suggeting few edits. My next suggestions is change of logo. We need to keep OMICS Publishing Group logo instead of OMICS Group as per the article title. The OMICS Publishing Group logo is available at http://sciencesblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/logo-small.png 61.16.142.82 (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

New article on OMICS

See [28]. Also [29]. Doug Weller talk 19:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)