Talk:Springer Nature

Springer Nature suggested changes/COI
I would like to propose a few changes to Springer Nature. The article is partly outdated and marked as a stub. As I am working in the Communications team at Springer Nature, I’m aware that this constitutes a COI. For this reason, I have created a new version with suggested changes in my Sandbox to be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Birgit_at_Springer_Nature/sandbox/Springer_Nature. I would like to ask the community to review the suggested changes and, if approved, to mirror the changes on Springer Nature. I would appreciate your help in enriching this page with updated information and references. Kind regards, --Birgit at Springer Nature (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Accepted Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, reviewed therefore marking as done/closed ✅

Update Article
Dear all,

I would like to suggest updating facts and figures in the article.

Please note that I have a financial conflict of interest as I am being paid by Springer Nature Group. Therefore, I will not make any edits myself but hope that uninvolved editors could review my suggestions and make changes if they find them appropriate.

Suggested changes to the Introduction section:

1. Please remove the last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction section:

"The company reported revenues of €1.64 billion in 2017."

2. Please add the following as the last sentence of the introduction section:

"The company made revenues of €1.72 billion in 2019."

3. Using as the reference:

Page 2, Springer Nature Group Key Facts:

"Revenue: €1.72 billion (2019)"

4. Reason for change being made:

2019 figures are the most recent

Suggested changes to the Infobox:

1. Please remove the following as Headquarters in the infobox or the respective Wikidata page respectively:

"London, Germany"

2. Please add the following as Headquarters of the company in the infobox or the respective Wikidata page respectively:

"Berlin, Germany"

3. Using as the reference:

Page 2, Springer Nature Group Key Facts:

"Globally operated, and with registered head office in Berlin, Germany"

4. Reason for change being made:

The company is registered with its head office in Berlin, Germany not London. Please also see the German article

1. Please remove the following as revenue in the infobox:

"EUR 1.64 bn (2017)"

2. Please add the following as Revenue in the infobox:

"EUR 1.72 bn (2019)"

revenue = EUR 1.72 bn

revenue_year = 2019

3. Using as the reference:

Page 2, Springer Nature Group Key Facts:

"Revenue: €1.72 billion (2019)"

4. Reason for change being made:

2019 figures are the most recent

1. Please remove the following as number of employees in the infobox:

"13,000 (2017)"

2. Please add the following as number of employees in the infobox:

"10,000 (2019)"

num_employees = 10,000

num_employees_year = 2019

3. Using as the reference:

Page 2, Springer Nature Group Key Facts:

"Around 10,000 colleagues and offices in more than 50 countries"

4. Reason for change being made:

2019 figures are the most recent

I greatly appreciate everybody's time and help with this! Thanks in advance,Conandcon (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * since this information is already there, but simply outdated, feel free to make the changes yourself. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I updated it accordingly. Conandcon (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, marking as closed/done ✅

Article title
Dear all, Please note that I have a financial conflict of interest as I am being paid by Springer Nature Group. Therefore, I will not make any edits myself.

I would like to suggest to change the title of the article to "Springer Nature Group". "Springer Nature" today is only one division of the company and the name therefore does not to reflect the current set-up of the Group of companies. The different subsidiaries/brands of the group are described e.g. in this fact sheet at the bottom of the first page. The current logo in the article also is the logo of the division "Springer Nature". This also counts for the current website in the info box, which should lead to https://group.springernature.com/it/group

Would you be willing to give me feedback on my suggestions? What do you think? Thank you! Best, Conandcon (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, can be closed I guess.✅

Corona - Zheng-Li Shi
Hi, there exists a certain 'flame' about Zheng-Li Shi and her research published on Nature. However, this page is about the company. "Researcher and author Zheng-Li Shi contributed much of her Coronavirus related activities in Nature." is not ideal IMHO, correcting myself. There are many more researchers contributing to the magazine which certainly have similar attention in other areas, I could think of CRISPR. This is a very general situation of the magazines or scientific publication in general, frameworks for critique, etc.--𝔏92934923525 (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger
This really ought to be merged with Springer Science+Business Media. Essentially, Springer Verlag expanded, renamed itself Springer Science+Business Media, expanded more, and renamed itself Springer Nature. Look at springer.com from ten years ago versus today — the logo's the same. According to the SN article, the SS+BM chief became the SN chief after the creation of SN. This isn't a matter of merging articles of subsidiary and a parent, as if we merged Palgrave Macmillan into this article (or merged BNSF Railway and Pampered Chef into Berkshire Hathaway), or a matter of merging unrelated entities with similar names, as if we merged Springer Publishing here. They're essentially the same entity with essentially the same name, and there's no real reason for keeping them separate. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, agree with that. Springer S+B seems very similar in scope and content. I would however rename the whole package as Springer Nature Group if that is the full, official name now and sub-section and sub-refactor the contents. I currently have other tasks, so cannot do it, but support it. --17387349L8764 (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Majority stockholders of Springer Science+Business Media BC Partners have less than majority (47%) share in the shared entity, and Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, owners of Nature Research have a 53% share. Springer Science+Business Media continues to be known as Springer, Nature Research continues to be known as Nature Research, and the merged group is known as Springer Nature. Scientific American and the Macmillan subsidiaries are not related to Springer. Consider this as an equivalent to the articles Penguin Group, Random House and Penguin Random House.  - Jay (Talk) 19:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose but I am open to hearing more. I know there have been many mergers over the decades but at some point the previous companies became large enough to have their own independent histories, and merging them into this article would diminish that. Before the 2010s merger of Springer and Nature, Nature Portfolio had Nature (journal) and Springer Science+Business Media had its own portfolio of journals, both of which had been in operation for about 150 years and which had each ground through billions of dollars of activities. These are two giant companies only recently merged, and putting their histories together in one article diminishes that. I propose that the history of Springer Nature start in the 2010s, and that this article just reference the previous two organizations. Of course both Springer and Nature themselves consumed 100+ smaller companies, and anyone can decide whether those companies merit their own articles in their respective histories, or whether it should be stand alone. In general, no reason to merge gigantic companies with long freestanding histories.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support They are the same firm i.e. Springer Nature Limited, but only their websites are different. One is https://www.nature.com/ and the other one https://www.springer.com/ Huzaifa abedeen (talk) 06:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per . In addition, as far as I know, SN still maintains Nature and SS+BM as separate imprints (just as they maintain BioMed Central as a separate imprint). --Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's more like Springer-Verlag is Google and Springer Nature is Alphabet. So I suggest that keep them divided and change Springer Science+Business Media into Springer which is more relavent after 2015 situation. Merongb10 (talk) 05:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Springer is ambiguous, Springer Science+Business Media is not. --Randykitty (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. 2001:8003:9008:1301:44D3:F319:5F79:31D7 (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Copying Wikipedia?
So this publishing company has had multiple controversies. Has it been caught copying Wikipedia? To another page, I just added a reference that uses this company as a publisher. Now I'll probably change the reference. ApproximateLand (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, from what you comment, I am not sure if you understand it. Every publishing company can have a controversy, or someone who makes an opinion based on something that was published. This is normal. A controversy might be larger or smaller; it has to be clearly understood if needed; and how does it affect your referencing after all? You should use Springer for citation, definitely. This is the thing with "a controvery", or is Amazon "wrong" because someone gives 1 start to some product? Each situation, if real, has to be cleared by corporate communication (also depends on some parameters), etc. KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)