From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 03:28:09 +0000

> The full ruling in this case is interesting.  For one thing, the standard
the Court

> used in deciding to issue a preliminary injunction is quite low.  They
acknowledge

> that they are using a standard that is more deferential to the FTC than
would be

> the case if the plaintiff seeking the PI was not a federal agency.



But isn’t that exactly what the law (specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 53(b).
Section 13(b) of the FTC Act) requires in this case? It’s not like the
Court just unilaterally decided to apply a lower standard, is it?



> Essentially they accepted the assertions made by the FTC as fact.



Well, no – the Court’s order (which can be found at http://bit.ly/2AHYA8b)
indicates that the FTC provided extensive evidence, not just assertions.
Statements to this effect include:



* “The evidence produced by the FTC demonstrates that Defendants engaged in
probable misrepresentations regarding journal publishing.”


* “The FTC has provided evidence that Defendants’ peer review practices, in
numerous instances, took a matter of days and contained no comments or
substantive feedback.”


* “The FTC has also submitted evidence demonstrating that Defendants
misrepresent the ‘impact factor’ of their journals (i.e. the number of
citations in other reputable journals).”


* “The FTC has submitted evidence that Defendants misleadingly represent
that their publications are indexed in well- known, reputable indexing
services.”



> So OMICS had very little room to defend itself.



Not so. According to the order, OMICS was given the opportunity to respond
to the FTC’s claims and to provide counterevidence on its behalf, and it
did so. However, again according to the order, “the FTC has substantively
responded to this evidence and demonstrated the numerous flaws and
inaccuracies in Defendants’ representations. The Court therefore finds that
the evidence in the record is sufficient to support a preliminary
conclusion that Defendants made misrepresentations regarding their journal
publishing.”



It sounds pretty reasonable to me – but I’m no attorney. What would you say
are the flaws in the Court’s reasoning, Kevin?



---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

Desk: (801) 587-9989

Cell: (801) 721-1687

[log in to unmask]



*From: *LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

From: "Smith, Kevin L" <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 13:47:43 +0000

The full ruling in this case is interesting.  For one thing, the standard
the Court used in deciding to issue a preliminary injunction is quite low.
They acknowledge that they are using a standard that is more deferential to
the FTC than would be the case if the plaintiff seeking the PI was not a
federal agency.  Essentially they accepted the assertions made by the FTC
as fact, which would not be the case in any similar action involving a
private plaintiff.  So OMICS had very little room to defend itself.



Then, the preliminary injunction that was issued is very rigorous.  I dare
say that many traditional publishers would be in rough shape if they were
required to live up to the business practices and standards imposed by this
injunction.  I wonder if it has left the subscription publishers gleeful
(because a pesky competitor has been hamstrung) or worried?



Kevin



Kevin L. Smith, J.D.

Dean of Libraries

University of Kansas





*From:* LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
*On Behalf Of *LIBLICENSE
From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2017 23:12:22 -0500
Subject: US Federal Trade Commission & journals



Another government action related to journal publishing:


"A federal court has granted a preliminary injunction requested by the
Federal Trade Commission, temporarily halting the deceptive practices
of academic journal publishers charged by the agency with making false
claims about their journals and academic conferences, and hiding their
publishing fees, which were up to several thousand dollars.

"The preliminary injunction against OMICS Group Inc., iMedPub LLC,
Conference Series LLC, and their CEO, director, and owner, Srinubabu
Gedela stems from a complaint the FTC filed last year that names
Gedela and his three companies as defendants."

[SNIP]

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/11/
ftc-halts-deceptive-practices-academic-journal-publishers