FTC wins against OMICS

[Glenn Hampson]

Interesting news, apparently breaking just today: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/11/ftc-halts-deceptive-practices-academic-journal-publishers. The FTC has won a sweeping preliminary injunction against OMICS and three other defendants that “restrains the defendants from engaging in deceptive practices with respect to the marketing and sale of academic journal publishing services and scientific conference services,” and also paves the way for the freezing of the assets of these companies.

 

The preliminary injunction makes for really interesting reading (after you’re done playing with Ted Bergstrom’s dataset and the SCImago website---busy day): https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/omics_-_order_granting_preliminary_injunction.pdf. In it the court finds that the FTC has satisfied its burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims:

1. Misrepresentations Regarding Journal Publishing
2. Deceptive Failure to Disclose Publishing Fees
3. Misrepresentations Regarding Conferences
4. Defendants Engaged in a Common Enterprise [i.e., a scam]
5. Liability for Injunctive and Monetary Relief

 

OMICS and the other defendants are ordered to immediately stop carrying our business as usual and ordered turn over copious data on finances, personnel and other business operations.

 

Happy early Christmas to the scholarly publishing world!

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

[David Wojick]

Apparently we now have Federal rules governing certain aspects of journal advertising and disclosure. Which journals these rules apply to is itself a question.

For example, the Court has ruled that email calls for papers must include the APC. Does this apply to hybrids, or just gold OA journals? Also there is some language that seems to suggest that it only applies when the email includes a direct link to the submission system. So the rule is far from clear, which is not unusual when Courts make the rules via precedents, which this ruling certainly is.

However, deception is specifically not a factor, as intent is explicitly deemed irrelevant. All that is required is that a reasonable person might draw a mistaken conclusion from what is and is not said in the emails or on the webpages. (The FTC knows that intent is almost impossible to prove.)

The fact that the term "impact factor" has been granted virtual trademark status is also noteworthy. The Court seems to say that if a journal calculates its impact factor themselves, as many new wave journals do since WoS will not index them, then it is illegal for them to call the result their "impact factor." That is quite a reach.

How this ruling unfolds is going to be very interesting. All journal attorneys should be looking closely at it. One wonders what OMICS will do, if anything other than appeal the decision. They have said that they are prepared to pull their business out of the US. Not sure what that means when it comes to their journals, which are published in India.

Perhaps the FTC will now issue rules clarifying the Court's vague case law decisions. The game is on.

David 

<image001.jpg>

2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org

 

 

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.