4 Responses to Open Access Bait and Switch

  1. duanemiller says:

    I just submitted a paper to one of the Global Advanced Research Journals…but they were uo-front about the whole thing. I sent in an article, and they e-mailed me back saying there was $350 fee (much less than other fees here). So at least I feel they were honest about it, and also the sum is not small, but does not compare to the fees here well in excess of $1000. This is not a vindication of the GAJR series, but much better than what you all experienced! Maybe blogs like this have had the desired effect?

  2. hildevn says:

    Like most of the authors posting questions about Open Access, I was approached by an open access journal (via OMICS). I chose to follow the journey in order to learn about open access. In the end I published a paper on the Tragedy of the Commons (the “commons” being open access publishing). Surprisingly, OMICS group published a fairly scathing review of their practices, charged me nothing, and did not leave the paper “in process” but actually provided the full publication. It is available online (http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/2167-0269/2167-0269-1-e121.pdf) – I recommend to anyone who is dealing with OMICS or similar journals to get out of things immediately. It is a waste of energy and resources. I spent only 2 hours writing my OMICS publication as I had low expectations, but some authors may end up learning a tough lesson.

  3. Paul Vaucher says:

    I was solicited to write for a special issue in a new open source journal from the OMICS group called Journal of Forensic Research. Given there were no open-source journals in the field, I took the bait. The Editor was based in Michigan and I the editing manager was friendly enough to extend the deadline for me to get my paper ready for them.

    I sent my first draft for review specifying I would have the English edited after I had brought corrections required by reviewers. My article was accepted without any condition (never got to read the reviewers return…) and I got an E-mail asking me to proof read the version that still needed editing. I corrected the entire paper late that night and sent back my request for corrections within 24h. Furthermore, the article contained many editing mistakes including wrong authorship, inconsistency between title and short title, etc. At the same time, to my surprise, I was billed $1800 for the editing job. The paper was published without my consent including most of the mistakes I had reported within 24h.

    Regardless to the fact I had been stupid enough to pay a reduced invoice, it took me over 6 months and threats of legal actions to have them correct the paper. This was done without changing the DOI, adding any comments regarding the versions, or warning that a wrong version had been edited by mistake.

    The special issue editor had had similar problems trying to contact the editing team. Even if the journal still cited him as the editor of the special issue, he had long quit his position. When speaking of OMICS he told me ” I have tremendous concerns about their practices”, and “my experience with the journal has been entirely unpleasant”.

    Given that the journal’s official address is, I am willing to collaborate with anyone who wishes to initiate a collective legal action against OMICS in US. This is solely to defend open source. Herby, I attest I will donate any personnal financial compensation from this action to peerJ.

Leave a Reply -- All comments are subject to moderation, including removal.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: