Talk:ScienceDirect

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)

Redirect to Elsevier
SD is just the name that Elsevier has given to its online platform to publish journals and ebooks and such. The article here is just a minimal stub and has remained like this in the five years since it wa created, without any editor paying much attention to it. I doubt it can be expanded in any meaningful way (or that any significant independent secondary sources about ScienceDirect exist), so I propose to redirect it to Elsevier. If people think that the minimal info present here is useful and should be salvaged, it can be merged into the Elsevier article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support merge and redirect. ScienceDirect is little more than a web portal linking to Elsevier's science journal offerings. Gobonobo  T C 20:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even though the article is rather short, the article still serves an important purpose in simply explaining what Sciencedirect is to the reader in a few words. I don't see a problem with this at all. Actually, I think Wikipedia should do this for many of its entries, preferably accompanied with nice wiki-links to guide the reader to articles that expand on the subject. Further, the redirect is anoying - if you want to look up ScienceDirect, you get dumped on the Elsevier page and you have to sift through the messy article to find the information burrowed in a section sloppily labeled 'Science & Technology'. In the case of this article, I think one should take care not to mistake 'minimal' and 'short' with 'stub' and 'too short'. Elianfoo (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my explanations on Talk:Elsevier/Archives/2014. --Leyo 17:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Are articles published on the Science Direct site generally reliable?
How reliable are the articles published on the Science Direct site? Are they conscientiously peer reviewed? Are they curated by independent or disinterested parties? How well does it meet the Wikipedeia criteria for Reliable Sources. See: Identifying_reliable_sources Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeaumont (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate to jointly judge the reliability of the 3500 academic journals available via ScienceDirect. --Leyo 09:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But the question was also: How are they reviewed? And that is a relevant question in assessing how useful Science Direct is as a publishing brand. RhinoMind (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Chemistry
matter and it's classification 102.143.9.129 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Journal
Autonomy athlete students 103.188.86.243 (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)