This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
Can I please suggest the few changes below for someone to take a look at? I'm an employee, so not posting them myself but I think they're all fair requests.
Introduction Add a mention of SciVal in the list of products in the introduction, after Scopus.
History Add bepress acquisition https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/02/elsevier-acquires-bepress
Resignation of editorial boards The 2002 European Economic Association, and the French Ecole Normale Superieure paragraphs don't relate to board resignations - can these be moved?
Shill review offer Can it be made clear that this happened in 2009? - there is currently no date in this section
Boycotts Cost of Knowledge Can the third paragraph be brought up to date? Maybe by bringing over the last couple of sentences from the boycott section on the RELX wikipedia page: "Between 2012 and November 2015, about 15,391 scientists signed The Cost of Knowledge boycott. In 2016, Elsevier received 1.5 million article submissions." - the details could be updated to "Between 2012 and April 2018, about 17,000 scientists..." and "in 2017 Elsevier received 1.6 million article submissions".
Can the Netherlands paragraph be made clearer to show that although a boycott was threatened, it wasn't ever launched? Many thanks Ryoba ( talk) 10:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Elsevier and its competitors have billions in cash, so of course they're acquiring hundreds of other companies. A search for "Elsevier acquisitions" finds 700 articles in the last year on Google News. RELX_Group#21st_century has a long list already. I personally consider the bepress acquisition important (for instance it triggered Operation Beprexit), but we need some criteria to decide which M&A to talk about, otherwise this article will just become an infinite list of related companies and commentary about them.
I feel the financial point of view could be covered at RELX Group, with some of the usual sources (Bloomberg, Morningstar, Crunchbase, the various rating agencies etc.) and an appropriate monetary threshold. This article could cover the matter from an academic perspective, talking about Elsevier's role in academic publishing beyond the acquisition of journals. It could be a single section about non-publishing activities where to also mention all the main things it bought or developed, including SSRN, Mendeley, PlumX and others (paying more attention to the impact on research than to the monetary aspect). -- Nemo 06:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I'd like to remove the new section for Plan S which has appeared on the Elsevier page, as there seem to be a few problems with it being there: Firstly, and most importantly, Plan S isn't specific to Elsevier, so there's no reason why it should be on this page - there is no mention of it on any other publishers' Wikipedia pages.
Secondly, these points are already covered on the Plan S page, so this seems to be unnecessary duplication.
Thirdly, there are some unsourced, non-encyclopaedic statements here: "has met with strong criticism from Elsevier" and "The plan is expected to affect Elsevier's profits".
Finally, I’m not sure that an encyclopaedia necessarily should be commenting on short-term share price movements and trying to make correlations with particular announcements. The entire market was off in the 4Q of 2018, and in fact RELX Group outperformed the UK FTSE100 in 2018. Between 19 September and today – January 22 – RELX Group’s share price (not Elsevier’s as Elsevier isn’t a quote entity) has actually risen 11 per cent.
As I'm aware of the potential for NPOV here, I'm asking for people's thoughts before making any changes so I'd be grateful if someone could assist.
In the interests of transparency, I work for Elsevier's parent company. Francophile9 ( talk) 16:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we should move the parts from "Dissemination of research" to "Academic practices" for better structure and readibility of the article, what do you think? -- Karlaz1 ( talk) 11:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
While I wanted to add this source ( https://retractionwatch.com/2021/03/09/elsevier-journals-ask-retraction-watch-to-review-covid-19-papers/#more-121684) to Elsevier's Wiki page, I realize that there is no controversies section. The section Academic practices seems to be more of a controversies section. My question is whether we can change it to "Controversies", including the section on resignation of editorial board members, and add some subsections such as controversial articles, and editorial/review malpractices? What you think about this plan? Kenji1987 ( talk) 04:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the Academic practicies is a controversies section. On the other hand if the section will be renamed we should also add some part from Dissemination of research, many of the mention here are controversies. For example MDPI has large Controversies section. For unity of style we should use the similar structure in both cases.-- Karlaz1 ( talk) 14:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Since I'm doing some copyediting here,:As a librarian, like any librarian concerned primarily with purchasing electronic resources, I had many business and professional dealings with the firm and some of its executives, ending when I retired about 12 years ago. Some of them were quite extensive beyond ordinary negotiations, involving sometimes a degree of cooperation, sometimes extremely critical published or posted comments, sometimes favorable or unfavorable reviews of their products. I never was offered (and would not have taken) money from them, but I did accept hospitality. This never influenced what I said or wrote, and they were quite aware that it would not, and I did not accept everything I was offered; if anything, my contacts tended to strengthen my basic and continuing objection to the entire business model of commercial scientific publishing which they epitomize. (For that matter, I had similar but less extensive, relationship with most science publishers) DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is being scrubbed by undisclosed paid editors linked to the Yoodaba sockfarm, which is operated by a marketing agency. This activity is ongoing since, at least, August 2020. This company uses anonymous edits and a very distinctive kind of proxy for sensitive edits.
Here's a list of edits I was able to verify. In reverse chronological order:
El Naschie context(already reverted)
Irrelevant content in the Resignations section. This is not a resignation.(already reverted)
Removing unnecessary information to maintain WP:NPOV -- indicative of relative prominence of opposing views.(already reverted)
28% is wrong per 2019 annual report -- Updated.
global STM publishing market in 2015
RM irrelevant content about a specific branch when Elsevier is a global company. UK is small part of the business.(already reverted)
EU Commission didn't investigate Anticomp practices
Source says negotiations have continued so this is wrong. Removed.
Company statistics updates...
Mendeley acquisition clarification(already reverted)
removed gpg info - nemo bis has a long history with this page. Content isn’t relevant to a global company, no data for other areas.(already reverted)
Need a WP:INDEPENDENT source here to support this information. Primary sources not allowed(already reverted)
Organizing sections within Market Model portion of the page
This is the current logo, not sure why the caption said otherwise. Updated some of the wording in the History section.
accurate publishing numbers and location updated(registered and blocked sock)
There are some old edits which I cannot retroactively check for the proxy. So the article should be reviewed beyond the above edits. Note that spotting problematic content is not as trivial as with common spammers, since it's often about omitting information or changing references to avoid linking to criticism, rather than adding promotional content. MarioGom ( talk) 19:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Owing to how a fair portion of this article deals primarily with criticisms of Elsevier, lumping it altogether into one broader "criticism" section, or alternatively splitting it off into a separate Criticism of Elsevier article, could help clean up the article to some extent. Casspedia ( talk) 23:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
And what about merges "Dissemination of research" to the "Academic practices"? In my point of view the "Academic practices" could be considered as a umbrella section.-- Karlaz1 ( talk) 13:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I tried to add some information to the history about war, but NightHeron rightly noticed the Elsevier's source can be biased. Nevertheless, I think the war period should be described because it is an important milestone for Elsevier. But I found just articles on it's web, any idea for others? https://www.elsevier.com/connect/in-the-shadow-of-the-nazis-this-young-executive-dared-to-publish-the-work-of-jewish-scientists -- Karlaz1 ( talk) 13:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. So I think we could use some information from this another source (although it is on Elsevier website I don't think it is misleading), what do you think?
In May 1939 – as the Nazis were burning down the Warsaw ghetto and preparing to invade other countries – Klautz established the Elsevier Publishing Company Ltd. in London to distribute these academic titles in the British Commonwealth (except Canada). When the Nazis invaded and occupied the Netherlands for the duration of five years from May 1940, he had just founded a second international office, the Elsevier Publishing Company Inc. in New York. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/in-the-shadow-of-the-nazis-this-young-executive-dared-to-publish-the-work-of-jewish-scientists Karlaz1 ( talk) 15:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The redirect Acta Tropica has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Acta Tropica until a consensus is reached. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Biological Control (journal) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Biological Control (journal) until a consensus is reached. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology until a consensus is reached. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I just did a quick read through of this article out of curiosity and I believe it suffers from WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTism. I feel it unduly focuses on the criticisms of the company's business model. While I believe such a section is warranted, as the company is frequently criticised by academics, the aricle currently is totally dominated by complaints in all sections after the Company Statistics, being over half of the total word count. Furthermore, these complaints are almost all from the 21st century. The company is over a 140 years old, but almost all of the text is related to complaints about the company from the last 20 years. In my opinion, these 2 problems make the article weak as an encyclopedia article and verge on violating WP:NPOV. Ashmoo ( talk) 07:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
articles [that] tend to focus on recent events…current news breaks.” It does not mean a focus on the current century. Concerning WP:UNDUE, did you find any of the criticisms in the article to be petty or very minor? To me they generally seem to concern important matters that merit coverage. NightHeron ( talk) 08:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
Can I please suggest the few changes below for someone to take a look at? I'm an employee, so not posting them myself but I think they're all fair requests.
Introduction Add a mention of SciVal in the list of products in the introduction, after Scopus.
History Add bepress acquisition https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/08/02/elsevier-acquires-bepress
Resignation of editorial boards The 2002 European Economic Association, and the French Ecole Normale Superieure paragraphs don't relate to board resignations - can these be moved?
Shill review offer Can it be made clear that this happened in 2009? - there is currently no date in this section
Boycotts Cost of Knowledge Can the third paragraph be brought up to date? Maybe by bringing over the last couple of sentences from the boycott section on the RELX wikipedia page: "Between 2012 and November 2015, about 15,391 scientists signed The Cost of Knowledge boycott. In 2016, Elsevier received 1.5 million article submissions." - the details could be updated to "Between 2012 and April 2018, about 17,000 scientists..." and "in 2017 Elsevier received 1.6 million article submissions".
Can the Netherlands paragraph be made clearer to show that although a boycott was threatened, it wasn't ever launched? Many thanks Ryoba ( talk) 10:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Elsevier and its competitors have billions in cash, so of course they're acquiring hundreds of other companies. A search for "Elsevier acquisitions" finds 700 articles in the last year on Google News. RELX_Group#21st_century has a long list already. I personally consider the bepress acquisition important (for instance it triggered Operation Beprexit), but we need some criteria to decide which M&A to talk about, otherwise this article will just become an infinite list of related companies and commentary about them.
I feel the financial point of view could be covered at RELX Group, with some of the usual sources (Bloomberg, Morningstar, Crunchbase, the various rating agencies etc.) and an appropriate monetary threshold. This article could cover the matter from an academic perspective, talking about Elsevier's role in academic publishing beyond the acquisition of journals. It could be a single section about non-publishing activities where to also mention all the main things it bought or developed, including SSRN, Mendeley, PlumX and others (paying more attention to the impact on research than to the monetary aspect). -- Nemo 06:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi - I'd like to remove the new section for Plan S which has appeared on the Elsevier page, as there seem to be a few problems with it being there: Firstly, and most importantly, Plan S isn't specific to Elsevier, so there's no reason why it should be on this page - there is no mention of it on any other publishers' Wikipedia pages.
Secondly, these points are already covered on the Plan S page, so this seems to be unnecessary duplication.
Thirdly, there are some unsourced, non-encyclopaedic statements here: "has met with strong criticism from Elsevier" and "The plan is expected to affect Elsevier's profits".
Finally, I’m not sure that an encyclopaedia necessarily should be commenting on short-term share price movements and trying to make correlations with particular announcements. The entire market was off in the 4Q of 2018, and in fact RELX Group outperformed the UK FTSE100 in 2018. Between 19 September and today – January 22 – RELX Group’s share price (not Elsevier’s as Elsevier isn’t a quote entity) has actually risen 11 per cent.
As I'm aware of the potential for NPOV here, I'm asking for people's thoughts before making any changes so I'd be grateful if someone could assist.
In the interests of transparency, I work for Elsevier's parent company. Francophile9 ( talk) 16:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we should move the parts from "Dissemination of research" to "Academic practices" for better structure and readibility of the article, what do you think? -- Karlaz1 ( talk) 11:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
While I wanted to add this source ( https://retractionwatch.com/2021/03/09/elsevier-journals-ask-retraction-watch-to-review-covid-19-papers/#more-121684) to Elsevier's Wiki page, I realize that there is no controversies section. The section Academic practices seems to be more of a controversies section. My question is whether we can change it to "Controversies", including the section on resignation of editorial board members, and add some subsections such as controversial articles, and editorial/review malpractices? What you think about this plan? Kenji1987 ( talk) 04:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the Academic practicies is a controversies section. On the other hand if the section will be renamed we should also add some part from Dissemination of research, many of the mention here are controversies. For example MDPI has large Controversies section. For unity of style we should use the similar structure in both cases.-- Karlaz1 ( talk) 14:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Since I'm doing some copyediting here,:As a librarian, like any librarian concerned primarily with purchasing electronic resources, I had many business and professional dealings with the firm and some of its executives, ending when I retired about 12 years ago. Some of them were quite extensive beyond ordinary negotiations, involving sometimes a degree of cooperation, sometimes extremely critical published or posted comments, sometimes favorable or unfavorable reviews of their products. I never was offered (and would not have taken) money from them, but I did accept hospitality. This never influenced what I said or wrote, and they were quite aware that it would not, and I did not accept everything I was offered; if anything, my contacts tended to strengthen my basic and continuing objection to the entire business model of commercial scientific publishing which they epitomize. (For that matter, I had similar but less extensive, relationship with most science publishers) DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is being scrubbed by undisclosed paid editors linked to the Yoodaba sockfarm, which is operated by a marketing agency. This activity is ongoing since, at least, August 2020. This company uses anonymous edits and a very distinctive kind of proxy for sensitive edits.
Here's a list of edits I was able to verify. In reverse chronological order:
El Naschie context(already reverted)
Irrelevant content in the Resignations section. This is not a resignation.(already reverted)
Removing unnecessary information to maintain WP:NPOV -- indicative of relative prominence of opposing views.(already reverted)
28% is wrong per 2019 annual report -- Updated.
global STM publishing market in 2015
RM irrelevant content about a specific branch when Elsevier is a global company. UK is small part of the business.(already reverted)
EU Commission didn't investigate Anticomp practices
Source says negotiations have continued so this is wrong. Removed.
Company statistics updates...
Mendeley acquisition clarification(already reverted)
removed gpg info - nemo bis has a long history with this page. Content isn’t relevant to a global company, no data for other areas.(already reverted)
Need a WP:INDEPENDENT source here to support this information. Primary sources not allowed(already reverted)
Organizing sections within Market Model portion of the page
This is the current logo, not sure why the caption said otherwise. Updated some of the wording in the History section.
accurate publishing numbers and location updated(registered and blocked sock)
There are some old edits which I cannot retroactively check for the proxy. So the article should be reviewed beyond the above edits. Note that spotting problematic content is not as trivial as with common spammers, since it's often about omitting information or changing references to avoid linking to criticism, rather than adding promotional content. MarioGom ( talk) 19:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Owing to how a fair portion of this article deals primarily with criticisms of Elsevier, lumping it altogether into one broader "criticism" section, or alternatively splitting it off into a separate Criticism of Elsevier article, could help clean up the article to some extent. Casspedia ( talk) 23:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
And what about merges "Dissemination of research" to the "Academic practices"? In my point of view the "Academic practices" could be considered as a umbrella section.-- Karlaz1 ( talk) 13:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I tried to add some information to the history about war, but NightHeron rightly noticed the Elsevier's source can be biased. Nevertheless, I think the war period should be described because it is an important milestone for Elsevier. But I found just articles on it's web, any idea for others? https://www.elsevier.com/connect/in-the-shadow-of-the-nazis-this-young-executive-dared-to-publish-the-work-of-jewish-scientists -- Karlaz1 ( talk) 13:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. So I think we could use some information from this another source (although it is on Elsevier website I don't think it is misleading), what do you think?
In May 1939 – as the Nazis were burning down the Warsaw ghetto and preparing to invade other countries – Klautz established the Elsevier Publishing Company Ltd. in London to distribute these academic titles in the British Commonwealth (except Canada). When the Nazis invaded and occupied the Netherlands for the duration of five years from May 1940, he had just founded a second international office, the Elsevier Publishing Company Inc. in New York. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/in-the-shadow-of-the-nazis-this-young-executive-dared-to-publish-the-work-of-jewish-scientists Karlaz1 ( talk) 15:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The redirect Acta Tropica has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Acta Tropica until a consensus is reached. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Biological Control (journal) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Biological Control (journal) until a consensus is reached. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology until a consensus is reached. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 05:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I just did a quick read through of this article out of curiosity and I believe it suffers from WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTism. I feel it unduly focuses on the criticisms of the company's business model. While I believe such a section is warranted, as the company is frequently criticised by academics, the aricle currently is totally dominated by complaints in all sections after the Company Statistics, being over half of the total word count. Furthermore, these complaints are almost all from the 21st century. The company is over a 140 years old, but almost all of the text is related to complaints about the company from the last 20 years. In my opinion, these 2 problems make the article weak as an encyclopedia article and verge on violating WP:NPOV. Ashmoo ( talk) 07:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
articles [that] tend to focus on recent events…current news breaks.” It does not mean a focus on the current century. Concerning WP:UNDUE, did you find any of the criticisms in the article to be petty or very minor? To me they generally seem to concern important matters that merit coverage. NightHeron ( talk) 08:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)