A few days ago, a U.S. District Court held
Srinubabu Gedela and his companies, the
OMICS Group, iMedPub, and Conference Series, liable for over $50 million. It also issued a permanent injunction against many deceptive practices on the part of this nest of companies and the
various other entities through which they operate (such as
Allied Academies,
Meetings International, and
Pulsus). Excerpts from
the opinion that describe the deceptive practices are below.
1/
Needless to say, Dr. Gedala, who is something of a celebrity in India,
2/ has tried to discredit the FTC's claims. In
an interview with the
Indian Express last summer, he crowed that the FTC had "not proved a single thing" and that "[w]e have also filed against them for $3.11 billion." Previously, he threatened Jeffrey Beall, the librarian who placed OMICS on a list of "predatory journals" with a one billion dollar lawsuit but did not pursue it because Beall "is not capable of paying the damages. So, it is useless. But we are fighting the FTC case, which we have taken very seriously."
The district court found against Dr. Gedala and his companies without a trial. It determined that defendants produced no acceptable evidence to contradict the proof submitted by the FTC, entitling the FTC to summary judgment. In the
Indian Express interview, Dr. Gedala had this to say about the FTC's allegations: "The FTC don’t know the definition of journal. They don’t know what peer review is. They are illiterates. Scientists are not illiterates." He did not discuss the complaints and the affidavits from scientists that the FTC supplied to the court.
OMICS's plans to appeal the judgment.
3/
Federal Trade Commission v. OMICS Group, Inc.
No. 2:16-cv-02022-GMN-VCF
(D. Nev. Mar. 29, 2019)
The FTC brings this action ... alleging that Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive practices with respect to the publication of online academic journals and organization of scientific conferences. ... Defendants claim to operate hundreds of online academic journals on a wide variety of topics, including medicine, chemistry, nursing, engineering, and genetics. ... In order to persuade consumers to submit articles for publication, the FTC alleges that Defendants make numerous misrepresentations regarding the nature and reputation of their journals. ... The FTC also alleges that Defendants fail to disclose the significant fees associated with their publishing services. ... Finally, the FTC alleges that Defendants make numerous misrepresentations in connection with the marketing of their scientific conferences. ...
Defendants OMICS, iMedPub, and Conference Series are corporate entities registered in the United States with a principle place of business located in Hyderabad, India. ... Each entity shares the same principal address at SEZ Unit, Building No. 20, 9th Floor, APIIC Layout, HITEC City, Hyderabad, AP 500081. ... Furthermore, each entity at various points has utilized common addresses for their United States locations and business registrations. ... In general, these entities operate as a group with comingled assets. ... Gedela is the sole owner and founding director of the three Corporate Defendants. Gedela first began using the fictitious business name “OMICS Publishing Group” for his publishing and conference services in 2009. ... Until at least 2015, Gedela held revenue from the Corporate Defendants in a Citibank account set up in Palo Alto
for OMICS Publishing Group. ...
Defendants advertise throughout their websites and email solicitations that they strictly adhere to standard peer-review practices. For example, in 2014, Defendants published web pages stating that OMICS had 25,000 experts serving as editorial board members and reviewers, and that “[a]ll articles submitted for publication are subjected to a blind peer review.” ... Over the years, this number has grown to over 50,000 purported experts serving as board members and reviewers for over 700+ “leading-edge peer reviewed” journals. ... Consistently, Defendants have represented their peer review policies as “highly appreciated, accepted and adaptable” to the criteria set forth by agencies such as PubMed. ...
In contradiction to these assertions, however, the FTC submits evidence indicating that Defendants’ peer review practices are a “sham.” ... For example, in certain instances, consumers who submitted articles were approved for publication within just several days of submission. ... In others, consumers reported receiving no comments or proposed revisions from peer reviewers. ... The consumers who did receive feedback from reviewers have noted that it was not substantive. ...
In 2012, John Bohannon—a scientist and writer for Science magazine—submitted two
articles to Defendants’ journals with intentionally “egregious” scientific flaws. ... Defendants’ journals accepted the flawed papers without any substantive comments or review. ... Similarly, in 2016, a journalist for the Ottawa Citizen submitted an “unintelligible” article containing ungrammatical sentences and invented words. ... Defendants’ journal published the article without any edits and without contacting the author prior to publication. ... After reviewing these cases, the FTC’s expert Joyce Backus concluded that the papers were not subjected to peer review “as that term is understood in the academic publishing industry.” ...
In addition to consumer commentary, the FTC also submits statements from multiple of Defendants’ journal editors. ... In these statements, the editors indicate that they never received any manuscripts to review. ... Based on documents received through discovery, the FTC asserts that out of 69,000 published articles, only 49% indicate that some form of review was conducted. ...
Defendants advertise that their publications are reviewed and edited by as many as 50,000 experts. In support of this claim, Defendants’ websites include hundreds of names, pictures, and biographies of scientists and researchers allegedly serving on editorial boards. Upon the FTC contacting several listed editors, however, many indicated that they had never agreed to be affiliated with OMICS. ... Furthermore, in some instances, Defendants continued to use the researchers’ names even after they requested removal. ... More generally, the FTC notes that Defendants have only been able to produce a list of 14,598 unique editors and evidence of an agreement to serve as an editor for only 380 individuals. ...
Defendants advertise throughout their websites and solicitation emails that their publications have high “impact factors.” ... These advertisements include express representations, such as “OMICS International journals are among the top high impact factor academic journals which are publishing scholarly articles constantly.” ... Defendants admit that their journals do not have Thomson Reuters impact factors. ... Rather, Defendants’ impact factors are self-calculated ratios based on the number of citations found through a Google Scholar search. ... Defendants’ websites contain inconsistent descriptions of how their impact factors are calculated. ...
Defendants represent that their publications are indexed in reputable indexing services. ... For example, Defendants repeatedly indicate that their journals are indexed in [the national Library of Medicine’s] Medline and PubMed Central. ... At various points, Defendants have even utilized PubMed and Medline’s logos on their websites. ... Despite these representations, Defendants admit that none of their journals are indexed in PubMed Central or Medline. ... Instead, Defendants claim that more than 900 well-respected scientists have recommended OMICS’ journals to be published in PubMed central. ... Nonetheless, NLM has explicitly refused to index Defendants’ publications due to questionable publishing practices and requested that Defendants cease indicating any affiliation. ... Despite NLM’s requests, Defendants have continued to indicate their journals’ inclusion in Medline and PubMed Central. ...
Defendants frequently send out solicitation emails inviting individuals to submit articles to Defendants’ online publications. ... In numerous instances, these email solicitations contain no mention of any fees associated with Defendants’ publication service. ... Defendants have continued this practice even after the Court’s entry of its preliminary injunction. ... Defendants’ solicitation emails invite consumers to submit articles for publication by responding directly to the email. ... Additionally, Defendants solicit article submissions through their online portals. ... In many instances, Defendants’ article homepages do not contain clear reference to fees associated with submitting articles. ... In other instances, Defendants’ fee disclosures are contained on secondary webpages but lack specificity. ... Notably, consumers going to a
journal’s homepage can submit a manuscript without ever seeing any fee disclosures.
Some consumers only learn of Defendants’ fees after Defendants have accepted their articles for publication. ... Furthermore, when consumers contest Defendants’ publication fees and ask their articles to be withdrawn, Defendants have ignored the requests and continued demanding payment. ... In some instances, Defendants only removed the articles after the threat of legal action. ... In addition to economic harm, this conduct prevents authors from submitting their work to other journals. ... The Court notes, however, that at least one consumer has found the publication fees to be clearly disclosed. ...
In addition to online publishing, Defendants also organize conferences on various scientific topics. ... In order to attract consumers, Defendants advertise the attendance and participation of prominent academics and researchers. ... The FTC has provided evidence, however, that Defendants advertise the attendance and participation of these individuals without their permission or actual affiliation. ... In numerous instances, individuals have requested unsuccessfully to have their names removed from Defendants’ conference advertising materials. ... In some instances, Defendants did not remove an individuals’ name until the threat of legal action. ... According to the FTC’s sampling of 100 conferences, approximately 60% advertised organizers or participants who had not agreed to serve in such capacity. ...
NOTE
- The FTC complaint, motion for summary judgment, and the court's orders are available from the FTC's website.
- See, e.g., Hyderabad Scientist Receives ‘Champions of Change’ Award, The Times of India, Dec 31, 2018.
- Jeffrey Brainard, U.S. Judge Rules Deceptive Publisher Should Pay $50 Million in Damages, Science, Apr. 3, 2019.
