Talk:Elsevier/Archives/2014

Astroturfing
I removed a long PR "history" of Elsevier that had been added by somebody at oxpinf10.elsevier.co.uk on January 4th. It is a direct copy of text in http://www.elsevier.com/framework_aboutus/pdfs/ElsevierHistory.pdf.

I think we can assume, however that since the edit was made from inside the companies network, the text has been licensed for wikipedia. So if anybody feels like removing the aweful PR language and making it NPOV, I have included the removed stuff below:

Hobx 22:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We cannot assume that the text has been licensed for Wikipedia. I removed it per WP:COPYVIO.   Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The flagship Endeavor/Endeavour
"Science & Technology ... Flagship products & services: ... Endeavour" ie Endeavour (journal). This was originally copied from an Elsevier publication, probably the website (which may be a breach of copyright for all I know), but note the spelling on the website — Endeavor with no u. I am not sure what this refers to — possibly Endeavor Information Systems which was an Elsevier subsidiary until a few weeks ago. Someone has changed the spelling in the article to Endeavour and linked it to the journal. I don't believe this is what the source (the Elsevier web page) refers to and I'm doubtful that the journal Endeavour ranks up there with Cell and the Lancet as flagship products. I'm happy to see a reputable citation that it is a flagship — otherwise I think it needs to be deleted again. Nurg 05:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The journal may not be a "flagship product", whatever that means, but it is notable in the History of science area and deserves an article at some point. The web site is Endeavour. That section may indeed be a direct copy of the Elsevier article, but it is difficult to rewrite a sentance like it. I'm inclined to leave it for now, or list the Elsevier journals somewhere and include it there. --Bduke 05:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the journal can't have an article. The jnl name is linked from List_of_missing_journals as well as the Endeavour dab page. But with no citation for it being a flagship product, the existing mention in this article will have to go. Nurg 08:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Logo
That logo is absolutely huge. Isn't "low resolution" supposed to be part of the guidelines? As long as Elsevier doesn't complain... vLaDsINgEr 11:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Elsevier.gif
Image:Elsevier.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

rewriting needed for tone
The current article is in obvious need of major rewriting to remove the promotional tone--and to bring some of the controversies up to date. I'll be doing it. DGG (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge 2collab
2collab was started by an editor who has no other editorial history. This is such a new product that I don't know if it meets WP:N yet. Perhaps it is worth talking about 2collab in the context of Elsevier until independent notability has been established? --Karnesky (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that would pollute the Elsevier article. If it isn't notable, why include it at all? GotPSP (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be reasonable to say that a particular division is responsible for it, but not have an article devoted to it (as is currently the case for Engineering Village, for example). --Karnesky (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * a major new product of that will have coverage, and should be kept as a separate article. Its a perfectly acceptable article about a reference management system, trying to break the Thompson monopoly on commercial systems of that sort. DGG (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2collab should at least be mentioned somewhere in this article. Simply merging it as its own subsection would be easy enough, but this article seems long enough as it is.  --George100 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a software product, and probably notable y itself. I don't see how it fits in here. DGG (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem paragraph
Have removed the following paragraph from the Criticism section:

Chaos, Solitons and Fractals
It has been noted recently that the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals published by Elsevier has an editor (M. S. El Naschie) who seems to be misusing the journal to publish pseudoscience, apparently without peer review. The journal has published 322 papers with El Naschie as author since 1993. This alarming rate of publication still continues, with 5 of his papers scheduled to appear in the December 2008 issue, with an additional 3 papers by other authors about El Naschie's theories. Leading american mathematician John Baez covered the situation in a blog post titled "The Case of M. S. El Naschie".

Apart from any other consideration, the reference is from a blog - a Wikipedia no-no. Am not questioning the information, just its verifiability, etc. --Technopat (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean verifiability. The blog discussion clearly shows that there is a controversy, whether you agree with it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.228.82 (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. They do not 'clearly show" anything. I agree with Technopat. This material can be added back if there is a reliable source. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, a random blog is not a reliable source, but this one is authored by a quite famous mathematician and it clearly satisfies "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.228.82 (talk) 02:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Story has been picked up by Nature News, see http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081126/full/456432a.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.182.231 (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Fake journals
Can we get some good discussion of the fake journals? It seems they have "at least six" fake journals for the drug companies now. 

Are they only being used to fool doctors into proscribing the drugs? Or are they also being used to get the drugs through approval processes in secondary markets?


 * I've blogged some links at http://copy-shake-paste.blogspot.com/2009/05/fake-journals.html. This started with the lawsuit and what it appears to be is a marketing instrument to get doctors (who have no time) to prescribe the company's medicines because this important sounding journal says so. --WiseWoman (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I gather we are about to enter a dispute about the section on the fake journals. Elsevier wants to call them "Sponsored article compilation publications" -- why on earth would Wikipedia feel compelled to use this godawful term? It's clear what their interest is, and I see no reason why Wikipedia should share it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have zero desire to enter into a dispute over this, just found the heading a bit imprecise, 'fake journals' could mean a number of things.
 * It is clear from the body of the section what they did, if anything using their terminology serves as a bit of humor. Enjoy - Unomi (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

section heading
I don't really have a problem with calling a spade a spade, but 'fake journals' strikes me as a tad unencyclopedic, the terminology used by elsevier is really no less damning and a bit more informational. 'Fake journals' conveys very little information. Unomi (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your section heading "Promotional material presented as journals" better than my suggestion "misprepresented journals".  Both are much better than "Fake journals".  71.246.31.81 (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "Promotional material presented as journals" works well also. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The heading was changed to "Promotion of Scientific Dishonesty", which I don't think is accurate and is certainly not neutral. I changed the section heading back to "Promotional material presented as journals" which is the best suggestion I've seen so far.  ChemNerd (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So far I have seen no RS that states that that elsevier has conducted science of any kind. If some of the articles reprinted in the 'journals' were themselves tainted by scientific misconduct it is, as far as I know, not discovered. As I understand it the debacle concerns letting Merck et al have editorial control over journals which were given a veneer of credibility by virtue of being published by Elsevier. I could be mistaken but that doesn't constitute 'scientific fraud', Elsevier is 'just' a publishing house and owe the blind faith of their readers to the audiences credulity. That is at least my blunt opinion. Unomi (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But they weren't actually journals. They looked like journals -- a component of the fraud being perpetrated.  It's not as if Elsevier didn't know they were fake; they weren't being duped.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "fake journals" seems fair. Their were pretending to be journals, and were not. They were promotional material written in-house by a manufacturer.  Elsevier (and other companies also) have a number of journals which have sometimes printed fraudulent articles and bad science, but this wasn't false science, but false journals regardless of the quality of the contents. DGG (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that once you know the story 'fake journals' cannot but strike one as an appropriate term for what they did, and increasingly I am also getting sympathetic towards calling it fraudulent and even 'scientific misconduct'. The reason I initially changed the heading was simply that it didn't convey much information and could be misinterpreted in a number of ways. That said, the Media seem to have run with 'fake journals' although I personally find 'Advertorial' more appropriate. I think though we need to specify what a scientific Journal should be, and note how elsevier diverged from the standards to which those publications are considered held.
 * By the way there is a bit more information which should find its way into the article, I haven't found the time myself.
 * advisory board members that didn't know of the journal and tried to get their names off the publication and an advisory board member that didn't read the articles or care Unomi (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there is now a greater degree of agreement that "fake journals" is appropriate and will make the change. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'fake journals' seems to reflect usage in sources. While my personal opinion is that 'fake journals' is open to interpretation and is not wholly descriptive, I respect that prevalence 'fake journals' in sources takes precedence. Unomi (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Support of SOPA and call for boycott by scientists
There is notable concern for their support of SOPA and there's are call for a boycott. This should be added to the article, no? http://boingboing.net/2012/01/02/a-science-centric-sopa-boycott.html Cowicide (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge ScienceDirect
I propose to merge ScienceDirect here. This is the name that Elsevier gives to its online platform for access to its academic journals. It has hardly any notability independent from Elsevier and the current stub is barely informative. I don't think that there is any potential for enlarging that stub either. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -- no independent notability for ScienceDirect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support ScienceDirect is not notable. I find no sources about it online.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've merged the ScienceDirect stub here. The language is a bit promotional, so feel free to copyedit. Gobonobo  T C 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. IMO ScienceDirect is notable. --Leyo 08:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any independent reliable sources showing that? As far as I can see, all that needs to be merged here is a single line "Online access to Elsevier publications is provided through the ScienceDirect platform. I don't see any independent notability. --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Experience by scientists is sufficient to tell that ScienceDirect is of similar importance as Web of Science or other articles in Category:Commercial digital libraries. It is certainly more of interest to readers than some individual exotic journals or barely notable scientists. --Leyo 21:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While every scientist will know WoS, most will be hard pressed to say what the specific name of the Elsevier platform is. It's just the platform they use to provide electronic access to their journals, just as Springerlink and he platform Wiley-Blackwell has (see: I use it almost daily to access one or the other of their journals, but at the moment cannot recall its name). Equating it with WoS is plain ludicrous. But given that you think it is highly notable, I guess you'll be able to provide us with some good independent sources covering it in depth? As for the rest of your argument, that smacks of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS... --Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I refuse to accept platitudes as arguments. Not everyone is probably as forgetful in terms of names as you pretend to be.
 * A few articles about ScienceDirect: no DOI, 10.1080/02763869.2011.541346, 10.1016/S0740-8188(02)00126-3, 10.1108/00220411011038476, 10.1016/j.ipm.2006.10.007, …
 * --Leyo 10:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Boycott
Hello Guillaume,

your edits of Elsevier are very reasonable, I am sorry for reverting so fast. Just one question: why have you also removed the QFK CK website also from the external links section? It is hardly unnotable, in fact, the Guardian article proves its notability! Am I wrong?

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we were going a bit fast last night :-) I'm not sure I see which website you mean with "QFK", though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph we discuss is about the site Cost of Knowledge (how did I transform it into QFK?), created following the call by Timothy Gowers to boycott Elsevier. The petition was signed by ~4500 scientists, and was reported Guardian and several other newspapers.
 * I think we agree that the article in the Guardian establishes notability. But then the site is not unnotable (it is indeed not a secondary source, but it has a right to be mentioned somewhere, either in the text or in the external links section).
 * Am I wrong? Sasha (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS In fact, the Guardian article starts with a snapshot of the site.
 * Actually, I don't think that this makes the web site notable. Neither is it a reliable source, I think. As it is, I find that our treatment of the boycott is already a bit unbalanced: we cite the critical pronouncements from the Guardian, but not Elsevier's defense. Adding a direct link to a site collecting signatures for a boycott... I'm not sure that we should do that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning. However, one might as well argue that Elsevier's site is also not a reliable source (nor a secondary ref). As to the balance, I agree with you, I will try to fix that. Sasha (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please have a look now. a) is it better? b) do you think adding a ref to the site would be inappropriate? Sasha (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (e.g. adding the text below in the External links section)

===Cost of Knowledge boycott=== * Site calling for boycott of Elsevier * Response of Elsevier
 * I don't think you can compare the two sites, the CoKB site was "made by a mathematics student", quite something else from a large multinational company... In any case, i think that your proposal to provide balance is very good, go ahead! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the petition has already been signed by several Fields laureates et cet. I do not think it's important who constructed the site (and neither who designed the Elsevier website). There is lots of independent media coverage devoted specifically to this site, see here.
 * Would you like to move this discussion to the talk page (to make it more accessible)?
 * Sasha (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For the case in Elsevier's defence, you could look at the Economist's comment that Elsevier is charging average prices and is simply operating more efficiently than other publishers. Also, I like how this article mentions the larger tension between academics and publishers. Jingapore (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that reference. I have added it (together with some text) to the article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I branched The Cost of Knowledge into its own article.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   14:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that branching this of into its own article is a classical example of a POV fork. It belongs here and should be presented in this article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to talk this through with you. Would you meet me on the talk page for that article? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone just added the info that Elsevier has withdrawn their support for the RWA. This info is now presented in three articles (this one, the one on the CoK boycott, and another new page called academic journal publishing reform. I gingerly suggest that covering all this no less than three times, is perhaps a tad overdone. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion
The discussion on whether or not to merge The Cost of Knowledge back here is at that article's talk page. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Replacing the Guardian and using a blog instead
Here's the place for people to discuss that edit if they wish to see it adopted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the change proposed. I would not oppose both citations being used. That blog is endorsed by many of the organizers of the campaign being cited and that particular entry has a significant number of comments by players in the campaign, and with such critical review I would not call it a WP:SPS. I would oppose the Guardian source being removed; the blog reference may or may not be added.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   22:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine -- I can see the reason to use both sources. One of the people who performed that edit has acknowledged on my talk page that it was an error.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Total neutral rewrite required
I checked into this lemma because I needed some background on Elsevier history, the article is however 416 words about the company in stub style and 1636 words about recent controversies related to the company. Including one - the relation to the arms business that seems to have been settled as the company responded to the criticism and sold the offending activity. In the talk page I read that in part its due to Elsevier PR being removed - which is all well and good but it has been replaced by equally POV opinion regarding the company's pricing policy. The boycot bit is rehashed in several different sections. I am sure this is all very important but it is more newsy than encyclopedic. Seeing there are some very committed posters here that revert very quickly anything that might detract from what is there today, I wanted to propose a reasonable level headed discussion on how this article can be improved. As a first sketch for structure how about this:

History - founding till 1940 - Elsevier in this period was a tiny company with just 10 employees. Its mainly interesting because some of its academic journals spawned others in remote places like Japan;

- Post 1945 - having published a news magazine that was banned by Germans, that magazine was a commercial success (still is) after the war. With that money Elsevier expanded massively into scientific publishing and very cleverly caught one wave missed by others: English became the lingua franca of the scientific community replacing their German publications. This brought them onto the world stage as a player;

- Pierre Vinken and Elsevier: Here is the nub of all later controversies and it is incomprehensible the current section says nothing about this man. He sold his journal Excerpta Medica to Elsevier and rose to become CEO. It is under him that prices were raised as Vinken counted on the 'publish or perish' and zero price elasticity in the science sector. The company became a huge cash machine and increasingly aggressive launching the first ever hostile take-over bid in the Netherlands a normally consensus oriented country (on peer company Kluwer);

- Merger with Reed - this was not a happy merger and is often seen as the last grandiose step of Vinken who overreached. Generally speaking it can be said Elsevier probably won the merger eventually but it was not pretty;

- Elsevier's role as OL publisher - love them or hate them they have a role there going from trying to foreclose electronic publications, to using them to spoil competition for their print business, to developing their own real electronic products;

- Controversies should be spelt out here they are a consequence of Vinken and later the merger with reed.

Structure and revenues - management - overview of current structure - leading journals - revenues

Let me reiterate I am not here to censor any discussion on the pricing policy, but simply insist it must be seen in context. The high prices were a consistent commercial policy by Elsevier and much celebrated until it hit the breaking point of the notoriously price inelastic scientific community. Compare Elsevier's stock market performance in the 1980ies to the 1990ies or 2000s and you will see what I mean. Even the sponsored magazines (fake journals) question rises from actions by Pierre Vinken as it is due to the merger with Reed.

Julius Voluntary transparency declaration: Over 10 years ago I worked in the Dutch publishing industry. I have no ties to Elsevier or any publisher for many years now. TrustyJules (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I agree that the controversies get too much weight at this point (some of them even have their own article and the boycott is re-hashed here, its own article, and the "academic spring" article (a term used just a few times and now disappeared). I do hope, however, that you have reliable independent sources for all this stuff. But Elsevier is a company with a long and varied history and there should be material for a better and more informative article than the current version. --Randykitty (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I also support everything being proposed. If you are new to Wikipedia then please note that when you are telling a story, start by summarizing information you find in published sources and do not add information without providing a citation. No one wants bad articles, but finding sources is difficult.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also support an effort of this sort. I see that Randy gave you a good selection of reading material (links) on your talk page.  It's probably best to get acquainted with that (especially WP:V and WP:RS).  I would also suggest working on one section at first, so that you can get some feedback on the changes you make.  That way you won't end up making a big effort on the whole article only to find that the changes aren't consistent with Wikipedia policies and so have to be reverted.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the support - the issue of sources will of course be critical for various reasons.

1) Its not easy to search for references as Elsevier is a publisher itself and so it turns up all over the place without it being about itself. Insofar as books are available they tend to be about the weekly magazine (an odd one out in its publishing range) not about the decidedly unsexy academic publishing

2) Its early history as a small company did not leave much in the way of traces;

3) Pierre Vinken is a controversial figure (not only at Elsevier), his biography is called: Against idealism - a lot of what he did is in public record of business newspapers of the 1980ies more than academic research and not easily linkable/quotable because unavailable to be checked. The dislike academics had for him is not a stranger to that either;

4) A lot of sources are in Dutch

Anyway, I take the suggestion to start small and non controversial, so I will have a first look at the company's early history. That at least is unlikely to rouse any concerns!

TrustyJules (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK I have made a start by obtaining several source books about the company. Luckily publishers like to talk about themselves and it seems the important directors of the Elsevier company all had quite detailed (auto)biographies made. I have already found that the history given in the current article is false and the reference of Frances Groen are incorrect based on material sources. Here is a first stab at a section of history up to WWII. Please see this bit as target practice for the purpose of the further parts I will elaborate.