New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International

OMICS banner

International rubbish.

I am writing this blog post to renew my urgent warning to researchers in all countries to avoid all products and services of OMICS International. It’s a counterfeit scholarly publisher and conference organizer that abuses and exploits honest researchers and threatens science.

OMICS International is the new name of OMICS Group. The company is expanding, adding hundreds of new open-access journals in all fields, each a source of endless spam email messages.

OMICS International has ramped up its conference organizing division, offering guaranteed acceptance of conference presentation proposals to anyone willing to pay their hefty fees.

OMICS conference

Stay away from this.

OMICS now uses a new URL for its exploitative conference division. The link is

They offer conferences in most major cities of the world, except — perhaps notably — Denver, Colorado.

OMICS junk UN article

No Legitimate scholarly journal would publish junk science such as this.

Hyderabad, India-based OMICS continues to be a major publisher of junk science and bogus, advocacy research. They will publish just about anything, as long as they can earn money for doing it.

Take the above-pictured article, for example. It’s entitled, “Turning Nature against Man: The Role of Pandemics, Vaccines and Genetics in the UN’s Plan to Halt Population Growth.”

An example of “advocacy research” the article is in press and is slated to be published in volume 6, issue 2 of OMICS International’s journal Epidemiology: Open Access.

A popular New Zealand-based blog has also provided some helpful commentary on this article.

OMICS International often tricks people into submitting manuscripts. These are quickly published (with no peer review), and the author is soon surprised with a bill. The company then refuses to withdraw the paper unless a fee is paid.


I strongly recommend that researchers in all countries avoid submitting their work to OMICS International journals and conferences.



38 Responses to New Name, Same Horrible Business: OMICS International

  1. Frank Lu says:

    Passively accepting junk papers on our part is a bad idea. Because they are OA, I have met folks (basically general public and “researchers” who consider surfing the ‘net to be research such as school kids) who quote these papers that have authoritative sounding titles from “well-respected journals” to my utter chagrin. On the side, various blogs and stuff on the ‘net also contribute to misinformation.

    I had to do damage control. I sometimes have been made to feel stupid in my own expert area. Just roll my eyes, lift up my hands and tell these researchers good luck. But this is bad because some of these “researchers”/agitators then spread the “virus” in various forums.

  2. Sudesh Kumar says:

    Last financial year OMICS Publications turnover was $5 million with profit of $500,000. It is another matter that they showed things like computer systems worth $200,000 and employee benefits worth $1.5 million, which are probably grossly inflated to reduce profits and taxes. considering they are in India where average salary of such employees is about $700/month.

  3. Be Healthy says:

    I totally appreciate your hard work Jeffrey. Unfortunately I have published with them before I knew this. However, while they may have junk work–no idea–I was also asked to review a few submissions and only one of them was junk; the rest needed major rework but not junk. So I think that scholars are trying to publish wherever they can and just because the journal is junk, it does not make all work in them junk by association at all!.

    I mentioned earlier that I face a very hard challenge of publishing a work where clinical trial is not possible and so journals will not accept it even though it is doing really well for thousands of people with repeated success for over two years (the definition of scientific research). The work is not junk by any stretch of the imagination. I know the response was, even from this blog, “run a clinical trial.” Since that is not possible because of the nature of the experiment required, no one is listening. No one also understands why it is not possible so I give up.

    The good news though is that a well-known indexed high level journal published an article claiming “first discovery” (of what I discovered, only they figured out a smaller parts of it) which it clearly was not–I already published mine by then. So I was able to publish a comment-rebuttal (publishing acceptance just received and contract signed) in which I actually am citing my work in OMICS! The journal accepted it since that is where the first academic presentation is and there is nothing they can do about that.

    So while the journal may be junk and predatory, it can be used if necessary!

    Also, an important point, it is not only school kids who use google scholar. People who are retired and are no longer affiliated with academia–like me–who left for family reasons taking early retirement, have no access to journals unless the subscription is purchased, which can get expensive. As a published academician who has article in I am able to access many of the articles free but not all.

    One needs to think past one’s nose when making critical comments on what others may use and how for academic work and research and why.

    • tekija says:

      Interesting. Can you point US to your OMICS paper?

    • MC says:

      What is the link to the Omics article where you claim a “first discovery” that was then published by someone else? Where is the link to that paper? And the link to your rebuttal?

      • Be Healthy says:

        oh.. see above. I just posted answer to the same question a comment above

      • Be Healthy says:

        Oh and the link to the rebuttal will be posted as soon as it is out. I just received the acceptance notice and proof that they received my contract signature. I will post as soon as it is available

    • Nils says:

      To establish precedence on your work, and also to allow retired people accessing your publications, consider using preprint servers, such as arXiv or bioRxiv.

      • Be Healthy says:

        Thanks for the idea Nils. Is publication posted there still possible to publish elsewhere? This sentence got me sort of confused since it says both yes and no: “Submitters must grant a non-exclusive and irrevocable license to distribute or certify that the work is available under another license that conveys these rights” so that means I cannot publish then in a journal that wants exclusive rights, such as the one I just published in with link yet to come… Do I understand this right?

      • Nils says:

        In my field (math), it is standard practice to post your article on a preprint server before submitting it to a journal. Most journals explicitly mention in their terms that this is allowed (as long as you do not post the copyedited accepted manuscript) – posting on a preprint server is not considered as prior publication. I have put all my papers on preprint servers before publication, and never had any problem with that.
        Now I understand practices vary from one field to another, and you certainly should check (with the intended journal, with colleagues) before using a preprint server. It seems that in fields such as medicine, preprints are not yet widely used. However, I have seen several recent articles and blog posts suggesting that mentalities might be evolving in this regard.
        In mathematics, theoretical physics and computer science, people have been using preprint servers for 25 years. This may be partly explained by the fact that the period between submission and publication of a paper may be quite long in these fields, often more than a year. Also, the practice of circulating paper versions of preprints existed before the appearance of repositories such as arXiv.

      • Be Healthy says:

        Thanks Nil. Very useful advice. I will look into publishing with pre-print servers. I never thought about that. It is definitely good for the exposure!

    • wkdawson says:

      I certainly was duped into publishing with OMICs in 2009, long before I learned of this list.

      At that time, I considered these recent OA journals to be an alternative to the very obscure journals where important work is published, but maybe difficult to publish in the main stream. The famous work of Gibbs is all published in the “Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences”; e.g., the entire volume can be found at: with Gibbs work starting from p 343. (The copyrights are long expired so this link should be ok, but it is a big file!) Even some 10 years ago, finding this resource would have been impossible. Maybe the only what to obtain the work would have been to to go to Connecticut, negotiate with some library, and copy it page by page at considerable expense.

      The publisher evidently had no idea what was being published from the recorded remarks made to Gibbs, indeed, it probably wasn’t even peer reviewed. However, the writing is quite clear and understandable, and it uses standard notations that we use today. It is never said explicitly, and I don’t know exactly why he published there for sure, but the chances are that he was mistreated by the European journals where people typically aimed to publish at that time.

      It is also true that Einstein did not publish in peer reviewed journals — though all of them are now so. The only place he tried that was peer reviewed was Physical Review, and because the reviewer complained, Einstein retracted the paper and said that he would never publish with PR again.

      Therefore, it should not be construed that an author publishing in an obscure journal or even a journal that does not peer review, is somehow no good. That is just a cheap shot, like making a big deal about a minor spelling error in an otherwise clear, accurate, appropriate and well-aimed critique.

      However, it is also true that, in a “publish or perish” environment, severely substandard (and even plagiarized) work can be dumped in these places, and the authors can basically get away with it. In that respect, unlike in the past when Gibbs and Einstein were publishing, the reputation of the journal matters more now. You would not want to have your name mixed in with people who are frauds and con artists. That exists everywhere at some level everywhere, but it is more likely to be found in the low life places.

      It is my belief that good work eventually is recognized as such, and where it is published is eventually irrelevant. I realize that sometimes there is not much of a choice. In terms of OA, my experience with PLoS journals has been reasonably good. As a serious scholar, they have never mistreated me and I have never felt personally discriminated against. OMICS did not mistreat me as a scientist, but the publication was something I could produce better on my own word processor and I wouldn’t have had the ordeal of checking every single cursed term and equation carefully all over again. They still managed to slip a couple of irritating screw ups past me. There seems to be no way to introduce an erratum in their journals.

      I support OA because, having lived outside the US, I found it very frustrating trying to get publications. It seems that many universities outside the US and EU don’t have a large library budget. Most of the time, when I needed something, I had to go to University of Tokyo library to get it. It is even harder now living in Warsaw, where often there is no way to get a copy of a paper. The librarian sometimes tries to get stuff for me, but I often have to beg and plead with authors to get a copy of something I need for review. I am not always fortunate enough to receive a copy from them.

      The point that I can fully agree with Jeffrey on is that I also care about the quality of publishing, and shoddy, dishonest work is an insult to the trade. However, I don’t agree that the reader pays journals are the home of the good, honest, sincere society of noble scholars; and the OA journal are the home of the corrupt, mercenary, swindling frauds. Of these, they are everywhere and we, as scholars, have to evaluate work on the basis of what it is, not where it comes from.

      • Marco says:

        The story about Einstein and Physical Review is actually quite interesting, because a reconstruction of the affair suggests that the one reviewer for Einstein’s paper actually correctly pointed out that the paper was wrong(!). And despite Einstein’s angry comment, it also seems he later published the paper with a radically different conclusion from the reviewed paper

      • wkdawson says:

        Marco: agreed. I had added that to another post below.

        I am actually strongly in favor of peer review, and make that point below very clear. However, it is also clear from the article that Einstein, even with the peer review, was given very special treatment.

        Imagine Einstein (the nobody) where the editor sends his paper to an enemy who slanders him (e.g., maybe at that time Mac, who denied and possibly destroyed people for atomistic thinking) or to some blockhead who demands 15 million billion zillion “benchmarks” (all unspecified and deniable by fiat by the reviewer) or other such nonsense (lack of) thinking… Einstein might have been blotted out from history. I have personally witness this evil in my life too.

        Nevertheless, in general, I would say that I have benefitted significantly from the advice of reviewers.

  4. Scientific Spam lists all OMICS IP addresses, all OMICS domains, and everything associated with OMICS, on sight. If anybody notices an OMICS resource that we aren’t listing yet, kindly let us know.

  5. Suman Dumi Rai says:

    Thank you very much for on time information…

  6. tekija says:

    Thank you very much for sharing the links above. Regarding your review papers on migraine and salt, I have a question.

    How do you reconcile your competing and conflict of interest statement therein:

    “The authors declare no competing interest”

    with what seems to an outside observer to be a direct commercial or at least a trademarked vested interest in marketing a related book and diet:

    Thank you in advance for a reply.

    • Be Healthy says:

      Great question tekija. There are several reasons why there is no “competing and conflict of interest” so let me give you 2 very important ones here. Not sure if you ever published before and read what “competing and conflict of interest” means but it is defined as getting paid by a 3rd party in order to show that the product (or service) you discovered and write about was “paid for” by them. Thus

      1) opened its doors in January 2016, way after the articles were submitted, and so I NOW earn money but the research was done long before that and the were even published before my first paying client so I see no conflict of interest anywhere. My research and even writing the papers had been done well over a year before was opened. The Stanton Migraine Protocol was also trademarked after all research, since before the research I had no idea what would be in it. Makes sense?

      2) I had no 3rd party involved during the research at all; no one paid for my research. I did. Neither the research nor my book (which you have not yet mentioned) or my service promotes any medicines, supplements, or products that others or I may have financial gain from them. I received no funds from external sources at all during my research. If you read the research papers, they describe that all preliminary research was done in several migraine groups and then I opened my migraine group (totally free) from which the data was used to write my articles. Participation in the group is free (to this day) and the help migraineurs get is also free (even now). I analyze every single person who joins and I provide guidance to them free. There is no need for anyone to sign up at for services for a fee, except if they wish total privacy and anonymity. For that I do charge and that is my salary.

      It is important to mention that scientists generally get salaries as direct contribution to their research from the institution they work for and that still does not mean “competing and conflict of interest” since that is their earnings as a result of doing their work. In my case, I am self-employed and received no funds from anyone for my research, which at that time was not yet supported by earnings from since that page did not yet exist.

      If I received extra money from big pharma, for example, as many researchers do, to run a clinical trial or use the drug in question as off label, that would be one of many examples of “competing and conflict of interest”. I had none of that.

      Now, I already know your next question: the book. What about the royalties I am earning about the selling of my book? The answer: I don’t. I actually paid for the book to be published in order to retain the copyright and to be able to dictate to have the book with larger letters and more space between lines so a migraineur can actually read it–I published many books before by official publishers, like Elgar and others, and I had no say in how much they are selling it for, what the book looks like and lost the copyright as well.

      It will take many years to even recover my cost of having published the book because I also set the price low–most migraineurs lost their jobs and cannot afford to pay much. If a reseller sells the book (e-book or paperback) at full price, I would be getting about a dollar for the e-book and somewhat less for the paperback. As it happens the e-book full price is $3.99 and if you look at amazon, it sells there for $3.03 so I am getting a split of the 3 cents profit between the publisher and me. Self-publishing a book is pretty expensive.

      As you can see, the entire research so far cost me more than I will ever be able to recoup also because I had no earnings at all for several years while I was conducting the research.

      I hope this answers your question.


      • tekija says:

        I appreciate your kind reply. Regarding your two points:

        As an author, I’ve come to believe that the deiniton of conflict of interest is a lot broader. Furthermore as its name implies, it is a simple informative declaration rather than anything that would be derogatory, in order to let readers know about any potential links of the author rather than let them find out themselves.

        The journal in question seems to agree and recommends NIH guidelines as regards declaring potential interests:

        Regarding timelines, Whois tells that your web site actually was registered and became functional in late April, 2015.

        The Wayback Machine has cached versions of it that are essentially the same as today as regards references to the book and the trademarked migraine protocol from June 1, 2015, onward.*/

        The paper that we were discussing was accepted for publication in November 23, 2015, well after the events above.

        If I am not mistaken, this is significantly different from the timeline that you put forward, above?

      • Be Healthy says:


        The domain name registration was on 4/24/2015 to be precise and my first submission to the first journal, according to my email records, of the migraine article was on 4/9/2015 followed by a rejection received on the 13th of April. On that same day I submitted it to another journal and so forth all the way through November. So what you see is the final journal, which accepted in November. By then all research was stopped for a year. There is no conflict of interest anywhere.

        The date of acceptance to the final journal, therefore, is not very meaningful and you should not be making any judgment.

        I welcome questions that I can answer before you form an opinion based on incorrect facts and appear to make my work unethical, which it is not. Please ask so you can learn the facts.


      • MadisonMD says:

        Dear Angela,
        As an independent observer reading this thread, your replies and paper are troublesome for the following reasons:
        1. You stated “[my website] opened its doors in January 2016, way after the articles were submitted, and so I NOW earn money” whereas you now acknowledge that, in fact the website was registered and open much earlier and not way after the article was submitted.
        2. Your rationale for not declaring COI–that you don’t charge very much and have not yet turned a profit–rings hollow.
        3. Your article appears to indicate 100% effectiveness of your intervention: “In the present study, all participants who made these dietary changes were able to eliminate migraine medications and remained migraine free.” suggesting a very strong ascertain mentioned bias.

        How long was your article under review prior to acceptance?

  7. Be Healthy says:

    I totally agree wkdawson. I have an example for you that just came in the email today for me that totally supports your argument and made me laugh.

    I wrote an article which later was invited to be published (I did not submit) by a most well respected journal in a special edition that was filled with the most famous economists at the time: “Review Francaise d’Economie”, translated to French. You can find my article (in French) here: and in English in an economic pre-pub repository here: it is a rather fiery article (my undergrad is in math so there is a bit of math in it but minimal).

    As you can see, the article is published with major names, some of which are Nobel Prize candidates in economics, such as Ariel Rubinstein (he received the Bruno Prize (2000), the Israel Prize for economics (2002), the Nemmers Prize in Economics (2004), the EMET Prize (2006), and the Rothschild Prize (2010)).

    The special edition that was pulled together to discuss neuroeconomics is here: and you see only invited papers by extremely well-known and famous scholars so my paper being among them is an honor and I certainly expected it to be a publication “help” rather than hindrance.

    I looked in Scopus a few weeks ago to see if my publications were in there and this was missing so I wanted to add it. I received an email response today (partial letter here):

    “Thank you for your e-mail regarding the article entitled: “Neuroeconomics: A Critique of ‘Neuroeconomics: A Critical Reconsiderations”… Please be advised that the journal in which your article was published is not indexed in Scopus, therefore your paper cannot be added to our database. For more details on the Scopus Content.”

    Voila! A journal special edition with Nobel candidates is “not good enough” to be indexed in Scopus. Really?

    So what have I got to say now regarding your note on Einstein: well said.

    While many journals are certainly predatory and junk, many are just impossible to reach because their noses are held so high; yet they withdraw publications for error continuously! I am not saying that we should drop everything and publish in junk journals at all. What I am saying is that if even a super journal is considered to be junk by the American indexing method, how can we possibly be sure that a journal, like Science or Nature or Cell or similar is not equivalently junk?

    I forgot the name of a famous scientist who just recently commented that he refuses to publish anything in these three famous “best” journals because they publish junk science.

    So where does one publish? And does it really matter where? If Einstein lived today, he could not publish anything anywhere.


    • wkdawson says:

      Dear Angela,

      I should add some clarification. The story of Einstein is a bit more nuanced and, it seems that I should have taken the time to dig up the reference and explained the matter a bit more in detail.

      As it turns out, although Einstein kept his word on not publishing in Physical Review, he probably actually had benefitted from the confrontation with the reviewer. This is the full story on the incident,

      (which is now fortunately OA as probably articles like this _should_ be).

      What this shows is that, when peer review is done with sincere reviewers, the author almost always _benefits_ from this exchange. Evidently, it seems that Einstein also benefitted, even if his feathers were rumpled a bit in the process. In a large percentage of my experience, I would say exactly the same. Peer review helps give you some idea how someone outside of your local group reads your work. Unfortunately, not all peer reviewers are sincere, and this I have also personally witnessed.

      I mainly wanted to emphasize the example of Einstein because we often assume these days that peer review was always so and (I certain) have taken for granted that Einstein went through the same process. That is not so. I doubt that people were any better in character at that time than they are today, but in every generation, some people surely care about what they write.

      Most likely, corruption is no different in Einstein’s time than now. Maybe it is just that we have more scholars (and therefore more bamboozlers). Maybe it is these silly metrics (i.e., “bean counting”) that administrations have created lead to evolutionary pressures to game the system in any way possible to meet such mindless targets. The ideas of a scholar can take years to really assess. Sometimes, it takes pure luck that someone with the right perspective stumbles on the work and recognizes it for the value it contains inside. This is not trivial for the fast paced world to reconcile with.

    • wkdawson says:

      On your last comment: “If Einstein lived today, he could not publish anything anywhere.”

      I think this may very well be true. There are other people I have discussed this with who also agree.

      Also, I remember reading a book on the history of Feynman diagrams. The “establishment” (the old farts) basically laughed at his diagrams. The reason it was taking up by the physics community was exclusively because of _students_! So Feynman also might have been creamed by the system, though I’ll admit that it is difficult to conjecture because he was quite talented. We take Feynman diagrams for granted in physics these days, but imagine the evolutionary pressures working on original ideas, ill intentioned reviewers, breaks in funding, etc. Who really knows what might have happened.

      • Be Healthy says:

        I agree. I also found, over the many years of my work and publishing (and being a reviewer), that in order to be a “good” reviewer one needs to actually “understand” the thing under review. If the thought is over the head of the reviewer, Peter Principle is reached and the article, no matter how good, cannot pass. This is likely what prevented Einstein from succeeding (at the start at least) and what keeps many today from being able to publish revolutionary ideas.

        It is also worthy to note here that the US is way ahead in this respect from other countries! Some of the countries where I worked in the past, I found that advancing science meant to add an extra dot to the end of the sentence of what already existed. In countries like that science is based on current understanding of what, in medicine, we call “evidence based” and which thwarts any new scientific application since everything must exist and be in evidence in order to become accepted and that is a contradiction to being able to use anything new and yet unknown.

        At least the US is not THAT bad wkdawson but it is likely field specific as well. :)


  8. rehab rahem says:

    Happy day
    Is this magazine in the black list “EXCLI Journal”

  9. Lantip says:

    Hello, I’ve just been emailed by organization to be Ambassador for their activity. They claimed that they dedicated to promote the best practices in scholarly publishing in Asia. Please have a look in their web. What do you think Prof Beall ?

  10. herr doktor bimler says:

    A commenter at Respectful Insolence wondered how the OMICS trash manage to recruit Nobel laureates to lend their reputations for turd-burnishing services, as keynote speakers for

    He was specifically thinking of Ada Yonuth. Further inquiry reveals that Yonuth (and several other Nobel laureates) are regular attractions at other predatory conferences, specifically the annual “Drug Discovery and Therapy World Congress”:

    DD&TW, you will recall, is the conference-scam branch of Bentham’s skeezy operation. It is an odd Janus-faced identity, also advertised as the Global Biotechnology Congress (with the same venue, same dates, same speakers), to double the number of suckers.

    Anyway, I am forced to the melancholy conclusion that Nobel laureates are just as venal (or just as bad at recognising a grift) as the rest of us.

    • wkdawson says:

      Well, it does seem a bit difficult to assess in this example, but I would put the benefit of a doubt on “just as bad at recognising a grift”.

      I’ve been around long enough and in enough places, including the US, to smell this before. One of those my antennae picked up on along the way had to do with these “conferences”. When you are not getting enough publications, what do you do? … You set up a conference. …

      In this respect, OMICS is the symptoms. They provide a service. They have a database, so they can send out announcements and (presumably) take care of some of the nitty-gritty details (directions on how to get to the place, maps, refreshments, and all the multitude of things you have to pay attention to). Things could not be any easier – I suppose. So now, even add two or three other keywords together so you can get more participants. This is what business and networks do for you. Used honorably, I could even be good.

      The problem, of course, comes when the ideas are basically pseudoscience or (at least) very questionable. This is why false measuring scales (metrics) are so dangerous. The “publish or perish” and “conferences” mentality are false measures of soundness and have only encouraged this kind of grift. The only way to grasp scientific soundness is to carefully evaluate the works, and that is all. So I would say that “false measures” (long in place) are actually the cause (the virus) and OMICS (etc) are the symptoms.

  11. Jan Voskuil says:

    Yes, I have been invited to speak at their meetings (three times!). And yes, I had to pay for my attendance as well. However, in all three meetings I did not see any scientists who I might think as inferior or as hobbyists. Their high standard made these meetings very successful and some of the attendants I met again during other meetings (with a higher reputation). I have to say that we all agreed about the low standard of the organization itself and many of us decided to not attend to their meetings any more. Their custom to hand out certificates to all speakers and moderators comes across as a bit childish….Yet, it is nice to find my oral presentations during their meetings on YouTube. None of us fell for submitting papers against high submission fees (their follow-up tactics), we are all too clever for that. Therefore it looks like this group has had its peak and I would think it will go down unless it will clean up its act.

    I have also been approached by a similar group (even more dodgy than Omics) called BIT. It organizes its meetings in China. Their conduct is a lot worse than Omics. Be warned! 

    Can we protect our youth, scientists against questionable publishers? – ResearchGate. Available from: [accessed May 16, 2016].

  12. Kevin Lam says:

    Three years ago, I was invited by my former PhD fellow student to act as a member of the editorial board of a journal. That guy has two PhD both from very good research universities. I did not see him for a long time but for sympathy I said yes. The journal happened to be an OMICS, journal. I learned of the fact later and emailed to the journal and requested my name be removed from their editors’ list but to no avail. They kept sending me papers for review and I rejected all of them. Later, because of the nuisance, I just moved their emails to the junk mail list but they still kept sending the review requests and acceptance notice to me even up to today.

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: