OMICS Creates Ghost Brands to Attract New Authors

e-Medical Central

e-Medical Central

Hyderabad, India-based OMICS Publishing Group has set up new websites with different brand names that all try to lure potential authors into submitting papers to one or more of OMICS’ 250 journals. It is currently using these alternative brands:

  1. e-Clinical Central =
  2. e-Medical Central =
  3. e-Pharma Central =
  4. e-Science Central =

It’s almost as if OMICS is deliberately creating brand confusion to trick scholars into submitting papers to these ghost brands. None of the brands has its own journals; their websites all lead to OMICS journals. The brands also serve to invite scholars into attending OMICS conferences.

e-Clinical Central

e-Clinical Central

This arrangement allows OMICS to have a greater web presence with more names. The objective is still the same — earn article processing fees and conference registration fees from authors. The company is trying to saturate the market for OA paper submissions. I think it’s just a matter of time before they develop new brands that begin with i-hyphen, such as i-Science, or something like that.

e-Pharma Central

e-Pharma Central

Looking at these ghost brands, one observes the same grammatical deficiencies that occur on OMICS’ main websites. For example, one banner says “Bringing microscopic world closer to you.” And, “Key to open access science forum” doesn’t really make any sense either.

e-Science Central

e-Science Central

OMICS also displays the logo for NIH, the National Institutes of Health, on all these brands’ websites:

NIH logo

They display and even distort the NIH logo.

Don’t be fooled by this intentional brand confusion. OMICS, by any other name, is still OMICS.

14 Responses to OMICS Creates Ghost Brands to Attract New Authors

  1. Frank Lu says:

    Sounds like beer companies selling the same stuff but calling them “select” or “premium” and some such debasement of the English language.

  2. Grace says:

    Today I received a request from an Omics Group journal to review a manuscript. On the plus side, I was an appropriate choice given the topic. However, there was no mention of an assigned associate editor, and, knowing the history of this organization, I wrote back that I had no desire to support their scam.

  3. JATdS says:

    Omics is simply playing with the word PubMed Central, which is one of the highest searched for words on Google and Yahoo search engines related to science. Possibly proof of this is the link to the NIH logo. The 4 keywords science, pharma, medical and clinical all receive millions of searches a day, so if their sites can “catch” web-surfers more easily, and they can gradually get onto the top pages of search engines, then all they need to do is to channel them back to home base. I am not sure if this trick is illegal, but it is certainly underhanded. This actually makes us think, considering that there is so much bias in terms of journal selection for inclusion in PubMed, if there is any under-handed link between Omics and PubMed. Are there any investigative scientists in the US who are willing to go on a limb to dig to the deepest level to investigate this hypothesis? After all, why would a publisher risk claiming that their articles are funded by the NIH. Is Omics suggesting that PubMed is paying them or is Omics paying PubMed? Something sounds even fishier than it is…

  4. Rose says:

    What can I do if I submitted an article to OMICS? How can I retrieve it?

  5. If this is news to you I refer you to Mr. Beall’s constantly growing list of predatory open access publishers:

  6. Considering that you have given a rather charged report and referenced the NIH, I kindly ask you to consider the following question?

    Are you aware that the phrase “NIH funded studies” means that authors, who receive funds from the NIH, have published their research in the OMICS journal.

    Are you suggesting that NIH funding is a bad thing, or that authors who publish their NIH-funded research should not be respected for their diligent work?

    • I disagree with the premise of your final question. Publication is part of the research process, and if any researcher submits his or her work to any journal published by OMICS International or one of its imprints, he or she is not doing diligent work.

      • Thank you for your reply. I have spoken with the editors at Health Care: Current Reviews about improving the rigor of their reviews and they have expressed interested, apologized for mistakes that they did make, and made effort to improve. Given the aformentioned, why should people boycott all of OMICS. Their CEO has chosen to delegate authority and essentially all oversight of each journal to the individual journal editors. Why should scholars boycott them? Thank you again for the reply. I was not expecting it, and I understand that you are an international figure who must reply judiciously in all of your statements.

      • Honest researchers should avoid all OMICS International journals for the reasons I’ve documented over time in my blog. They have made victims of researchers from around the world. The spam, misrepresenting their headquarters as being in California when it’s really in Hyderabad, India. They quickly accept and publish articles with no peer review and then send an invoice to the author. When the author, not realizing the paper would be immediately published, demands that they paper be withdrawn, they refuse to pull it and demand payment. They even charge for withdrawals. Many people whose names have appeared on OMICS editorial boards labor in vain to get their names removed. This, OMICS, is a dangerous, predatory organization and I stand by my recommendation that all honest researchers avoid it completely.

      • Your documentation on this blog includes several unmeritorious claims such as this post claiming that “NIH Funded research” is somehow deceptive. They have had problems with their publication, I discussed that with their peer review and they apologized. Your efforts to prevent people from working with them is surely hindering their improvement. Next, they are an Internet company with hundreds of employees, and their office can be wherever their server is. Joseph works in Nevada. You may be correct about many of their past mistakes, but they have expressed an interest in improving the quality of their publications and the fact that some of their journals are homeopathic tabloids run by different editors is hardly reason to condemn a different journal run by different people.

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

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

You are commenting using your 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: