There has being many controversies about OMICS been a name used for a predator publishing group or not. In 2011, an investigation led by a blogger [1] revealed how the company owned and led by Srinubadu Gedela lacks transparency in the editorial process during which editor's and reviewers' names often remain unknown to authors. Some editors even have had difficulties to have their names removed from the editorial board [2]. The situation seems to not have changed in 2017 even if the company has grown [3]. Subsidiaries of OMICS International have grown with many other fictitious business names owned by Srinubabu Gedela registered in the US, UK and Singapour under the names iMedPub, Conference Series, Allied Academies, Pulsus, Trade Sci, SciTechnol, and EuroSciCon.
In November 2017, the Nevada Federal Court released an injunction order [4] against OMICS, IMEDPUB, Conference Series and Srinubabu Gedela, their common CEO, following a complaint made by the US Federal Trade Commission [5].
In the motion [6|, the court indicted the "defendants" for :
Srinubabu Gedela was furthermore recognised to be liable for injonctives and monetary relief. On the 29th of March 2019, The United States District Court of Nevada ruled that OMICS was guilty of prohibited misrepresentations regarding publishing services and conferences and ordered to pay the US government the sum of $50'130'810 [7]. The company nevertheless has important political support in India.
OMICS has played the victim card as a honest OA publisher unjustly attacked by paper based journal publishers. This position however does not hold given the factual solidity of the complaints, the lack of arguments from the defendants to justify their actions, and the documented misconduct in the judgment itself [7].
On a good note, I would like to highlight that the Indian scientific community seems to be fighting against predatory groups to defend a high quality OA approach [8]. Our activity within this post has also helped make the problem of predatory publishers and "junk science" more visible to the public [9].
Since 2015, this thread has being calling any of the thousands of editors from the OMICS group to explain how specific editors are chosen for a given paper, how they then chose reviewers, and how they reject or accept articles once feedback is provided.
Since this question was initially posted, many testimonies of scientific misconduct have been made public in this post and through private messages. They have revealed at the least that the publisher is meeting serious difficulties in engaging editors in the editorial process, in refusing article of low quality, in finding qualified reviewers, and in reporting precise bibliometrics for their journals. Not a single editor was able to testify that within their journal, the editing process was done correctly. The call is still open for such a testimony.
Beall's black list, that provides the names of publishers and journals with reported unethical predatory behaviour, was recently reopened by a collective [10]. It is however better to rely on white lists that cover publishers or journals that meet expected standards. Examples of white lists for open journals are publishers listed on the DOAJ [11] or members of the OASPA [12].
A big thank you for all those willing to expose themselves as victimes of scientific misconduct and for sharing their experience with the public. I can only encourage people to continue to do so.
Article Predatory Publishing – Experience with OMICS International