Elsevier

Elsevier (Dutch: [ˈɛlzəviːr]) is a Dutch publishing and analytics company specializing in scientific, technical, and medical content. It is a part of the RELX Group, known until 2015 as Reed Elsevier. Its products include journals such as The Lancet and Cell, the ScienceDirect collection of electronic journals, the Trends and Current Opinion series of journals, the online citation database Scopus, and the ClinicalKey search engine for clinicians. Elsevier's products also include digital tools for data management, instruction, and assessment.[3]

For other uses, see Elsevier (disambiguation).

Elsevier
IndustryPublishing
Founded1880 (1880)
Headquarters
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Revenue£2.54 billion (2018)[1]
600,000,000 United States dollar[2] (2009) 
Number of employees
6,900 (2008) 
ParentRELX
Websitewww.elsevier.com

Elsevier publishes more than 470,000 articles annually in 2,500 journals.[1] Its archives contain over 16 million documents and 30,000 e-books. Total yearly downloads amount to more than 1 billion.[1]

Elsevier's high operating profit margins (37% in 2018) and 950 million pounds in profits, often on publicly funded research works[1][4] and its copyright practices have subjected it to criticism by researchers.[5]

History
The original seal of the Elsevier family was used by Elsevier company as its logo until 2019.

Elsevier was founded in 1880[6] and adopted the name and logo from the Dutch publishing house Elzevir that was an inspiration and has no connection to the contemporary Elsevier.[6] The Elzevir family operated as booksellers and publishers in the Netherlands; the founder, Lodewijk Elzevir (1542–1617), lived in Leiden and established that business in 1580. As a company logo, Elsevier used the Elzevir family's printer's mark, a tree entwined with a vine and the words Non Solus, which is Latin for "not alone".[7] Elsevier suggests that this logo represents "the symbiotic relationship between publisher and scholar".[8]

The expansion of Elsevier in the scientific field after 1945 was funded with the profits of the newsweekly Elsevier, which published its first issue on 27 October 1945. The weekly was an instant success and very profitable.[9] The weekly was a continuation, as is stated in its first issue, of the monthly Elsevier, which was founded in 1891 to promote the name of the publishing house and had to stop publication in December 1940 because of the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands.

In 1947, Elsevier began publishing its first English-language journal, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta.[10]

In 2013, Elsevier acquired Mendeley, a UK company making software for managing and sharing research papers. Mendeley, previously an open platform for sharing of research, was greatly criticized for the acquisition, which users saw as acceding to the "paywall" approach to research literature. Mendeley's previously open-sharing system now allows exchange of paywalled resources only within private groups.[11] The New Yorker described Elsevier's reasons for buying Mendeley as two-fold: to acquire its user data, and to "destroy or coöpt an open-science icon that threatens its business model".[12]

In the first half of 2019, RELX reported the first slowdown in revenue growth for Elsevier in several years: 1% vs. an expectation of 2% and a typical growth of at least 4% in the previous 5 years.[13]

Company statistics

During 2018, researchers submitted over 1.8 million research papers to Elsevier-based publications. Over 20,000 editors managed the peer review and selection of these papers, resulting in the publication of more than 470,000 articles in over 2,500 journals.[1] Editors are generally unpaid volunteers who perform their duties alongside a full-time job in academic institutions,[14] although exceptions have been reported.

In 2013, the five editorial groups Elsevier, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE Publications published more than half of all academic papers in the peer-reviewed literature.[15][16] At that time, Elsevier accounted for 16% of the world market in science, technology, and medical publishing.[17]

Elsevier breaks down its revenue sources by format and by geographic region. About 44% of revenue by geography in 2018 derived from North America, 24% from Europe, and the remaining 32% from the rest of the world. Around 83% of revenue by format came from electronic usage and 17% came from print.[1]

Elsevier employs more than 7,800 people in over 70 offices across 24 countries. Following the integration of its Science & Technology and Health Sciences divisions in 2012, Elsevier has operated under a traditional business structure with a single chief executive officer (CEO).[18] The CEO is Kumsal Bayazit,[19] who was appointed on 15 February 2019.

In 2018, Elsevier accounted for 34% of the revenues of RELX group (₤2.538 billion of ₤7.492 billion). In operating profits, it represented 40% (₤942 million of ₤2,346 million). Adjusted operating profits (with constant currency) rose by 2% from 2017 to 2018[1]. Profits grew further from 2018 to 2019, to a total of £982 million.[20]

In 2018, Elsevier reported a mean 2017 gender pay gap of 29.1% for its UK workforce, while the median was 40.4%, more than twice the UK average and by far the worst figure recorded by any academic publisher in UK. Elsevier attributed the result to the under-representation of women in its senior ranks and the prevalence of men in its technical workforce.[21]

Market model

Products and services

Products and services include electronic and print versions of journals, textbooks and reference works, and cover the health, life, physical, and social sciences.

The target markets are academic and government research institutions, corporate research labs, booksellers, librarians, scientific researchers, authors, editors, physicians, nurses, allied health professionals, medical and nursing students and schools, medical researchers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and research establishments. It publishes in 13 languages including English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Polish, Japanese, Hindi, and Chinese.

Flagship products and services include VirtualE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Scirus, EMBASE, Engineering Village, Compendex, Cell, SciVal, Pure, and Analytical Services, The Consult series (FirstCONSULT, PathCONSULT, NursingCONSULT, MDConsult, StudentCONSULT), Virtual Clinical Excursions, and major reference works such as Gray's Anatomy, Nelson Pediatrics, Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy, and online versions of many journals[22] including The Lancet.

ScienceDirect is Elsevier's platform for online electronic access to its journals and over 6,000 e-books, reference works, book series, and handbooks. The articles are grouped in four main sections: Physical Sciences and Engineering, Life Sciences, Health Sciences, and Social Sciences and Humanities. For most articles on the website, abstracts are freely available; access to the full text of the article (in PDF, and also HTML for newer publications) often requires a subscription or pay-per-view purchase.

Research and information ecosystem

RELX Group has been active in mergers and acquisitions. Elsevier has been joined by businesses that were either complementing or competing in the field of research and publishing and that reinforce its market power,[23] such as Mendeley (after the closure of 2collab), SSRN,[24] bepress/Digital Commons, PlumX, Hivebench, Newsflo.[25] These integrations are seen as a way to exert additional power on the research process.[25] The group contains additional information and analytics companies, particularly LexisNexis and ThreatMetrix.

Conferences

Elsevier conducts conferences, exhibitions, and workshops around the world, with over 50 conferences a year covering life sciences, physical sciences and engineering, social sciences, and health sciences.[26]

Pricing

In the 21st century, the subscription rates charged by the company for its journals have been criticized; some very large journals (with more than 5,000 articles) charge subscription prices as high as £9,634, far above average,[27] and many British universities pay more than a million pounds to Elsevier annually.[28] The company has been criticized not only by advocates of a switch to the open-access publication model, but also by universities whose library budgets make it difficult for them to afford current journal prices.

For example, a resolution by Stanford University's senate singled out Elsevier's journals as being "disproportionately expensive compared to their educational and research value", which librarians should consider dropping, and encouraged its faculty "not to contribute articles or editorial or review efforts to publishers and journals that engage in exploitive or exorbitant pricing".[29] Similar guidelines and criticism of Elsevier's pricing policies have been passed by the University of California, Harvard University, and Duke University.[30]

In July 2015, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands announced a plan to start boycotting Elsevier, which refused to negotiate on any open access policy for Dutch universities.[31] In December 2016, Nature Publishing Group reported that academics in Germany, Peru, and Taiwan are to lose access to Elsevier journals as negotiations had broken down with the publisher.[32]

A complaint about Elsevier/RELX was made to the UK Competition and Markets Authority in December 2016.[33] In October 2018, a competition complaint against Elsevier was filed with the European Commission, alleging anticompetitive practices stemming from Elsevier's confidential subscription agreements and market dominance.[34]

Shill review offer

According to the BBC, "the firm [Elsevier] offered a £17.25 Amazon voucher to academics who contributed to the textbook Clinical Psychology if they would go on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble (a large US books retailer) and give it five stars." Elsevier said that "encouraging interested parties to post book reviews isn't outside the norm in scholarly publishing, nor is it wrong to offer to nominally compensate people for their time. But in all instances the request should be unbiased, with no incentives for a positive review, and that's where this particular e-mail went too far", and that it was a mistake by a marketing employee.[35]

Blocking text mining research

Elsevier seeks to regulate text and data mining with private licenses,[36] claiming that reading requires extra permission if automated and that the publisher holds copyright on output of automated processes. The conflict on research and copyright policy has often resulted in researchers being blocked from their work.[37]

In November 2015, Elsevier blocked a scientist from performing text mining research at scale on Elsevier papers, even though his institution already pays for access to Elsevier journal content.[36][38] The data were collected via parsing of downloaded PDF and HTML files,[39] although Elsevier claimed that the method used was screenscraping.[40]

Academic practices

"Who's Afraid of Peer Review"
Main article: Who's Afraid of Peer Review?

One of Elsevier's journals was caught in the sting set up by John Bohannon, published in Science, called "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?"[41] The journal Drug Invention Today accepted an obviously bogus paper made up by Bohannon that should have been rejected by any good peer-review system.[42] Instead, Drug Invention Today was among many open-access journals that accepted the fake paper for publication. As of 2014, this journal had been transferred to a different publisher.[43]

Fake journals
Further information: Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine

At a 2009 court case in Australia where Merck & Co. was being sued by a user of Vioxx, the plaintiff alleged that Merck had paid Elsevier to publish the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which had the appearance of being a peer-reviewed academic journal but in fact contained only articles favourable to Merck drugs.[44][45][46][47] Merck described the journal as a "complimentary publication," denied claims that articles within it were ghost written by Merck, and stated that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals.[48] In May 2009, Elsevier Health Sciences CEO Hansen released a statement regarding Australia-based sponsored journals, conceding that they were "sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures." The statement acknowledged that it "was an unacceptable practice."[49] The Scientist reported that, according to an Elsevier spokesperson, six sponsored publications "were put out by their Australia office and bore the Excerpta Medica imprint from 2000 to 2005," namely the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine (Australas. J. Bone Joint Med.), the Australasian Journal of General Practice (Australas. J. Gen. Pract.), the Australasian Journal of Neurology (Australas. J. Neurol.), the Australasian Journal of Cardiology (Australas. J. Cardiol.), the Australasian Journal of Clinical Pharmacy (Australas. J. Clin. Pharm.), and the Australasian Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine (Australas. J. Cardiovasc. Med.).[50] Excerpta Medica was a "strategic medical communications agency" run by Elsevier, according to the imprint's web page.[51] In October 2010, Excerpta Medica was acquired by Adelphi Worldwide.[52]

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals

There was speculation[53] that the editor-in-chief of Elsevier journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Mohamed El Naschie, misused his power to publish his own work without appropriate peer review. The journal had published 322 papers with El Naschie as author since 1993. The last issue of December 2008 featured five of his papers.[54] The controversy was covered extensively in blogs.[55][56] The publisher announced in January 2009 that El Naschie had retired as editor-in-chief.[57] As of November 2011 the co-Editors-in-Chief of the journal were Maurice Courbage and Paolo Grigolini.[58] In June 2011, El Naschie sued the journal Nature for libel, claiming that his reputation had been damaged by their November 2008 article about his retirement, which included statements that Nature had been unable to verify his claimed affiliations with certain international institutions.[59] The suit came to trial in November 2011 and was dismissed in July 2012, with the judge ruling that the article was "substantially true", contained "honest comment", and was "the product of responsible journalism". The judgement noted that El Naschie, who represented himself in court, had failed to provide any documentary evidence that his papers had been peer-reviewed.[60] Judge Victoria Sharp also found "reasonable and serious grounds" for suspecting that El Naschie used a range of false names to defend his editorial practice in communications with Nature, and described this behavior as "curious" and "bizarre".[61]

Plagiarism

Some Elsevier journals automatically screen submissions for plagiarism,[62] but not all.[63]

In 2018, Elsevier journal Procedia was reported to have published plagiarism by an Albanian politician in 2012.[64]

Scientific racism

Angela Saini has criticized the two Elsevier journals Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences for having included on their editorial boards such well-known proponents of scientific racism as Richard Lynn and Gerhard Meisenberg; in response to her inquiries, Elsevier defended their presence as editors.[65] The journal Intelligence has been criticized for having "occasionally included papers with pseudoscientific findings about intelligence differences between races."[66] It is the official journal of the International Society for Intelligence Research, which organizes the controversial series of conferences London Conference on Intelligence, described by the New Statesman as a forum for scientific racism.[67]

In response to a 2019 open letter, efforts by Retraction Watch and a petition signed by over 1000 people, on 17 June 2020 Elsevier announced it was retracting an article that J. Philippe Rushton and Donald Templer published in 2012 in the Elsevier journal Personality and Individual Differences.[68] The article falsely claimed that there was scientific evidence that skin color was related to aggression and sexuality in humans.[69]

Manipulation of bibliometrics

According to Goodhart's law and concerned academics like the signatories of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, commercial academic publishers benefit from manipulation of bibliometrics and scientometrics like the journal impact factor, which is often used as proxy of prestige and can influence revenues, including public subsidies in the form of subscriptions and free work from academics.[70]

Nine Elsevier journals, which exhibited unusual levels of self-citation, had their journal impact factor of 2019 suspended from Journal Citation Reports in 2020, a sanction which hit 34 journals in total.[71]

Control of journals

Resignation of editorial boards

In November 1999, the entire editorial board (50 persons) of the Journal of Logic Programming (founded in 1984 by Alan Robinson) collectively resigned after 16 months of unsuccessful negotiations with Elsevier Press about the price of library subscriptions.[72] The personnel created a new journal, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, with Cambridge University Press at a much lower price,[72] while Elsevier continued publication with a new editorial board and a slightly different name (the Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming).

In 2002, dissatisfaction at Elsevier's pricing policies caused the European Economic Association to terminate an agreement with Elsevier designating Elsevier's European Economic Review as the official journal of the association. The EEA launched a new journal, the Journal of the European Economic Association.[73]

In 2003, the entire editorial board of the Journal of Algorithms resigned to start ACM Transactions on Algorithms with a different, lower-priced, not-for-profit publisher,[74] at the suggestion of Journal of Algorithms founder Donald Knuth.[75] The Journal of Algorithms continued under Elsevier with a new editorial board until October 2009, when it was discontinued.[76]

The same happened in 2005 to the International Journal of Solids and Structures, whose editors resigned to start the Journal of Mechanics of Materials and Structures. However, a new editorial board was quickly established and the journal continues in apparently unaltered form with editors D.A. Hills (Oxford University) and Stelios Kyriakides (University of Texas at Austin).[77][78]

In August 2006, the entire editorial board of the distinguished mathematical journal Topology handed in their resignations, again because of stalled negotiations with Elsevier to lower the subscription price.[79] This board then launched the new Journal of Topology at a far lower price, under the auspices of the London Mathematical Society.[80] After this mass resignation, Topology remained in circulation under a new editorial board until 2009, when the last issue was published.[81][82]

The French École Normale Supérieure has stopped having Elsevier publish the journal Annales Scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure[83] (as of 2008).[84]

The elevated pricing of field journals in economics, most of which are published by Elsevier, was one of the motivations that moved the American Economic Association to launch the American Economic Journal in 2009.[85]

In May 2015, Stephen Leeder was removed from his role as editor of the Medical Journal of Australia after its publisher decided to outsource the journal's production to Elsevier. As a consequence, all but one of the journal's editorial advisory committee members co-signed a letter of resignation.[86]

In October 2015, the entire editorial staff of the general linguistics journal Lingua resigned in protest of Elsevier's unwillingness to agree to their terms of Fair Open Access. Editor-in-chief Johan Rooryck also announced that the Lingua staff would establish a new journal, Glossa.[87]

In January 2019, the entire editorial board of Elsevier's Journal of Informetrics resigned over the open-access policies of its publisher and founded open-access journal called Quantitative Science Studies.[88][89][90]

"The Cost of Knowledge" boycott
Main article: The Cost of Knowledge

In 2003, various university librarians began coordinating with each other to complain about Elsevier's "big deal" journal bundling packages, in which the company offered a group of journal subscriptions to libraries at a certain rate, but in which librarians claimed no economical option was available to subscribe to only the popular journals at a rate comparable to the bundled rate.[91] Librarians continued to discuss the implications of the pricing schemes, many feeling pressured into buying the Elsevier packages without other options.[92]

On 21 January 2012, mathematician Timothy Gowers publicly announced he would boycott Elsevier, noting that others in the field have been doing so privately. The three reasons for the boycott are high subscription prices for individual journals, bundling subscriptions to journals of different value and importance, and Elsevier's support for SOPA, PIPA, and the Research Works Act.[93][94][95]

Following this, a petition advocating noncooperation with Elsevier (that is, not submitting papers to Elsevier journals, not refereeing articles in Elsevier journals, and not participating in journal editorial boards), appeared on the site "The Cost of Knowledge". By February 2012, this petition had been signed by over 5,000 academics,[93][94] growing to over 17,000 by November 2018.[96]

Elsevier disputed the claims, claiming that their prices are below the industry average, and stating that bundling is only one of several different options available to buy access to Elsevier journals.[93] The company also claimed that its profit margins are "simply a consequence of the firm's efficient operation".[95] The academics replied that their work was funded by public money, thus should be freely available.

On 27 February 2012, Elsevier issued a statement on its website that declared that it has withdrawn support from the Research Works Act.[97] Although the Cost of Knowledge movement was not mentioned, the statement indicated the hope that the move would "help create a less heated and more productive climate" for ongoing discussions with research funders. Hours after Elsevier's statement, the sponsors of the bill, US House Representatives Darrell Issa and Carolyn Maloney, issued a joint statement saying that they would not push the bill in Congress.[98]

Plan S

The Plan S open-access initiative, which began in Europe and has since spread to some US research funding agencies, would force researchers receiving some grants to publish in open-access journals by 2020.[99] A spokesman for Elsevier said "If you think that information should be free of charge, go to Wikipedia".[100] In September 2018, UBS advised to sell Elsevier (RELX) stocks, noting that Plan S could affect 5-10% of scientific funding and may force Elsevier to reduce pricing.[101]

Relationship with academic institutions

Finland

In 2015, Finnish research organizations paid a total of 27 million euros in subscription fees. Over one-third of the total costs went to Elsevier. The information was revealed after successful court appeal following a denied request on the subscription fees, due to confidentiality clauses in contracts with the publishers.[102] Establishing of this fact lead to creation of tiedonhinta.fi petition demanding more reasonable pricing and open access to content signed by more than 2800 members of the research community.[103] While deals with other publishers have been made, this was not the case for Elsevier, leading to the nodealnoreview.org boycott of the publisher signed more than 600 times.[104]

In January 2018, it was confirmed that a deal had been reached between those concerned.[105][106][107]

France

The French Couperin consortium agreed in 2019 to a 4-year contract with Elsevier,[108] despite criticism from the scientific community.[109]

Germany

Almost no academic institution in Germany is subscribed to Elsevier.[110][111]

Germany's DEAL project (Projekt DEAL), which includes over 60 major research institutions, has announced that all of its members are cancelling their contracts with Elsevier, effective 1 January 2017. The boycott is in response to Elsevier's refusal to adopt "transparent business models" to "make publications more openly accessible".[112][113][114][115][116][117][118] Horst Hippler, spokesperson for the DEAL consortium states that "taxpayers have a right to read what they are paying for" and that "publishers must understand that the route to open-access publishing at an affordable price is irreversible".[114] In July 2017, another 13 institutions announced that they would also be cancelling their subscriptions to Elsevier journals.[119] In August 2017, at least 185 German institutions had cancelled their contracts with Elsevier.[120] In 2018, whilst negotiations were ongoing, around 200 German universities that cancelled their subscriptions to Elsevier journals were granted complimentary open access to them until this ended in July of the year.[121][122][123]

On 19 December 2018, the Max Planck Society (MPS) announced that the existing subscription agreement with Elsevier would not be renewed after the expiration date of 31 December 2018. MPS counts 14.000 scientists in 84 research institutes, publishing 12.000 articles each year.[124][125]

Hungary

In March 2018, the Hungarian Electronic Information Service National Programme entered negotiations on its 2019 Elsevier subscriptions, asking for a read-and-publish deal.[126] Negotiations were ended by the Hungarian consortium in December 2018, and the subscription was not renewed.[127]

Iran

In 2013, Elsevier changed its policies in response to sanctions announced by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control that year. This included a request that all Elsevier journals avoid publishing papers by Iranian nationals who are employed by the Iranian government.[128][129] Elsevier executive Mark Seeley expressed regret on behalf of the company, but did not announce an intention to challenge this interpretation of the law.[130]

Italy

CRUI (an association of Italian universities) sealed a 5-year-long deal for 2018–2022,[131] despite protests from the scientific community, protests focused on aspects such as the lack of prevention of cost increases by means of the double dipping.[132]

Netherlands

In 2015, a consortium of all of Netherlands' 14 universities threatened to boycott Elsevier if it could not agree that articles by Dutch authors would be made open access and settled with the compromise of 30% of its Dutch papers becoming open access by 2018. Gerard Meijer, president of Radboud University in Nijmegen and lead negotiator on the Dutch side noted, "it's not the 100% that I hoped for".[114][133][134][135]

Norway

In March 2019, the Norwegian government on behalf of 44 institutions — universities, university colleges, research institutes, and hospitals — decided to break negotiations on renewal of their subscription deal with Elsevier, because of disagreement regarding open-access policy and Elsevier's unwillingness to reduce the cost of reading access.[136]

South Korea

In 2017, over 70 university libraries confirmed a "contract boycott" movement involving three publishers including Elsevier. As of January 2018, whilst negotiations remain underway, a decision will be made as to whether or not continue the participating libraries will continue the boycott.[137] It was subsequently confirmed that an agreement had been reached.[138]

Sweden

In May 2018, the Bibsam Consortium, which negotiates license agreements on behalf of all Swedish universities and research institutes, decided not to renew their contract with Elsevier,[139][140] alleging that the publisher does not meet the demands of transition towards a more open-access model, and referring to the rapidly increasing costs for publishing.[141] Swedish universities will still have access to articles published before 30 June 2018. Astrid Söderbergh Widding, chairman of the Bibsam Consortium, said, "the current system for scholarly communication must change and our only option is to cancel deals when they don't meet our demands for a sustainable transition to open access".[142] Sweden has a goal of open access by 2026.[143] In November 2019 the negotiations concluded, with Sweden paying for reading access to Elsevier journals and open access publishing for all its researchers' articles.[144]

Taiwan

In Taiwan, more than 75% of universities, including the region's top 11 institutions, have joined a collective boycott against Elsevier. On 7 December 2016, the Taiwanese consortium, CONCERT, which represents more than 140 institutions, announced it would not renew its contract with Elsevier.[114][145][146][147]

United States

In March 2018, Florida State University's faculty elected to cancel its $2 million subscription to a bundle of several journals. Starting in 2019, it will instead buy access to titles à la carte.[140]

In February 2019, the University of California said it would terminate subscriptions "in [a] push for open access to publicly funded research."[148][149][7] After months of negotiations over open access to research by UC researchers and prices for subscriptions to Elsevier journals, a press release by the UC Office of the President issued Thursday, 28 February 2019 stated "Under Elsevier’s proposed terms, the publisher would have charged UC authors large publishing fees on top of the university’s multimillion dollar subscription, resulting in much greater cost to the university and much higher profits for Elsevier."[148][150] On July 10, 2019 Elsevier began restricting access to all new paywalled articles and approximately 5% of paywalled articles published before 2019.[151]

In April 2020, the University of North Carolina elected not to renew its bundled Elsevier package, citing a failure "to provide an affordable path".[152]. Rather than extend the license, which was stated to cost $2.6 million annually, the university decided to continue subscribing to a smaller set of individual journals. The State University of New York Libraries Consortium also announced similar outcome,[153][154] with the help of estimates from Unpaywall Journals.[155] Similarly, MIT announced in June 2020 that it would no longer pay for access to new Elsevier articles.[156][157]

Dissemination of research

Lobbying efforts against open access

Elsevier have been known to be involved in lobbying against open access.[158] These have included the likes of:

Selling open-access articles

In 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017,[181] Elsevier was found to be selling some articles that should have been open access, but had been put behind a paywall.[182] A related case occurred in 2015, when Elsevier charged for downloading an open-access article from a journal published by John Wiley & Sons. However, whether Elsevier was in violation of the license under which the article was made available on their website was not clear.[183]

Action against academics posting their own articles online

In 2013, Digimarc, a company representing Elsevier, told the University of Calgary to remove articles published by faculty authors on university web pages; although such self-archiving of academic articles may be legal under the fair dealing provisions in Canadian copyright law,[184] the university complied. Harvard University and the University of California, Irvine also received takedown notices for self-archived academic articles, a first for Harvard, according to Peter Suber.[185][186][187]

Months after its acquisition of Academia.edu rival Mendeley, Elsevier sent thousands of takedown notices to Academia.edu, a practice that has since ceased following widespread complaint by academics, according to Academia.edu founder and chief executive Richard Price.[188][189]

After Elsevier acquired the repository SSRN in May 2016, academics started complaining that some of their work has been removed without notice. The action was explained as a technical error.[190]

Sci-Hub and LibGen lawsuit

In 2015, Elsevier filed a lawsuit against the sites Sci-Hub and LibGen, which make copyright-protected articles available for free. Elsevier also claimed illegal access to institutional accounts.[191][192]

Rejection of the Initiative for Open Citations

Among the major academic publishers, Elsevier alone declined to join the Initiative for Open Citations. In the context of the resignation of the Journal of Informetrics' editorial board, Elsevier stated:[193]

Elsevier invests significantly in citation extraction technology. While these are made available to those who wish to license this data, Elsevier cannot make such a large corpus of data, to which it has added significant value, available for free.

Imprints

Elsevier uses its imprints (that is, brand names used in publishing) to market to different consumer segments. Many of the imprints have previously been the names of publishing companies that were purchased by Reed Elsevier.

gollark: I think lyricly keeps doing well because they embedded a backdoor into the rules.
gollark: Because you're wrong, yes.
gollark: Of course.
gollark: This was demonstrated to be false earlier today.
gollark: It is if you implement APL.

See also
  • List of Elsevier periodicals
  • 2collab, a free researcher collaboration tool launched by Elsevier in 2007 and discontinued in 2011
  • Sci-Hub, a website providing free access to otherwise paywalled academic papers on a massive scale that is involved in a legal case with Elsevier

References

Citations
  1. "2018 RELX Group Annual Report" (PDF). RELX Company Reports. RELX. March 2019.
  2. http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/66ce3362-68b9-11df-96f1-00144feab49a.pdf.
  3. "Plum Goes Orange – Elsevier Acquires Plum Analytics". 2 February 2017.
  4. RELX (21 February 2019). "RELX — Results for the year to December 2018" (PDF) (Press release). London, United Kingdom and Amsterdam, The Netherlands: RELX Group. Retrieved 27 March 2019. Adjusted operating margin for 2017 for the publishing division is 36.8% (p6).
  5. Lin, Thomas (13 February 2012). "Mathematicians Organize Boycott of a Publisher". The New York Times.
  6. Groen 2007, p. 217.
  7. Zhang, Sarah (4 March 2019). "The Real Cost of Knowledge". The Atlantic. Retrieved 6 March 2019.
  8. "Interesting Fact - History of the Elsevier Logo". Facebook. Retrieved 12 June 2019.
  9. Gerry van der List, Meer dan een weekblad. De geschiedenis van Elsevier
  10. "Reed Elsevier Timeline". www.ulib.niu.edu. Archived from the original on 30 October 2015. Retrieved 13 September 2015.
  11. Amirtha, Tina (17 April 2015). "THE OPEN PUBLISHING REVOLUTION, NOW BEHIND A BILLION-DOLLAR PAYWALL". Fast Company. Retrieved 26 January 2016.
  12. Dobbs, David (12 April 2013). "When the Rebel Alliance Sells Out". The New Yorker.
  13. Patricia Nilsson (25 July 2019). "Relx falls short of growth expectations". Financial Times – via Yahoo Finance.
  14. Coleman, James A. (3 January 2014). "How to get published in English: Advice from the outgoing Editor-in-Chief". System. 42: 404–411. doi:10.1016/j.system.2014.01.004. ISSN 0346-251X. Remember that editors and reviewers are unpaid, and are undertaking their tasks voluntarily, in addition to a full-time job
  15. "These Five Corporations Control Academic Publishing". Vocativ.com. 10 June 2015. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
  16. Vincent Larivière; Stefanie Haustein; Philippe Mongeon (2015). "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era". PLOS ONE. 10 (6): e0127502. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1027502L. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127502. PMC 4465327. PMID 26061978.
  17. "Elsevier leads the business the internet could not kill". www.ft.com. Retrieved 7 November 2016.
  18. "Elsevier Next Steps". Information Today. Retrieved 7 November 2016.
  19. "Kumsal Bayazit". Elsevier.com. Retrieved 22 February 2019.
  20. "RELX Annual Report and Financial Statements 2019", https://www.relx.com/investors/annual-reports/2019
  21. "Elsevier reports 40% gender pay gap". www.thebookseller.com. Retrieved 11 August 2019.
  22. Health Advance. Elsevier.
  23. Glyn Moody (4 August 2017). "Elsevier Continues To Build Its Monopoly Solution For All Aspects Of Scholarly Communication". Techdirt. Retrieved 17 October 2018.
  24. Mike Masnick (17 May 2016). "Disappointing: Elsevier Buys Open Access Academic Pre-Publisher SSRN". Techdirt. Retrieved 17 October 2018.
  25. Herb, Ulrich (2019). "Steering science through Output Indicators & Data Capitalism". doi:10.5281/zenodo.3333395. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  26. "Conferences". elsevier.com.
  27. Monbiot, George (29 August 2011). "Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist". Guardian.
  28. "Elsevier journals — some facts". Gowers's Weblog. 24 April 2014. Retrieved 27 July 2014.
  29. Faculty Senate minutes February 19 meeting Stanford Report, 25 February 2004
  30. "Fac Sen addresses costly journals". The Stanford Daily. 20 February 2004. Archived from the original on 5 November 2012.
  31. Danny Kingsley Dutch boycott of Elsevier – a game changer?, University of Cambridge Office of Scholarly Communication
  32. Schiermeier, Quirin; Mega, Emiliano Rodríguez (2016). "Scientists in Germany, Peru and Taiwan to lose access to Elsevier journals". Nature. 541 (7635): 13. Bibcode:2017Natur.541...13S. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.21223. PMID 28054621.
  33. Martin Paul Eve (14 December 2016). "Referring Elsevier/RELX to the Competition and Markets Authority".
  34. Kelly, Éanna (2 November 2018). "Researchers complain to Brussels over 'dominant position' of RELX Group in scientific publishing". sciencebusiness.net. Retrieved 16 January 2019.
  35. Finlo Rohrer, "The perils of five-star reviews", BBC News Magazine, 25 June 2009.
  36. Bloudoff-Indelicato, Mollie (20 November 2015). "Text-mining block prompts online response". Nature. 527 (7579): 413. Bibcode:2015Natur.527..413B. doi:10.1038/527413f.
  37. Van Noorden, Richard (3 February 2014). "Elsevier opens its papers to text-mining". Nature. 506 (7486): 17. Bibcode:2014Natur.506...17V. doi:10.1038/506017a. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 24499898. “It was a legitimate criticism, that people sent text-mining requests in to publishers and they bounced around for a time without any response,” admits Chris Shillum, vice-president of product management for platform and content at Elsevier.
  38. Moody, Glyn. "Elsevier Says Downloading And Content-Mining Licensed Copies Of Research Papers 'Could Be Considered' Stealing". TechDirt. Retrieved 21 November 2015.
  39. Nuijten, Michèle B.; Hartgerink, Chris H. J.; van Assen, Marcel A. L. M.; Epskamp, Sacha; Wicherts, Jelte M. (23 October 2015). "The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013)". Behavior Research Methods. 48 (4): 1205–1226. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0664-2. PMC 5101263. PMID 26497820.
  40. A. Wise, 2015-11-17, Elsevier stopped me doing my research - Comment by Dr Alicia Wise
  41. Bohannon, John (2013). "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?". Science. 342 (6154): 60–65. Bibcode:2013Sci...342...60B. doi:10.1126/science.342.6154.60. PMID 24092725.
  42. Claire Shaw (4 October 2013). "Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper". The Guardian. Theguardian.com. Retrieved 26 December 2013.
  43. "Drug Invention Today". sciencedirect.com.
  44. Rout, Milanda (9 April 2009). "Doctors signed Merck's Vioxx studies". The Australian. Archived from the original on 6 May 2009. Retrieved 4 May 2009.
  45. Grant, Bob (30 April 2009). "Merck published fake journal". The Scientist. Retrieved 4 May 2009.
  46. Hagan, Kate (23 April 2009). "Merck accused of 'ghost writing' medical article". The Age. Retrieved 4 May 2009.
  47. Ben Goldacre, "The danger of drugs … and data", The Guardian, 9 May 2009
  48. "Merck Responds to Questions about the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine Journal" (PDF) (Press release). Merck & Co. 30 April 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 31 December 2009.
  49. "Statement from Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, regarding Australia based sponsored journal practices between 2000 and 2005" (Press release). Elsevier.
  50. Grant, Bob (7 May 2009). "Elsevier published 6 fake journals". The Scientist.
  51. ""Excerpta Medica", official webpage". Elsevier.
  52. ""Excerpta Medica Joins Adelphi Worldwide", press release". Elsevier.
  53. Schiermeier, Q (2008). "Self-publishing editor set to retire". Nature. 456 (7221): 432. doi:10.1038/456432a. PMID 19037282.
  54. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 38(5), pp. 1229–1534 (December 2008)
  55. "The Scholarly Kitchen".
  56. "El Naschie Watch Blog". Archived from the original on 15 October 2010.
  57. "Publisher's note". Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. 39: v–. 2009. Bibcode:2009CSF....39D...5.. doi:10.1016/S0960-0779(09)00060-5.
  58. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. November 2011.
  59. Ghosh, Pallab (11 November 2011). "Nature journal libel case begins". BBC News. Retrieved 11 November 2011.
  60. "Nature libel verdict 'a victory for free speech'",The Guardian 6 July 2012
  61. Aron, Jacob (6 July 2012). "Nature Publishing Group wins libel trial". New Scientist (2873). Retrieved 14 July 2012.
  62. "Plagiarism detection". Elsevier.
  63. Ivan Oransky (23 August 2018). "UPDATED: Elsevier retracts a paper on solar cells that appears to plagiarize a Nature journal. But the reason is…odd".
  64. "Massive Plagiarism Scandal Hits Albanian Officials without Consequences". 25 December 2018.
  65. Saini, Angela (22 January 2018). "Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
  66. Skibba, Ramin (20 May 2019). "The Disturbing Resilience of Scientific Racism". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
  67. Van Der Merwe, Ben (19 February 2018). "It might be a pseudoscience, but students take the threat of eugenics seriously". New Statesman. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
  68. "Personality and Individual Differences Retracts Rushton and Templer Article". Retrieved 19 June 2020.
  69. "Elsevier journal to retract 2012 paper widely derided as racist". 17 June 2020. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
  70. McKiernan, Erin C.; Schimanski, Lesley A.; Muñoz Nieves, Carol; Matthias, Lisa; Niles, Meredith T.; Alperin, Juan Pablo (9 April 2019). "Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations". doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.27638v2. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  71. Oransky, Author Ivan (29 June 2020). "Major indexing service sounds alarm on self-citations by nearly 50 journals". Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  72. Joan Birman. "Scientific publishing: a mathematician’s viewpoint". Notices of the AMS. Vol. 47, No. 7, August 2000
  73. EffeDesign. "The EEA's journal: a brief history". Eeassoc.org. Retrieved 26 December 2013.
  74. "Changes at the Journal of Algorithms" (PDF). Retrieved 26 December 2013.
  75. Donald Knuth (25 October 2003). "Letter to the editorial board of the Journal of Algorithms" (PDF). Retrieved 18 February 2008.
  76. "Journal of Algorithms page at ScienceDirect". Sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 26 December 2013.
  77. "Journal declarations of independence". Open Access Directory. Simmons College. Retrieved 23 May 2012.
  78. Kyriakides, Stelios; Hills, David A. (1 January 2006). "Editorial". International Journal of Solids and Structures. 43 (1): 1. doi:10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.11.001. Charles R. Steele succeeded Herrmann as editor-in-chief in 1985 and served in that capacity until June 2005. During his 20-year tenure, the journal grew both in size and in reputation, becoming one of the premier journals in the field. We have accepted an invitation to serve as editors of the journal as of October 1, 2005, being cognizant of the immense contributions, leadership, and high standards exercised by our two predecessors on the way to making IJSS the forum it is today.
  79. "Resignation letter from the editors of Topology" (PDF). 10 August 2006. Retrieved 18 February 2008.
  80. Journal of Topology (pub. London Mathematical Society) Archived 7 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  81. Topology. elsevier.com. Retrieved 13 March 2015.
  82. "Topology page at ScienceDirect". Sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 26 December 2013.
  83. John Baez: What We Can Do About Science Journals 13 August 2007
  84. "Publisher's description of Annales Scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure". Elsevier. Archived from the original on 12 April 2008. Retrieved 18 February 2008.
  85. David Glenn. "American Economic Association Plans 4 New Journals". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 25 January 2008. Available online at Chronicle.com
  86. "Medical journal editor sacked and editorial committee resigns". 3 May 2015. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  87. Jaschik, Scott (2 November 2015). "Language of Protest". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  88. "Elsevier journal editors resign, start rival open-access journal".
  89. "Elsevier journal editors resign, start rival open-access journal". www.insidehighered.com. Retrieved 14 January 2019.
  90. Chawla, Dalmeet Singh (14 January 2019). "Open-access row prompts editorial board of Elsevier journal to resign". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00135-8.
  91. Groen 2007, p. 177.
  92. Groen 2007, p. 180.
  93. Flood, Alison (2 February 2012). "Scientists sign petition to boycott academic publisher Elsevier". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 16 February 2012.
  94. Fischman, Josh (30 January 2012). "Elsevier Publishing Boycott Gathers Steam Among Academics". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 16 February 2012.
  95. "Scientific publishing: The price of information". The Economist. 4 February 2012. Archived from the original on 16 February 2012.
  96. "thecostofknowledge.com". Retrieved 12 January 2013.
  97. "Elsevier Backs Down as Boycott Grows". Archived from the original on 11 September 2014. Retrieved 25 August 2014.
  98. "Sponsors and Supporters Back Away from Research Works Act". Retrieved 25 August 2014.
  99. Noorden, Richard Van (5 November 2018). "Wellcome and Gates join bold European open-access plan". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07300-5. Retrieved 16 January 2019.
  100. Keulemans, Maarten (4 September 2018). "11 EU-landen besluiten: vanaf 2020 moet alle wetenschappelijke literatuur gratis beschikbaar zijn". De Volkskrant (in Dutch). Retrieved 25 September 2018. Als je vindt dat informatie gratis moet zijn: ga naar Wikipedia.
  101. Elder, Bryce (12 September 2018). "Stocks to watch: SSE, BAT, Galápagos, RELX, Telefónica, RBS". Financial Times. Retrieved 14 October 2018.
  102. "Scientific journal subscription costs in Finland 2010-2015: a preliminary analysis". rOpenGov. Retrieved 15 October 2017.
  103. "Tiedonhinta.fi". tiedonhinta.fi. Archived from the original on 15 October 2017. Retrieved 15 October 2017.
  104. "No deal, no review – #nodealnoreview". Nodealnoreview.org. Retrieved 15 October 2017.
  105. Kukkonen, Suvi (17 January 2018). "FinELib and Elsevier Reach Agreement for Subscription Access and Open Access Publishing". National Library. Retrieved 17 January 2018.
  106. Toma Susi (25 January 2018). "Finland takes steps in the openness of academic journal pricing". Mostly Physics. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  107. Marie Farge. Transition vers l'Accès Libre: le piège des accords globaux avec les éditeurs. Matematika (in French). Club de Mediapart. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  108. Consortium Couperin (11 June 2019). "Communiqué sur la négociation Elsevier" (PDF).
  109. "Embrouilles à propos de l'accès aux revues scientifiques" (in French). 13 May 2019. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  110. Haufe, Gottfried (20 November 2018). "Vertragskündigungen Elsevier 2018". www.projekt-deal.de. Retrieved 6 March 2019.
  111. Else, Holly (5 February 2019). "Thousands of scientists run up against Elsevier's paywall". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00492-4. Retrieved 6 March 2019.
  112. Doctorow, Cory (15 December 2016). "Germany-wide consortium of research libraries announce boycott of Elsevier journals over open access". Boing Boing. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  113. "No full-text access to Elsevier journals to be expected from 1 January 2017 on". Göttingen State and University Library. Archived from the original on 27 December 2016. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  114. Schiermeier, Quirin; Mega, Emiliano Rodríguez (2016). "Scientists in Germany, Peru and Taiwan to lose access to Elsevier journals". Nature. 541 (7635): 13. Bibcode:2017Natur.541...13S. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.21223. PMID 28054621.
  115. "Pressemitteilungen". Lrk-bw.de (in German). Retrieved 11 July 2017.
  116. "Major German Universities Cancel Elsevier Contracts". The Scientist. Retrieved 18 July 2017.
  117. "A bold open-access push in Germany could change the future of academic publishing". Science. 23 August 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017.
  118. Conference, German Rectors'. "Researchers resign editorship of Elsevier journals". Retrieved 16 October 2017.
  119. "German universities to let Elsevier contracts lapse | Books+Publishing". Booksandpublishing.com.au. Retrieved 29 July 2017.
  120. "Vertragskündigungen Elsevier 2017 – Projekt DEAL". Projekt-deal.de. Retrieved 12 September 2017.
  121. Matthews, David (4 January 2018). "Elsevier maintains German access despite failure to strike deal". Times Higher Education (THE). London, United Kingdom. ISSN 0049-3929. Retrieved 5 January 2018.
  122. Universities in Germany and Sweden Lose Access to Elsevier Journals, DIANA KWON, The Scientist, July 19, 2018
  123. Schiermeier, Quirin (4 January 2018). "Germany vs Elsevier: universities win temporary journal access after refusing to pay fees". Nature News. 553 (7687): 137. Bibcode:2018Natur.553..137S. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-00093-7. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 29323311.
  124. "Max Planck Society discontinues agreement with Elsevier; stands firm with Projekt DEAL negotiations - MPDL".
  125. Price, Gary (19 December 2018). "Max Planck Society Discontinues Agreement with Elsevier. Affirms Support for Projekt Deal". infodocket.com Library Journal. Retrieved 19 December 2018.
  126. "Hungarian Consortium terminates negotiations with Elsevier". eisz.mtak.hu. Retrieved 16 January 2019.
  127. McKenzie, Lindsay (14 January 2019). "Elsevier journal editors resign, start rival open-access journal". www.insidehighered.com. Retrieved 16 January 2019.
  128. Baghianimoghadam, Behnam (9 February 2014). "Scientific sanctions: A catastrophe for the civilized world". Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. 11 (2): 130. PMID 24727630. Retrieved 25 December 2018.
  129. "Taylor & Francis group bans publication of articles by Iranian authors". Fars News. 5 November 2013. Retrieved 25 December 2018.
  130. Seeley, Mark (9 May 2013). "Trade sanctions against Iran affect publishers". Elsevier. Retrieved 25 December 2018.
  131. "I ricercatori italiani potranno beneficiare dell'accesso continuo al database ScienceDirect di Elsevier - CRUI - Conferenza dei Rettori delle Università italiane".
  132. Paola Galimberti (10 December 2018). "Svezia-Italia 1-0. Berlino 2018: Italia fanalino di coda nell'Open Science". Roars: Returns on Academic Research.
  133. Bohannon, John (11 December 2015). "In unique deal, Elsevier agrees to make some papers by Dutch authors free". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aad7565. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  134. "Dutch Universities and Elsevier reach agreement in principle - Library UvA - University of Amsterdam". Universiteit van Amsterdam. 12 October 2015. Archived from the original on 27 December 2016. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  135. "How Elsevier plans to sabotage Open Access". Medium. 25 March 2017. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  136. "Norwegian research institutions have decided not to renew their agreement with Elsevier". UNIT. 12 March 2019. Retrieved 12 March 2019.
  137. "70여개 대학 도서관, 새해 첫 날부터 일부 논문 못 봐 - 한국대학신문" (in Korean). 29 December 2017. Retrieved 5 January 2018.
  138. "South Korean universities reach agreement with Elsevier after long standoff". Science. 15 January 2018. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
  139. "Sweden cancels Elsevier contract as open-access dispute spreads". www.timeshighereducation.com. 16 May 2018.
  140. "Big Deal Cancellation Tracking", Sparcopen.org, US: Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, retrieved 30 June 2018
  141. annwen. "Bibsamkonsortiet - Kungliga biblioteket". www.kb.se (in Swedish). Retrieved 31 May 2018.
  142. "Sweden stands up for open access – cancels agreement with Elsevier". OpenAccess.se (in Swedish). 16 May 2018. Retrieved 30 May 2018.
  143. Wentzel, Annica (16 May 2018). "Sweden stands up for open access – cancels agreement with Elsevier". openaccess.blogg.kb.se. Retrieved 6 March 2019.
  144. "New transformative agreement with Elsevier enables unlimited open access to Swedish research". Kungliga Biblioteket. Retrieved 3 July 2020.
  145. "關於Elsevier資料庫合約談判 CONCERT聲明". Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  146. "Taiwan Tech to Discontinue Subscription to Elsevier ScienceDirect Starting 2017 - NTUST Library". Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  147. Schmitt, Jason (30 March 2017). "Asia Advances Open Access Research". Huffington Post. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
  148. "UC terminates subscriptions with world's largest scientific publisher in push for open access to publicly funded research". www.universityofcalifornia.edu. 28 February 2019. Retrieved 6 March 2019.
  149. Yirka, Bob (4 March 2019). "University of California terminates subscriptions to Elsevier". phys.org. Retrieved 6 March 2019.
  150. Kell, Gretchen; Berkeley, U. C. (6 March 2019). "Why UC split with publishing giant Elsevier". University of California. Retrieved 12 June 2019.
  151. "University of California loses access to new journal articles published by Elsevier after research access fight". statnews.com. 10 July 2019. Retrieved 10 July 2019.
  152. "Upcoming Elsevier Cancellations". University of North Carolina. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
  153. "SUNY Cancels Big Deal With Elsevier". Inside Highered. 13 April 2020. Retrieved 16 April 2020.
  154. "State University of New York Steps Away From the "Big Deal" with Elsevier". SUNY Libraries Consortium (SLC). 7 April 2020. Retrieved 16 April 2020.
  155. "SUNY Negotiates New, Modified Agreement with Elsevier - Libraries News Center University at Buffalo Libraries". library.buffalo.edu. Retrieved 18 April 2020.
  156. "MIT, guided by open access principles, ends Elsevier negotiations". Retrieved 11 June 2020.
  157. McKenzie, Lindsay (12 June 2020). "MIT Ends Negotiations with Elsevier". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 12 June 2020.
  158. "Lobbying Spending Database - RELX Group, 2017". Opensecrets.org. Retrieved 30 August 2017.
  159. "Federal Research Public Access Act (Alliance for Taxpayer Access)". Taxpayeraccess.org. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  160. "Legislation to Bar Public-Access Requirement on Federal Research Is Dead". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 27 February 2012. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  161. "How Corporations Score Big Profits By Limiting Access To Publicly Funded Academic Research". ThinkProgress. 3 March 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  162. Contributor. "The Dangerous "Research Works Act"". TechCrunch. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  163. Hu, Jane C. "Academics Want You to Read Their Work for Free". The Atlantic. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  164. Elsevier. "Message on the Research Works Act". Elsevier.com. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  165. Kakaes, Konstantin (28 February 2012). "Scientists' Victory Over the Research Works Act Is Like the SOPA Defeat". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  166. "Elsevier withdraws support from Research Works Act, bill collapses". Boing Boing. 28 February 2012. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  167. "Academic publishers have become the enemies of science". The Guardian. 16 January 2012. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  168. "Elsevier, Wiley are getting PR advice from Eric Dezenhall". Transcription and Translation. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  169. Dyer, Owen (3 February 2007). "Publishers hire PR heavyweight to defend themselves against open access". BMJ: British Medical Journal. 334 (7587): 227. doi:10.1136/bmj.39112.439051.DB. ISSN 0959-8138. PMC 1790741. PMID 17272546.
  170. "Scientific Publishers Offer Solution to White House's Public Access Mandate". Science. 4 June 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  171. ""The Pit Bull Of Public Relations" - Bloomberg". Bloomberg.com. 17 April 2006. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  172. "Muscle from Brussels as open access gets an €80bn boost". Times Higher Education (THE). 17 May 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  173. "Horizon 2020 to promote open access". Gowers's Weblog. 17 May 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  174. "Horizon 2020: A €80 Billion Battlefield for Open Access". Science. 24 May 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  175. "European Union links research grants to open access". Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  176. "Inside Higher Ed: Big push for open access". Times Higher Education (THE). 26 February 2013. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  177. "Elsevier distances itself from open-access article". Times Higher Education (THE). 22 May 2013. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  178. "How Corporations Score Big Profits By Limiting Access To Publicly Funded Academic Research". ThinkProgress. 3 March 2013. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  179. "Hated Science Publisher Elsevier To Help EU Monitor Open Science - Including Open Access". Techdirt. Retrieved 5 April 2018.
  180. Lykkja, Pål Magnus; Myklebust, Jan Petter (17 March 2018). "Open science in the EU – Will the astroturfers take over?". University World News. Retrieved 13 April 2018.
  181. Ross Mounce (20 February 2017). "Hybrid open access is unreliable". Retrieved 30 April 2018.
  182. Jump, Paul (27 March 2014). "Elsevier: bumps on road to open access". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 9 March 2015.
  183. Vollmer, Timothy (13 March 2015). "Are commercial publishers wrongly selling access to openly licensed scholarly articles?". Creative Commons News. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
  184. Mike Masnick. "Elsevier Ramps Up Its War On Access To Knowledge". Techdirt. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  185. Peterson, Andrea (19 December 2013). "How one publisher is stopping academics from sharing their research". The Washington Post. Retrieved 6 January 2015.
  186. Masnick, Mike (20 December 2013). "Elsevier Ramps Up Its War On Access To Knowledge". Techdirt. Retrieved 6 January 2015.
  187. "How one publisher is stopping academics from sharing their research". Washington Post. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  188. Parr, Chris (12 June 2014). "Sharing is a way of life for millions on Academia.edu". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
  189. Howard, Jennifer (6 December 2013). "Posting Your Latest Article? You Might Have to Take It Down". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
  190. Mike Masnick SSRN accused of copyright crackdown, Techdirt.
  191. McLaughlin, Stephen Reid (18 March 2016). "Elsevier v. Sci-Hub on the docket". Retrieved 28 June 2016.
  192. "Simba Information: Five Professional Publishing News Events of 2015 Signal Times Are A-Changin'". PR Newswire. 17 December 2015. Retrieved 28 June 2016.
  193. Reller, Tom (15 January 2019). "About the resignation of the Journal of Informetrics Editorial Board". Elsevier Connect. Retrieved 15 March 2019.

Sources
  • Groen, Frances K. (2007). Access to medical knowledge : libraries, digitization, and the public good. Lanham, Mar.: Scarecrow Press. p. 217. ISBN 978-0-8108-52723.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link)
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.