Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:07, 8 November 2015

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Open (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Open Access Low‑importance [REDACTED] OMICS Publishing Group is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Open Access to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect) Cleanup : Access2Research Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles. Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess; Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Misplaced Pages articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Academic Journals This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

COI editing of this page

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Omics123 (talk · contribs)

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Srinubabuau6 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (Declared here, sockpuppets here.)

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

1. "HUPO 6th annual world congress".
2. "Source: University of South Australia".
3. "Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory".
4. "Source:Beijing Proteome Research Center".
5. "Source: University of Delaware".
6. "Source:Yale University Library".
7. "Source:Pacific Northwest National Laboratory".
8. "Richard Poynder:OMICS Publishing Group" (PDF).
9. Coscarelli, Joe (2011-10-10). / "Anthrax Mystery - Publishing - New York Magazine". nymag.com. Retrieved 2012-11-15. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
10. "The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations" (PDF). The Wshington Post. Retrieved 2012-11-15.
11. "New questions about FBI anthrax inquiry deserve scrutiny". http:// www.washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2012-11-15.
12. Broad, William (2011-10-10). "Scientists' Analysis Disputes F.B.I. Closing of Anthrax Case - Publishing - The New York Times". nytimes.com. Retrieved 2012-11-15.

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 Misplaced Pages 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, "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., "." Journal of Proteomics & Bioinformatics, January 02, 20011. Accessed November 19, 2012. Rich1982 (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

References

1. "Previous OMICS Group Conferences". Retrieved 2012-11-20.
2. "World Congress on Biotechnology". http://www.thehansindia.info. Retrieved 2012-10-19. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
3. "Hydrology and Ground Water Expo at San Antonio". http://www.ehs-news.com. Retrieved 2012-10-19. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
4. "International Conference & Exhibition on Virology at Chicago". http://www.jidc.org. Retrieved 2012-10-19. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
5. "Source: University of South Australia".
6. "Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory".
7. "Source:Beijing Proteome Research Center".
8. "Source: University of Delaware".
9. "Source:Yale University Library".
10. "Source:Pacific Northwest National Laboratory".
11. "Richard Poynder:OMICS Publishing Group" (PDF).
12. Coscarelli, Joe (2011-10-10). / "Anthrax Mystery - Publishing - New York Magazine". nymag.com. Retrieved 2012-11-15. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
13. "The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations" (PDF). The Wshington Post. Retrieved 2012-11-15.
14. "New questions about FBI anthrax inquiry deserve scrutiny". http:// www.washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2012-11-15.
15. Broad, William (2011-10-10). "Scientists' Analysis Disputes F.B.I. Closing of Anthrax Case - Publishing - The New York Times". nytimes.com. Retrieved 2012-11-15.

• 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

1. "Scholars Central". http://scholarscentral.org/. Retrieved 2012-12-06. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
2. "Sciences Blog". http://sciencesblog.org//. Retrieved 2012-12-06. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

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/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

http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/instructionsforauthorsJAMK.php

http://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)

"Scientific conferences"`

Can we please get some closure on this edit. My view: the source (interview with the director of the company, ) 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. Misplaced Pages 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

1. Richard Poynder"OMICS Group Interview" (PDF). Retrieved 2013-04-15.

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)

Neutrality dispute

Request for 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)

"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 http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access-journals-list.php sarakadam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarakadam (talk • contribs) 07:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

As Misplaced Pages 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. (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: 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)

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)

Content Controversy

Because this is a very controversial page: I seek advice

• OMICS Publishing Group[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] page; should we not refresh the content. One Two
• OMICS Publishing Group Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#OMIC Publishing Group, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#OMIC Publishing Group, and Misplaced Pages 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)

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.

Sockpuppet investigation

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

Removal of referral to FTC

Re , 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 Misplaced Pages 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 _{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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 . 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 and in 2015 ABC reported 700 journals and 50% of them are defunct in 18 months they got 100% growth? it is unusual?

My interest is to create a page for their conferences OMICS Group Inc , there claiming 1000 global events but listed only 650, their investments in to other conferences companies . Their conferences/parent wiki article is required along with their revenue per registration , 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 , and conferences sources , , and their parent company sources 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)

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 The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. JSSPK (talk · contribs) 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)

False data on Misplaced Pages OMICS Group Inc and OMICS Publishing Group pages

COI-Declaration

Hi, This is kumar An employee of OMICS work on the removal/editing of defamatory content on our organization @ Misplaced Pages, 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

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. 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.

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.

For wiki editors clarification OMICS has 200+ journals in NLM ] and 2000+ articles indexed in PubMedCentral from our journals from last three years . Please maintain the neutrality of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference science was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Open access articles
• Low-importance Open access articles
• WikiProject Open Access articles
• Start-Class Academic Journal articles
• WikiProject Academic Journal articles
• Start-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Articles with connected contributors