Jump to content

User:Ryoba/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ELSEVIER

[edit]

Elsevier
IndustryPublishing
Founded1880; 144 years ago (1880)
Headquarters
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Revenue£2.48 billion (2017)[1]
ParentRELX Group
WebsiteNo URL found. Please specify a URL here or add one to Wikidata.

Elsevier (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈɛlzəviːr]) is an information and analytics company and one of the world's major providers of scientific, technical, and medical information. It was established in 1880 as a publishing company.[1][2] It is a part of RELX Group,[3] 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 solution for clinicians. Elsevier's products and services include the entire academic research lifecycle, including software and data-management, instruction and assessment tools.[4]

Elsevier publishes more than 430,000 articles annually in 2,500 journals.[1] Its archives contain over 13 million documents and 30,000 e-books.[5] Total yearly downloads amount to more than 900 million.[1]

Elsevier's high profit margins (37% in 2017)[1][6] and its copyright practices have subjected it to criticism by researchers.[7] [Link to Criticism of Elsevier page - content shown below]

History

[edit]

Elsevier was founded in 1880[8] and took the name from the Dutch publishing house Elzevir which has no connection with the present company.[8] The Elzevir family operated as booksellers and publishers in the Netherlands; the founder, Lodewijk Elzevir (1542–1617), lived in Leiden and established the business in 1580.

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 earned lots of money.[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.

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 December 2013, Elsevier announced a collaboration with University College, London, the UCL Big Data Institute.[13] Elsevier's investment is "substantial" and thought to be more than £10 million.[14]

In 2017, Elsevier acquired bepress, a Berkeley, California-based business that helps academic libraries showcase and share their institutions’ research. [15]

Company statistics

[edit]

During 2017, researchers submitted over 1.6 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 430,000 articles in over 2,500 journals.[1]

Editors are generally unpaid volunteers who perform their duties alongside a full-time job in academic institutions,[16] 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.[17][18] At that time, Elsevier accounted for 16% of the world market in science, technology, and medical publishing.[19]

Elsevier breaks down its revenue sources by format and by geographic region. Approximately 42% of revenue by geography in 2017 derived from North America, 25% from Europe and the remaining 33% from the rest of the world. Approximately 81% of revenue by format came from electronic usage and 19% came from print.[1]

Elsevier employs more than 7,200 people in over 70 offices across 24 countries. It is headed by Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Ron Mobed.[20]

Following the integration of its Science & Technology and Health Sciences divisions in 2012, Elsevier has operated under a traditional business structure with a single CEO.[21]

In 2017, Elsevier accounted for 33% of the revenues of RELX group (₤2.478 billion of ₤7.355 billion). In operating profits, it represented 40% (₤913 million of ₤2,284 million). Adjusted operating profits (with constant currency) rose by 3% from 2016 to 2017.[1]

Market model

[edit]

Products and services

[edit]

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.

Elsevier conducts conferences, exhibitions and workshop worldwide, with over 50 conferences a year covering life sciences, physical sciences & engineering, social sciences, and health sciences. In 2014 Elsevier conducted 48 conferences attended by 11,328 delegates from 128 countries.[23]

In 2015, Elsevier announced a service called 'ScienceDirect Wiki Editor' which offered 45 "top Wikipedia editors free access" to their otherwise paywalled ScienceDirect platform.[24] This was met with a mixed response.[25][26][27]

In 2017, Elsevier then launched a service named ScienceDirect Topics with a science definitions service "that provides encyclopedia-style entries on key scientific topics",[28] automatically extracted from its own papers. The service was described as a "rival" to Wikipedia, meant to reduce the usage of Wikipedia among Elsevier's visitors by keeping them in a walled garden.[29][30]

Imprints

[edit]

Imprints are brand names in publishing. Elsevier uses its imprints to market to different consumer segments. Many of them have previously been the company names of publishers that were purchased by Reed Elsevier (now RELX Group).

See also

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h "2017 RELX Group Annual Report" (PDF). RELX Group Company Reports. RELX Group. March 2018.
  2. ^ "Elsevier finds its one globe voice" (PDF).
  3. ^ Reller, Tom. "RELX Group homepage".
  4. ^ "Plum Goes Orange – Elsevier Acquires Plum Analytics".
  5. ^ Reller, Tom. "Science Direct".
  6. ^ RELX Group (15 February 2018). "RELX Group — Results for the year to December 2017" (PDF) (Press release). London, United Kingdom and Amsterdam, The Netherlands: RELX Group. Retrieved 17 April 2018. Adjusted operating margin for 2017 for the publishing division is 36.8% (p6).
  7. ^ Lin, Thomas (13 February 2012). "Mathematicians Organize Boycott of a Publisher". The New York Times.
  8. ^ a b Groen 2007, p. 217.
  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. "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. ^ "University College London and Elsevier launch UCL Big Data Institute | Elsevier Connect". Elsevier.com. Retrieved 26 December 2013.
  14. ^ "Reed Elsevier announces knowledge partnership with University College, London". The Independent. 18 December 2013. Retrieved 29 September 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ "Elsevier Acquires bepress". Retrieved 13 June 2018.
  16. ^ 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
  17. ^ "These Five Corporations Control Academic Publishing". Vocativ.com. 10 June 2015. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
  18. ^ Vincent Larivière; Stefanie Haustein; Philippe Mongeon (2015). "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era". PLOS ONE. 10 (6). PLOS: e0127502. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127502. PMC 4465327. PMID 26061978.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  19. ^ "Elsevier leads the business the internet could not kill". www.ft.com. Retrieved 7 November 2016.
  20. ^ "Ron Mobed". Elsevier.com. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
  21. ^ "Elsevier Next Steps". Information Today. Retrieved 7 November 2016.
  22. ^ Health Advance. Elsevier.
  23. ^ "Elsevier Global Conferences". elsevier.com.
  24. ^ Elsevier. "Elsevier access donations help Wikipedia editors improve science articles". Elsevier Connect. Retrieved 1 October 2017.
  25. ^ ""WikiGate" raises questions about Wikipedia's commitment to open access". Ars Technica. Retrieved 1 October 2017.
  26. ^ Stone, Maddie. "Is a Giant Academic Publisher Trying to Paywall Wikipedia?". Gizmodo. Retrieved 1 October 2017.
  27. ^ "Should Wikipedia work with Elsevier? | petermr's blog". blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk. Retrieved 1 October 2017.
  28. ^ Elsevier. "ScienceDirect Topics. Your Path to Discovery". Elsevier.com. Retrieved 1 October 2017.
  29. ^ "Elsevier Launching Rival To Wikipedia By Extracting Scientific Definitions Automatically From Authors' Texts". Techdirt. Retrieved 1 October 2017.
  30. ^ "Elsevier launches free science definitions service". Times Higher Education (THE). 18 September 2017. Retrieved 1 October 2017.

Sources

[edit]
Book
  • 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.
[edit]



CRITICISM OF ELSEVIER

[edit]

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,[1] and many British universities pay more than a million pounds to Elsevier annually.[2] 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".[3] Similar guidelines and criticism of Elsevier's pricing policies have been passed by the University of California, Harvard University, and Duke University.[4]

In July 2015, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) announced a plan to start boycotting Elsevier, which refused to negotiate on any Open Access policy for Dutch universities.[5] 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.[6]

A complaint about Elsevier/RELX was made to the Competition and Markets Authority.[7]

Shill review offer

[edit]

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.[8]

Who's Afraid of Peer Review

[edit]
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?[9] 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.[10] 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.[11]

[edit]
Main article: 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.[12][13][14][15] 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.[16] 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."[17] 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.).[18] Excerpta Medica was a "strategic medical communications agency" run by Elsevier, according to the imprint's web page.[19] In October 2010, Excerpta Medica was acquired by Adelphi Worldwide.[20]

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals

[edit]

There was speculation[21] 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.[22] The controversy was covered extensively in blogs.[23][24] The publisher announced in January 2009 that El Naschie had retired as editor-in-chief.[25] As of November 2011 the co-Editors-in-Chief of the journal were Maurice Courbage and Paolo Grigolini.[26] 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.[27] 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.[28] 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".[29]

Control of journals

[edit]

Resignation of editorial boards

[edit]

In the past two decades, several editorial boards have resigned for various reasons. Elsevier publishes about 2,500 journals, supported by 22,000 editors, 87,000 editorial board members and 1m reviewers.

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.[30] The personnel created a new journal, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, with Cambridge University Press at a much lower price,[30] while Elsevier continued publication with a new editorial board and a slightly different name (the Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming).

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,[31] at the suggestion of Journal of Algorithms founder Donald Knuth.[32] The Journal of Algorithms continued under Elsevier with a new editorial board until October 2009, when it was discontinued.[33]

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).[34][35]

In August 2006, the entire editorial board of the distinguished mathematical journal Topology handed in their resignation, again because of stalled negotiations with Elsevier to lower the subscription price.[36] This board then launched the new Journal of Topology at a far lower price, under the auspices of the London Mathematical Society.[37] After this mass resignation, Topology remained in circulation under a new editorial board until 2009, when the last issue was published.[38][39]

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.[40]

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.[41]

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.[42]

"The Cost of Knowledge" boycott

[edit]
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 there was no economical option to subscribe to only the popular journals at a rate comparable to the bundled rate.[43] Librarians continued to discuss the implications of the pricing schemes, many feeling pressured into buying the Elsevier packages without other options.[44]

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.[45][46][47]

Following this, a petition advocating non-cooperation 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.,[45][46] growing to 17,000 by 2018.[48]

A 2016 study evaluating the boycott has questioned its impact, stating that in the past four years 38% of signatories had abandoned their “won’t publish in an Elsevier outlet” commitment and that only around 5000 researchers were still clearly boycotting Elsevier by publishing elsewhere. It concludes “Few researchers have signed the petition in recent years, thus giving the impression the boycott has run its course.”.[49]

Elsevier disputed the claims, arguing 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.[45] The company also claimed that its profit margins are "simply a consequence of the firm's efficient operation".[47]

On 27 February 2012, Elsevier issued a statement on its website that declared that it has withdrawn support from the Research Works Act.[50] 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.[51]

Relationship with academic institutions

[edit]

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.[52]

The French École Normale Supérieure has stopped having Elsevier publish the journal Annales Scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure[53] (as of 2008).[54]

Finland

[edit]

In 2015 Finnish research organizations paid a total of 27 million euros in subscription fees. Over one third of the total costs went to the 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.[55] Establishing of this fact lead to creation of tiedonhinta.fi petition demanding more reasonable pricing and open access to content signed by more than 2 800 members of the research community.[56] 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.[57]

In January 2018, it was confirmed that a deal had been reached between those concerned.[58][59][60]

Germany

[edit]

Germany's DEAL project (ProjektDeal) which includes over 60 major research institutions, including Göttingen University, has announced that all of its members are cancelling their contracts with Elsevier, effective January 1, 2017. The boycott is in response to Elsevier's refusal to adopt "transparent business models" to "make publications more openly accessible".[61][62][63][64][65][66][67] 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".[63] In July 2017, another 13 institutions announced that they would also be cancelling their subscriptions to Elsevier journals.[68] As of August 2017, at least 185 German institutions have now cancelled their contracts with Elsevier.[69] As of January 2018, whilst negotiations are ongoing, around 200 German universities who cancelled their subscriptions to Elsevier journals have been granted complimentary open access to them during 2018.[70][71]

Netherlands

[edit]

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. No boycott was launched but Gerard Meijer, president of Radboud University in Nijmegen and lead negotiator on the Dutch side notes that "it's not the 100% that I hoped for".[63][72][73][74]

South Korea

[edit]

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.[75] It was subsequently confirmed that an agreement had been reached.[76]

Sweden

[edit]

In 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 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[77]. Swedish universities will still have access to articles published before June 30th, 2018. Astrid Söderbergh Widding, Chairman of the Bibsam Consortium, said that "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".[78]

Taiwan

[edit]

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.[63][79][80][81] It subsequently signed a contract.

Dissemination of research

[edit]

Lobbying efforts against open access

[edit]

Elsevier have been known to be involved in lobbying against open access.[82] These have included the likes of:

Selling open access articles

[edit]

In 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017,[105] Elsevier was found to be selling some articles which should have been open access, but had been put behind a paywall.[106] A related case occurred in 2015, when Elsevier charged for downloading an open access article from a journal published by John Wiley & Sons. However, it was not clear whether Elsevier was in violation of the license under which the article was made available on their website.[107]

Action against academics posting their own articles online

[edit]

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,[108] 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.[109][110][111]

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.[112][113]

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.[114]

Sci-Hub and LibGen Lawsuit controversy

[edit]

In 2015 Elsevier filed a lawsuit against the sites Sci-Hub and LibGen, which make available copyright protected articles for free. Elsevier also claimed illegal access to institutional accounts.[115][116] A group of researchers, writers, and artists wrote an open letter in support of Sci-Hub and LibGen.[117]

  1. ^ Monbiot, George (29 August 2011). "Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist". Guardian.
  2. ^ "Elsevier journals — some facts". Gowers's Weblog. 24 April 2014. Retrieved 27 July 2014.
  3. ^ Faculty Senate minutes February 19 meeting Stanford Report, 25 February 2004
  4. ^ "Fac Sen addresses costly journals". The Stanford Daily. 20 February 2004. Archived from the original on 5 November 2012.
  5. ^ Danny Kingsley Dutch boycott of Elsevier – a game changer?, University of Cambridge Office of Scholarly Communication
  6. ^ Schiermeier, Quirin; Mega, Emiliano Rodríguez (2016). "Scientists in Germany, Peru and Taiwan to lose access to Elsevier journals". Nature. 541 (7635): 13. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.21223. PMID 28054621.
  7. ^ Martin Paul Eve (14 December 2016). "Referring Elsevier/RELX to the Competition and Markets Authority".
  8. ^ Finlo Rohrer, "The perils of five-star reviews", BBC News Magazine, 25 June 2009.
  9. ^ 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.
  10. ^ Claire Shaw. "Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper". Theguardian.com. Retrieved 26 December 2013.
  11. ^ "Drug Invention Today". sciencedirect.com.
  12. ^ Rout, Milanda (9 April 2009). "Doctors signed Merck's Vioxx studies". The Australian. Retrieved 4 May 2009.
  13. ^ Grant, Bob (30 April 2009). "Merck published fake journal". The Scientist. Retrieved 4 May 2009.
  14. ^ Hagan, Kate (23 April 2009). "Merck accused of 'ghost writing' medical article". The Age. Retrieved 4 May 2009.
  15. ^ Ben Goldacre, "The danger of drugs … and data", The Guardian, 9 May 2009
  16. ^ "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.
  17. ^ "Statement from Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, regarding Australia based sponsored journal practices between 2000 and 2005" (Press release). Elsevier.
  18. ^ Grant, Bob (7 May 2009). "Elsevier published 6 fake journals". The Scientist.
  19. ^ ""Excerpta Medica", official webpage". Elsevier.
  20. ^ ""Excerpta Medica Joins Adelphi Worldwide", press release". Elsevier.
  21. ^ Schiermeier, Q (2008). "Self-publishing editor set to retire". Nature. 456 (7221): 432. doi:10.1038/456432a. PMID 19037282.
  22. ^ Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 38(5), pp. 1229–1534 (December 2008)
  23. ^ "The Scholarly Kitchen".
  24. ^ "El Naschie Watch Blog". Archived from the original on 15 October 2010.
  25. ^ "Publisher's note". Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. 39: v–. 2009. Bibcode:2009CSF....39D...5.. doi:10.1016/S0960-0779(09)00060-5.
  26. ^ "Chaos, Solitons and Fractals". November 2011.
  27. ^ Ghosh, Pallab (11 November 2011). "Nature journal libel case begins". BBC News. Retrieved 11 November 2011.
  28. ^ "Nature libel verdict 'a victory for free speech'",The Guardian 6 July 2012
  29. ^ Aron, Jacob (6 July 2012). "Nature Publishing Group wins libel trial". New Scientist (2873). Retrieved 14 July 2012.
  30. ^ a b Joan Birman. "Scientific publishing: a mathematician’s viewpoint". Notices of the AMS. Vol. 47, No. 7, August 2000
  31. ^ "Changes at the Journal of Algorithms" (PDF). Retrieved 26 December 2013.
  32. ^ Donald Knuth (25 October 2003). "Letter to the editorial board of the Journal of Algorithms" (PDF). Retrieved 18 February 2008.
  33. ^ "Journal of Algorithms page at ScienceDirect". Sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 26 December 2013.
  34. ^ "Journal declarations of independence". Open Access Directory. Simmons College. Retrieved 23 May 2012.
  35. ^ 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.
  36. ^ "Resignation letter from the editors of Topology" (PDF). 10 August 2006. Retrieved 18 February 2008.
  37. ^ Journal of Topology (pub. London Mathematical Society) Archived 7 February 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  38. ^ "Topology". elsevier.com. Retrieved 13 March 2015.
  39. ^ "Topology page at ScienceDirect". Sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 26 December 2013.
  40. ^ David Glenn. "American Economic Association Plans 4 New Journals". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 25 January 2008. Available online at Chronicle.com
  41. ^ "Medical journal editor sacked and editorial committee resigns". Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  42. ^ Jaschik, Scott (2 November 2015). "Language of Protest". Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  43. ^ Groen 2007, p. 177.
  44. ^ Groen 2007, p. 180.
  45. ^ a b c Flood, Alison (2 February 2012). "Scientists sign petition to boycott academic publisher Elsevier". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 16 February 2012.
  46. ^ a b 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.
  47. ^ a b "Scientific publishing: The price of information". The Economist. 4 February 2012. Archived from the original on 16 February 2012.
  48. ^ "thecostofknowledge.com". Retrieved 12 January 2013.
  49. ^ Heyman, Tom; Moors, Pieter; Storms, Gert (2016). "On the Cost of Knowledge: Evaluating the Boycott against Elsevier". Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. 1. doi:10.3389/frma.2016.00007. Retrieved 25 November 2016.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  50. ^ "Elsevier Backs Down as Boycott Grows". Archived from the original on 11 September 2014. Retrieved 25 August 2014.
  51. ^ "Sponsors and Supporters Back Away from Research Works Act". Retrieved 25 August 2014.
  52. ^ EffeDesign. "The EEA's journal: a brief history". Eeassoc.org. Retrieved 26 December 2013.
  53. ^ John Baez: What We Can Do About Science Journals 13 August 2007
  54. ^ "Publisher's description of Annales Scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure". Elsevier. Archived from the original on 12 April 2008. Retrieved 18 February 2008.
  55. ^ "Scientific journal subscription costs in Finland 2010-2015: a preliminary analysis". rOpenGov. Retrieved 15 October 2017.
  56. ^ "Tiedonhinta.fi". tiedonhinta.fi. Retrieved 15 October 2017.
  57. ^ "No deal, no review – #nodealnoreview". Nodealnoreview.org. Retrieved 15 October 2017.
  58. ^ Kukkonen, Suvi (17 January 2018). "FinELib and Elsevier Reach Agreement for Subscription Access and Open Access Publishing". National Library. Retrieved 17 January 2018.
  59. ^ Toma Susi (25 January 2018). "Finland takes steps in the openness of academic journal pricing". Mostly Physics. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  60. ^ Marie Farge. Transition vers l'Accès Libre: le piège des accords globaux avec les éditeurs (in French). Club de Mediapart. Retrieved 1 May 2018. {{cite book}}: |newspaper= ignored (help)
  61. ^ 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.
  62. ^ "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.
  63. ^ a b c d Schiermeier, Quirin; Mega, Emiliano Rodríguez (2017). "Scientists in Germany, Peru and Taiwan to lose access to Elsevier journals". Nature. 541 (7635): 13. doi:10.1038/nature.2016.21223. PMID 28054621. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  64. ^ "Pressemitteilungen". Lrk-bw.de (in German). Retrieved 11 July 2017.
  65. ^ "Major German Universities Cancel Elsevier Contracts". The Scientist. Retrieved 18 July 2017.
  66. ^ "A bold open-access push in Germany could change the future of academic publishing". Science | AAAS. 23 August 2017. Retrieved 24 August 2017.
  67. ^ Conference, German Rectors'. "Researchers resign editorship of Elsevier journals". Retrieved 16 October 2017.
  68. ^ "German universities to let Elsevier contracts lapse | Books+Publishing". Booksandpublishing.com.au. Retrieved 29 July 2017.
  69. ^ "Vertragskündigungen Elsevier 2017 – Projekt DEAL". Projekt-deal.de. Retrieved 12 September 2017.
  70. ^ 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.
  71. ^ Schiermeier, Quirin (4 January 2018). "Germany vs Elsevier: universities win temporary journal access after refusing to pay fees". Nature News. 553 (7687): 137. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-00093-7. ISSN 1476-4687. Retrieved 5 January 2018.
  72. ^ Bohannon, John (11 December 2015). "In unique deal, Elsevier agrees to make some papers by Dutch authors free". ScienceMag. Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  73. ^ "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.
  74. ^ "How Elsevier plans to sabotage Open Access". Medium. 25 March 2017. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  75. ^ "70여개 대학 도서관, 새해 첫 날부터 일부 논문 못 봐 - 한국대학신문" (in Korean). 29 December 2017. Retrieved 5 January 2018.
  76. ^ "South Korean universities reach agreement with Elsevier after long standoff". Science | AAAS. 15 January 2018. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
  77. ^ annwen. "Bibsamkonsortiet - Kungliga biblioteket". www.kb.se (in Swedish). Retrieved 31 May 2018.
  78. ^ "Sweden stands up for open access – cancels agreement with Elsevier". OpenAccess.se (in Swedish). 16 May 2018. Retrieved 30 May 2018.
  79. ^ "關於Elsevier資料庫合約談判 CONCERT聲明". Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  80. ^ "Taiwan Tech to Discontinue Subscription to Elsevier ScienceDirect Starting 2017 - NTUST Library". Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  81. ^ Schmitt, Jason (30 March 2017). "Asia Advances Open Access Research". Huffington Post. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
  82. ^ "Lobbying Spending Database - RELX Group, 2017". Opensecrets.org. Retrieved 30 August 2017.
  83. ^ "Federal Research Public Access Act (Alliance for Taxpayer Access)". Taxpayeraccess.org. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  84. ^ "Legislation to Bar Public-Access Requirement on Federal Research Is Dead". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 27 February 2012. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  85. ^ "How Corporations Score Big Profits By Limiting Access To Publicly Funded Academic Research". ThinkProgress. 3 March 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  86. ^ Contributor. "The Dangerous "Research Works Act"". TechCrunch. Retrieved 25 March 2017. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  87. ^ Hu, Jane C. "Academics Want You to Read Their Work for Free". The Atlantic. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  88. ^ Elsevier. "Message on the Research Works Act". Elsevier.com. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  89. ^ 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.
  90. ^ "Elsevier withdraws support from Research Works Act, bill collapses". Boing Boing. 28 February 2012. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  91. ^ "Academic publishers have become the enemies of science". The Guardian. 16 January 2012. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  92. ^ "Elsevier, Wiley are getting PR advice from Eric Dezenhall". Transcription and Translation. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  93. ^ 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.
  94. ^ "Scientific Publishers Offer Solution to White House's Public Access Mandate". Science | AAAS. 4 June 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  95. ^ ""The Pit Bull Of Public Relations" - Bloomberg". Bloomberg.com. 17 April 2006. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  96. ^ "Muscle from Brussels as open access gets an €80bn boost". Times Higher Education (THE). 17 May 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  97. ^ "Horizon 2020 to promote open access". Gowers's Weblog. 17 May 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  98. ^ "Horizon 2020: A €80 Billion Battlefield for Open Access". Science | AAAS. 24 May 2012. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  99. ^ "European Union links research grants to open access". Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  100. ^ "Inside Higher Ed: Big push for open access". Times Higher Education (THE). 26 February 2013. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  101. ^ "Elsevier distances itself from open-access article". Times Higher Education (THE). 22 May 2013. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  102. ^ "How Corporations Score Big Profits By Limiting Access To Publicly Funded Academic Research". ThinkProgress. 3 March 2013. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  103. ^ "Hated Science Publisher Elsevier To Help EU Monitor Open Science - Including Open Access". Techdirt. Retrieved 5 April 2018.
  104. ^ 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.
  105. ^ Ross Mounce (20 February 2017). "Hybrid open access is unreliable". Retrieved 30 April 2018.
  106. ^ Jump, Paul (27 March 2014). "Elsevier: bumps on road to open access". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 9 March 2015.
  107. ^ Vollmer, Timothy (13 March 2015). "Are commercial publishers wrongly selling access to openly licensed scholarly articles?". Creative Commons News. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
  108. ^ Mike Masnick. "Elsevier Ramps Up Its War On Access To Knowledge". Techdirt. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  109. ^ Peterson, Andrea (19 December 2013). "How one publisher is stopping academics from sharing their research". The Washington Post. Retrieved 6 January 2015.
  110. ^ Masnick, Mike (20 December 2013). "Elsevier Ramps Up Its War On Access To Knowledge". Techdirt. Retrieved 6 January 2015.
  111. ^ "How one publisher is stopping academics from sharing their research". Washington Post. Retrieved 26 March 2017.
  112. ^ Parr, Chris (12 June 2014). "Sharing is a way of life for millions on Academia.edu". Times Higher Education. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
  113. ^ 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.
  114. ^ Mike Masnick SSRN accused of copyright crackdown, Techdirt.
  115. ^ McLaughlin, Stephen Reid (18 March 2016). "Elsevier v. Sci-Hub on the docket". Retrieved 28 June 2016.
  116. ^ "Simba Information: Five Professional Publishing News Events of 2015 Signal Times Are A-Changin'". PR Newswire. 17 December 2015. Retrieved 28 June 2016.
  117. ^ "Open letter: In solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-Hub". custodians.online. Retrieved 28 June 2016.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ryoba/sandbox&oldid=1243396628"