View source for Elsevier

{{Short description|Dutch publishing and analytics company}}
{{other uses}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2022}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Elsevier
| logo = Elsevier logo 2019.svg
| logo_caption = 
| image = 
| image_size = 
| image_caption = 
| trading_name = <!-- d/b/a/, doing business as - if different from legal name above -->
| native_name = <!-- Company's name in home country language -->
| native_name_lang = <!-- Use ISO 639-1 code, e.g. "fr" for French. If there is more than one native name, in different languages, enter those names using {{tl|lang}}, instead. -->
| romanized_name = 
| former_name = 
| type = [[Subsidiary]]
| traded_as = 
| industry = Publishing
| genre = <!-- Only used with media and publishing companies -->
| fate = 
| predecessor = 
| successor = 
| foundation = {{start date and age|df=yes|1880}}
| founder = 
| defunct = <!-- {{End date|df=yes|YYYY|MM|DD}} -->
| location_city = [[Amsterdam]], Netherlands
| location_country = 
| locations = <!-- Number of locations, stores, offices, etc. -->
| area_served = 
| key_people = Kumsal Bayazit, Chief Executive Officer
| products = 
| brands = 
| production = 
| services = 
| revenue = £2.909 billion (2022)<ref name=RELX>{{cite web |title=RELX Annual Report |url=https://www.relx.com/investors/annual-reports/2022 |website=RELX |access-date=20 July 2023 |archive-date=20 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230720111741/https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/relx-2022-annual-report.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
| operating_income = £1.078 billion (2022)<ref name=RELX />
| net_income = £2.021 billion (2022)<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/RELX/relx/net-income |title=RELX Net Income 2006-2020 |website=Macrotrends |access-date=20 July 2023 |archive-date=20 July 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230720112214/http://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/RELX/relx/net-income }}</ref>
| aum = 
| assets = 
| equity = 
| owner = 
| num_employees = 9500<ref name="about">{{cite web |title=Who we are |url=https://www.elsevier.com/about/this-is-elsevier |website=Elsevier |access-date=14 November 2024 |archive-date=2 October 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241002184918/https://www.elsevier.com/about |url-status=live }}</ref>
| parent = [[RELX]]
| divisions = 
| subsid = 
| website = {{URL|https://www.elsevier.com/}}
| footnotes = 
| intl = 
}}

'''Elsevier''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|ɛ|l|s|ə|v|ɪər}} {{respell|EL-sə-veer}}) is a Dutch [[academic publishing]] company specializing in scientific, technical, and medical content. Its products include journals such as ''[[The Lancet]]'', ''[[Cell (journal)|Cell]]'', the [[ScienceDirect]] collection of [[electronic journal]]s, ''[[Trends (journals)|Trends]]'', the ''[[Current Opinion (Elsevier)|Current Opinion]]'' series, the online citation database [[Scopus]], the SciVal tool for measuring research performance, the ClinicalKey search engine for clinicians, and the ClinicalPath evidence-based cancer care service. Elsevier's products and services include digital tools for [[Data management platform|data management]], instruction, research analytics, and assessment.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/02/02/plum-goes-orange-elsevier-acquires-plum-analytics/ |title=Plum Goes Orange – Elsevier Acquires Plum Analytics |last=Carpenter |first=Todd |publisher=[[Society for Scholarly Publishing]] |date=2 February 2017 |website=[[The Scholarly Kitchen]] |access-date=1 January 2021 |archive-date=5 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180805203647/https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/02/02/plum-goes-orange-elsevier-acquires-plum-analytics/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://ors.ubc.ca/resources-links/elseviers-scival |title=Elsevier's SciVal |publisher=[[University of British Columbia]] |access-date=1 January 2021 |archive-date=24 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124085807/https://ors.ubc.ca/resources-links/elseviers-scival |url-status=live }}</ref> Elsevier is part of the [[RELX Group]], known until 2015 as Reed Elsevier, a publicly traded company. According to RELX reports, in 2022 Elsevier published more than 600,000 articles annually in over 2,800 journals.<ref name=RELX /> As of 2018, its archives contained over 17 million documents and 40,000 [[Ebook|e-books]], with over one billion annual downloads.<ref name="RELX 2018 Report">{{Cite web |date=March 2022 |title=2021 RELX Group Annual Report |url=https://reports.relx.com/2021/esef-ar-uk/549300WSX3VBUFFJOO66-2021-12-31-Viewer.html |publisher=RELX |department=RELX Company Reports |access-date=16 March 2022 |archive-date=9 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230109101348/https://reports.relx.com/2021/esef-ar-uk/549300WSX3VBUFFJOO66-2021-12-31-Viewer.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Researchers have criticized Elsevier for its high profit margins and [[Copyright policies of academic publishers|copyright practices]].<ref name=boyc >{{cite news |last=Lin |first=Thomas |date=13 February 2012 |title=Mathematicians Organize Boycott of a Publisher |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/researchers-boycott-elsevier-journal-publisher.html |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=26 February 2017 |archive-date=29 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210329132139/https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/researchers-boycott-elsevier-journal-publisher.html?_r=1 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Swoger 2013">{{cite web | last=Swoger | first=Bonnie | title=Is Elsevier really for-science? Or just for-profit? | website=Scientific American Blog Network | date=12 December 2013 | url=https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/is-elsevier-really-for-science-or-just-for-profit/ | access-date=13 April 2022 | archive-date=13 April 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220413011430/https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/is-elsevier-really-for-science-or-just-for-profit/ | url-status=live }}</ref> The company had a reported profit before tax of £2.295 billion with an adjusted [[operating margin]] of 33.1% in 2023.<ref name="relx-results-press-release-2018">{{Cite web |title=RELX 2023 Results |url=https://www.relx.com/media/press-releases/year-2024/relx-2023-results |access-date=2024-07-31 |website=www.relx.com |language=en}}</ref> Much of the research that Elsevier publishes is publicly funded; its high costs have led to accusations of [[rent-seeking]],<ref>{{cite web|date=20 September 2017|title=Publishers increasingly in control of scholarly infrastructure and this is why we should care|url=https://knowledgegap.org/index.php/sub-projects/rent-seeking-and-financialization-of-the-academic-publishing-industry/preliminary-findings/|access-date=11 May 2021|website=The Knowledge G.A.P.|archive-date=11 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210511133746/http://knowledgegap.org/index.php/sub-projects/rent-seeking-and-financialization-of-the-academic-publishing-industry/preliminary-findings/|url-status=live|author-first1=Alejandro|author-last1=Posada|author-first2=George|author-last2=Chen}}</ref> boycotts against them, and the rise of alternate avenues for publication and access, such as [[preprint]] servers and [[shadow library|shadow libraries]].<ref name="Resnick 2019">{{cite web | last=Resnick | first=Brian | title=The war to free science | website=Vox | date=3 June 2019 | url=https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/3/18271538/open-access-elsevier-california-sci-hub-academic-paywalls | access-date=13 April 2022 | archive-date=11 April 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210411001120/https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/3/18271538/open-access-elsevier-california-sci-hub-academic-paywalls | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Buranyi 2017">{{cite web | last=Buranyi | first=Stephen | title=Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? | website=The Guardian | date=27 June 2017 | url=http://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science | access-date=13 April 2022 | archive-date=12 April 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220412221336/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science | url-status=live }}</ref>

{{TOC limit|3}}

== History ==
[[File:Elsevier.svg|200px|right|thumb|The original seal of the Elsevier family is used by Elsevier company as its logo.]]
Elsevier was founded in 1880{{sfn|Groen|2007|p=217}} and adopted the name and logo from the [[Netherlands|Dutch]] publishing house [[House of Elzevir|Elzevir]] that was an inspiration but has no connection to the contemporary Elsevier.{{sfn|Groen|2007|p=217}} The Elzevir family operated as booksellers and publishers in the [[Netherlands]]; the founder, [[Lodewijk Elzevir]] (1542–1617), lived in [[Leiden]] and established that business in 1580. As a company logo, Elsevier used the Elzevir family's [[printer's mark]], a tree entwined with a vine and the words ''Non Solus'', which is [[Latin]] for "not alone".<ref name="AT 2019-03" /> According to Elsevier, this logo represents "the symbiotic relationship between publisher and scholar".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.facebook.com/notes/elsevier-india/interesting-fact-history-of-the-elsevier-logo/295913917111368/|title=Interesting Fact - History of the Elsevier Logo|website=[[Facebook]]|access-date=12 June 2019|archive-date=10 August 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190810004358/https://www.facebook.com/notes/elsevier-india/interesting-fact-history-of-the-elsevier-logo/295913917111368/|url-status=live}}</ref>

The expansion of Elsevier in the scientific field after 1945 was funded with the profits of the newsweekly ''[[Elsevier (magazine)|Elsevier]]'', which published its first issue on 27 October 1945. The weekly was an instant success and very profitable.<ref>Gerry van der List, ''Meer dan een weekblad. De geschiedenis van Elsevier''</ref> 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 [[Netherlands in World War II|German occupation of the Netherlands]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Five Centuries of History of Elsevier in the National Library of Russia: from Book-printing to an Information Provider |url=https://nlr.ru/eng_old/exib/elsevier/ |access-date=2025-03-11 |website=nlr.ru}}</ref>

In May 1939, Klautz established the Elsevier Publishing Company Ltd. in London to distribute these academic titles in the [[British Commonwealth]] (except Canada). When the [[German invasion of the Netherlands|Nazis 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 City|New York]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Elsevier |title=In the shadow of the Nazis, this young executive dared to publish the work of Jewish scientists |url=https://www.elsevier.com/connect/in-the-shadow-of-the-nazis-this-young-executive-dared-to-publish-the-work-of-jewish-scientists |access-date=7 March 2022 |website=Elsevier Connect |archive-date=23 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220223161517/https://www.elsevier.com/connect/in-the-shadow-of-the-nazis-this-young-executive-dared-to-publish-the-work-of-jewish-scientists |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 1947, Elsevier began publishing its first English-language journal, ''[[Biochimica et Biophysica Acta]]''.<ref name=RET>{{cite web|title=Reed Elsevier Timeline|url=https://www.ulib.niu.edu/publishers/ReedElsevier.htm|website=www.ulib.niu.edu|access-date=13 September 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151030233859/https://www.ulib.niu.edu/publishers/ReedElsevier.htm|archive-date=30 October 2015}}</ref>

In 1970, Elsevier acquired competing firm North-
Holland. In 1971 the firm acquired [[Excerpta Medica]],a small medical abstract publisher based in [[Amsterdam]].<ref name=RET /> As the first and only company in the world that employed a database for the production of journals, it introduced computer technology to Elsevier.<ref>{{Cite web|title=A Short History of Elsevier|url=https://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Elsevier-Short-History-2005.pdf|website=Ask Force|access-date=15 February 2022|archive-date=13 July 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220713184643/http://www.ask-force.org/web/Seralini/Elsevier-Short-History-2005.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> In 1978 Elsevier merged with Dutch newspaper publisher NDU, and devised a strategy to broadcast textual news to people's television sets through [[Viewdata]] and [[Teletext]] technology.<ref>{{cite report |last1=Boone |first1=C.A.J.J. |last2=van Witteloostuijn |first2=A. |last3=van Olffen |first3=W. |last4=de Brabander |first4=B. |title=The Genesis of top management team diversity : Selective turnover among top management teams in the Dutch newspaper publisher industry (1970-1994) |date=February 2003 |doi=10.26481/umamet.2003006 }}</ref>

In 1979, Elsevier Science Publishers launched the Article Delivery Over Network Information System (ADONIS) project in conjunction with four business partners. The project aims to find a way to deliver scientific articles to libraries electronically, and would continue for over a decade.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Orchard|first=Constance|date=1988|title=ADONIS and Electronically Stored Information: An Information Broker's Experience|journal=The Serials Librarian|volume=15|issue=3–4|pages=85–91|doi=10.1300/J123v15n03_09|issn=0361-526X|doi-access=free}}</ref> In 1991, in conjunction with nine American universities, Elsevier's The University Licensing Project (TULIP) was the first step in creating published, copyrighted material available over the Internet. It formed the basis for [[ScienceDirect]], launched six years later.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Tedd|first1=Lucy A.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3jFgeRT_YW0C&q=elsevier+university+licensing+project+1991&pg=PA5|title=Digital Libraries: Principles and Practice in a Global Environment|last2=Large|first2=J. A.|date=2005|publisher=Walter de Gruyter|isbn=978-3-598-11627-8}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |doi=10.3998/spobooks.5621225.0001.001 |title=Economics and Usage of Digital Libraries: Byting the Bullet |date=2008 |isbn=978-1-4181-6284-9 |editor-last1=Mackie-Mason |editor-first1=Jeffrey K. }}</ref> In 1997, after almost two decades of experiments, ScienceDirect was launched as the first online repository of electronic (scientific) books and articles. Though librarians and researchers were initially hesitant regarding the new technology, more and more of them switched to e-only subscriptions.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/euro/030497euro.html |title=Building the World's Largest Scientific Database |last=Giussani |first=Bruno |date=4 March 1997 |access-date=1 February 2021 |archive-date=19 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210419052205/https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/euro/030497euro.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Stachokas|first=George|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PdO1DwAAQBAJ&q=sciencedirect+1997+launch&pg=PA33|title=The Role of the Electronic Resources Librarian|date=12 October 2019|publisher=Chandos Publishing|isbn=978-0-08-102926-8}}</ref>

In 2004, Elsevier launched [[Scopus]] - a multidisciplinary metadata database of scholarly publications, only the second of such kind (after the [[Web of Science]], although free [[Google Scholar]] was also launched in 2004). [[Scopus]] covers journals, some conference papers and books from various publishers, and measures performance on both author and publication levels.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://blog.scopus.com/topics/content |title=Content |last=Beatty |first=Susannah |publisher=[[Scopus]] |date=12 June 2017 |access-date=1 February 2021 |archive-date=17 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210117124609/https://blog.scopus.com/topics/content |url-status=live }}</ref> In 2009 SciVal Spotlight was released. This tool enabled research administrators to measure their institution's relative standing in terms of productivity, grants, and publications.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.scival.com/landing |title=Welcome to SciVal |access-date=1 February 2021 |website=SciVal |archive-date=24 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224172335/https://scival.com/landing |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Herther|first=Nancy K.|date=8 October 2009|title=Elsevier's New SciVal Products Target Academic Accountability and Strategic Planning|url=https://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/Elseviers-New-SciVal-Products-Target-Academic-Accountability-and-Strategic-Planning-56569.asp|access-date=30 November 2020|website=newsbreaks.infotoday.com|archive-date=16 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210816071203/http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/NewsBreaks/Elseviers-New-SciVal-Products-Target-Academic-Accountability-and-Strategic-Planning-56569.asp|url-status=live}}</ref>

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 sale, 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.<ref name="fast">{{cite web|last1=Amirtha|first1=Tina|title=THE OPEN PUBLISHING REVOLUTION, NOW BEHIND A BILLION-DOLLAR PAYWALL|url=https://www.fastcompany.com/3042443/mendeley-elsevier-and-the-future-of-scholarly-publishing|website=Fast Company|access-date=26 January 2016|date=17 April 2015|archive-date=15 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160115005118/http://www.fastcompany.com/3042443/mendeley-elsevier-and-the-future-of-scholarly-publishing|url-status=live}}</ref> ''[[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|open-science]] icon that threatens its [[business model]]".<ref name="NewYorker">{{cite magazine|url=https://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/elsevier-mendeley-journals-science-software.html|title=When the Rebel Alliance Sells Out|first=David|last=Dobbs|magazine=[[The New Yorker]]|date=12 April 2013}}</ref>

== Company statistics ==
{{as of|2018|alt=During 2018}}, researchers submitted over 1.8 million [[Academic paper|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 470,000 articles in over 2,500 journals.<ref name="RELX 2018 Report" /> Editors are generally unpaid volunteers who perform their duties alongside a full-time job in academic institutions,<ref>{{cite journal|first1=James A.|last1=Coleman|title=How to get published in English: Advice from the outgoing Editor-in-Chief|journal=System|date=3 January 2014|issn=0346-251X|pages=404–411|volume=42|doi=10.1016/j.system.2014.01.004|quote=Remember that editors and reviewers are unpaid, and are undertaking their tasks voluntarily, in addition to a full-time job}}</ref> although exceptions have been reported. In 2013, the five editorial groups Elsevier, [[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer]], [[Wiley-Blackwell]], [[Taylor & Francis]], and [[SAGE Publications]] published more than half of all academic papers in the peer-reviewed literature.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.vocativ.com/culture/science/five-corporations-control-academic-publishing/|title=These Five Corporations Control Academic Publishing|date=10 June 2015|website=Vocativ.com|access-date=31 January 2018|archive-date=14 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171214223450/http://www.vocativ.com/culture/science/five-corporations-control-academic-publishing/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era|author1=Vincent Larivière|author2=Stefanie Haustein|author3=Philippe Mongeon|journal=PLOS ONE|volume=10|issue=6|year=2015|doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502|pmid=26061978|pmc=4465327|pages=e0127502|bibcode=2015PLoSO..1027502L|doi-access=free}}</ref> At that time, Elsevier accounted for 16% of the world market in science, technology, and medical publishing.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Elsevier leads the business the internet could not kill|url=https://www.ft.com/content/93138f3e-87d6-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/https://www.ft.com/content/93138f3e-87d6-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896 |archive-date=10 December 2022|newspaper=Financial Times|date=15 November 2015|access-date=7 November 2016|url-access=subscription|last1=Cookson|first1=Robert}}</ref> In 2019, Elsevier accounted for the review, editing and dissemination of 18% of the world's scientific articles.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Annual Report and Financial Statements 2019|url=https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/2019-annual-report.pdf|website=RELX|page=12|access-date=16 September 2020|archive-date=1 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201101040341/https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/2019-annual-report.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> About 45% of revenue by geography in 2019 derived from North America, 24% from Europe, and the remaining 31% from the rest of the world. Around 84% of revenue by format came from electronic usage and 16% came from print.<ref name="RELX 2018 Report" /><ref name=":1">{{Cite web|title=RELX 2019 Annual Report|url=https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/2019-annual-report.pdf|website=RELX|access-date=16 September 2020|archive-date=1 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201101040341/https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/2019-annual-report.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

The firm employs 8,100 people.<ref name=":1" /> The CEO is Kumsal Bayazit, who was appointed on 15 February 2019.<ref name="ataglance">{{cite web|url=https://www.elsevier.com/about/management/kumsal-bayazit|title=Kumsal Bayazit|website=Elsevier.com|access-date=22 February 2019|archive-date=22 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190222204419/https://www.elsevier.com/about/management/kumsal-bayazit|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2018, it reported a mean 2017 [[gender pay gap]] of 29.1% for its UK workforce, while the median was 40.4%, the highest yet reported by a publisher in UK. Elsevier attributed the result to the under-representation of women in its senior ranks and the prevalence of men in its technical workforce.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|title=Elsevier reports 40% gender pay gap {{!}} The Bookseller|url=https://www.thebookseller.com/news/elsevier-reports-40-gender-pay-gap-759606|access-date=21 December 2020|website=www.thebookseller.com|archive-date=24 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124013918/https://www.thebookseller.com/news/elsevier-reports-40-gender-pay-gap-759606|url-status=live}}</ref> The UK workforce consists of 1,200 people in the UK, and represents 16% of Elsevier's global employee population.<ref name=":2" /> Elsevier's parent company, RELX, has a global workforce that is 51% female to 49% male, with 43% female and 57% male managers, and 29% female and 71% male senior operational managers.<ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite web|title=RELX Group/Elsevier Inclusion & Diversity|url=https://www.elsevier.com/about/careers/diversity-and-inclusion|access-date=21 December 2020|website=www.elsevier.com|archive-date=22 December 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222163655/https://www.elsevier.com/about/careers/diversity-and-inclusion|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2018, Elsevier accounted for 34% of the revenues of RELX group (£2.538 billion of £7.492 billion). In [[Earnings before interest and taxes|operating profits]], it represented 40% (£942 million of £2,346 million). Adjusted operating profits (with constant currency) rose by 2% from 2017 to 2018.<ref name="RELX 2018 Report" /> Profits grew further from 2018 to 2019, to a total of £982 million.<ref>"RELX Annual Report and Financial Statements 2019", https://www.relx.com/investors/annual-reports/2019 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200418080743/https://www.relx.com/investors/annual-reports/2019 |date=18 April 2020 }}</ref> The first half of 2019, RELX reported the first slowdown in revenue growth for Elsevier in several years: 1% vs. an expectation of 2% and a typical growth of at least 4% in the previous 5 years.<ref>{{cite news|author=Nilsson, Patricia|date=25 July 2019|title=Relx falls short of growth expectations|url=https://finance.yahoo.com/m/c84c5326-55c5-3f81-b51d-9d1f4b7806e7/relx-falls-short-of-growth.html|newspaper=[[Financial Times]]|via=[[Yahoo Finance]]|access-date=26 July 2019|archive-date=26 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190726181501/https://finance.yahoo.com/m/c84c5326-55c5-3f81-b51d-9d1f4b7806e7/relx-falls-short-of-growth.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Overall for 2019, Elsevier reported revenue growth of 3.9% from 2018, with the underlying growth at constant currency at 2%.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Elsevier sees 2019 profit and revenue lift {{!}} The Bookseller|url=https://www.thebookseller.com/news/elsevier-sees-profit-and-revenue-lift-1192787|access-date=23 February 2021|website=www.thebookseller.com|archive-date=18 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210218122930/https://www.thebookseller.com/news/elsevier-sees-profit-and-revenue-lift-1192787|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2019, Elsevier accounted for 34% of the revenues of RELX (£2.637billion of £7.874billion). In adjusted [[Earnings before interest and taxes|operating profits]], it represented 39% (£982m of £2.491bn). Adjusted operating profits (with constant currency) rose by 2% from 2018 to 2019.<ref name=":1" />

In 2019, researchers submitted over two million [[Academic paper|research papers]] to Elsevier-based publications. Over 22,000 editors managed the peer review and selection of these papers, resulting in the publication of about 500,000 articles in over 2,500 journals.<ref name=":1" />

In 2020, Elsevier was the largest academic publisher, with approximately 16% of the academic publishing market and more than 3000 journals.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hagve |first=Martin |date=17 August 2020 |title=The money behind academic publishing |url=https://tidsskriftet.no/en/2020/08/kronikk/money-behind-academic-publishing |journal=Tidsskrift for den Norske Legeforening |volume=140 |issue=11 |doi=10.4045/tidsskr.20.0118 |pmid=32815337 |s2cid=225423313 |issn=0029-2001 |doi-access=free |access-date=1 June 2022 |archive-date=22 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220622191319/https://tidsskriftet.no/en/2020/08/kronikk/money-behind-academic-publishing |url-status=live }}</ref>

== Market model ==

=== Products and services ===
Products and services include electronic and print versions of journals, textbooks and [[reference work]]s, and cover the [[healthcare science|health]], life, physical, and [[social science]]s.

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 company|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 (journal)|Cell]], Knovel, 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]]'', ''[[Frank H. Netter|Netter]]'s Atlas of Human Anatomy'', and online versions of many journals<ref>[https://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/ Health Advance] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220311143631/https://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/ |date=11 March 2022 }}. Elsevier.</ref> including ''[[The Lancet]]''.

ScienceDirect is Elsevier's platform for online electronic access to its journals and over 40,000 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.<ref name=":1" />

In 2019, Elsevier published 49,000 free [[open access]] articles and 370 full open access journals. Moreover, 1,900 of its journals sold [[Hybrid open-access journal|hybrid open access]] options.<ref name=":1" />

=== Pricing ===
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,<ref>{{cite journal|last=Monbiot|first=George|date=29 August 2011|title=Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist|journal=Guardian|access-date=11 December 2016|archive-date=7 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190307174619/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/academic-publishers-murdoch-socialist|url-status=live}}</ref> and many British universities pay more than a million pounds to Elsevier annually.<ref>{{cite web|date=24 April 2014|title=Elsevier journals — some facts|url=https://gowers.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/elsevier-journals-some-facts/|access-date=27 July 2014|work=Gowers's Weblog|archive-date=2 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140702112336/http://gowers.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/elsevier-journals-some-facts/|url-status=live}}</ref> The company has been criticized not only by advocates of a switch to the [[Open access (publishing)|open-access]] publication model, but also by universities whose library budgets make it difficult for them to afford current journal prices.

For example, in 2004, 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".<ref>''[https://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/february25/minutes-225.html Faculty Senate minutes February 19 meeting] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100315071807/http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/february25/minutes-225.html |date=15 March 2010 }}'' Stanford Report, 25 February 2004</ref> Similar guidelines and criticism of Elsevier's pricing policies have been passed by the [[University of California]], [[Harvard University]], and [[Duke University]].<ref>{{cite web|date=20 February 2004|title=Fac Sen addresses costly journals|url=https://archive.stanforddaily.com/?p=1013953|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121105040316/https://archive.stanforddaily.com/?p=1013953|archive-date=5 November 2012|work=The Stanford Daily}}</ref>

In July 2015, the [[Association of Universities in the Netherlands]] <!-- (VSNU) --> threatened to boycott Elsevier, which refused to negotiate on any [[open access]] policy for Dutch universities.<ref>Kingsley, Danny. [https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=192 "Dutch boycott of Elsevier – a game changer?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170831040458/https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=192 |date=31 August 2017 }}, University of Cambridge Office of Scholarly Communication</ref> After a year of negotiation, Elsevier pledged to make 30% of research published by Dutch researchers in Elsevier journals open access by 2018.<ref>{{cite web|date=11 December 2015|author=John Bohannon|url=https://www.science.org/content/article/unique-deal-elsevier-agrees-make-some-papers-dutch-authors-free|title=In unique deal, Elsevier agrees to make some papers by Dutch authors free|website=science.org|access-date=25 February 2024}}</ref>

In October 2018, a complaint against Elsevier was filed with the European Commission, alleging anticompetitive practices stemming from Elsevier's confidential subscription agreements and market dominance. The European Commission decided not to investigate.<ref name="competition_plaint">{{cite news|last1=Kelly|first1=Éanna|date=2 November 2018|title=Researchers complain to Brussels over 'dominant position' of RELX Group in scientific publishing|work=sciencebusiness.net|url=https://sciencebusiness.net/framework-programmes/news/researchers-complain-brussels-over-dominant-position-relx-group|access-date=16 January 2019|archive-date=16 January 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190116100143/https://sciencebusiness.net/framework-programmes/news/researchers-complain-brussels-over-dominant-position-relx-group|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Price|first=Gary|date=30 October 2018|title=Full Text: Complaint Filed with EU Competition Authority Regarding "Anti-Competitive Practices" of RELX/Elsevier and the Wider Scholarly Publishing Market|url=https://www.infodocket.com/2018/10/30/full-text-complaint-filed-with-eu-competition-authority-regarding-relx-and-the-wider-scholarly-publishing-market/|access-date=2 February 2021|website=LJ infoDOCKET|archive-date=7 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210307062104/https://www.infodocket.com/2018/10/30/full-text-complaint-filed-with-eu-competition-authority-regarding-relx-and-the-wider-scholarly-publishing-market/|url-status=live}}</ref>

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.<ref>Glenn, David (25 January 2008). [https://chronicle.com/article/American-Economic-Association/440 Chronicle.com "American Economic Association Plans 4 New Journals".] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220628193734/https://www.chronicle.com/article/American-Economic-Association/440 |date=28 June 2022 }} ''The Chronicle of Higher Education''.</ref>

=== Mergers and acquisitions ===
RELX Group has been [[RELX Group#Significant acquisitions|active]] in [[mergers and acquisitions]]. Elsevier has incorporated other businesses that were either complementing or competing in the field of research and publishing and that reinforce its [[market power]],<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170804/05454537924/elsevier-continues-to-build-monopoly-solution-all-aspects-scholarly-communication.shtml|title=Elsevier Continues To Build Its Monopoly Solution For All Aspects Of Scholarly Communication|date=4 August 2017|work=Techdirt|access-date=17 October 2018|author=Glyn Moody|author-link=Glyn Moody|archive-date=17 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181017164405/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170804/05454537924/elsevier-continues-to-build-monopoly-solution-all-aspects-scholarly-communication.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref> such as [[Mendeley]] (after the closure of [[2collab]]), [[SSRN]],<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160517/13513134465/disappointing-elsevier-buys-open-access-academic-pre-publisher-ssrn.shtml|title=Disappointing: Elsevier Buys Open Access Academic Pre-Publisher SSRN|date=17 May 2016|work=Techdirt|access-date=17 October 2018|author=Mike Masnick|author-link=Mike Masnick|archive-date=17 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181017164519/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160517/13513134465/disappointing-elsevier-buys-open-access-academic-pre-publisher-ssrn.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref> [[bepress]]/[[Digital Commons (Elsevier)|Digital Commons]], [[PlumX]], Hivebench, Newsflo, Science-Metrix,<ref name=Herb2019>{{cite conference |conference=23rd Congress of the European Society of Veterinary and Comparative Nutrition |last1=Herb|first1=Ulrich|date=2019|title=Steering science through Output Indicators & Data Capitalism|doi=10.5281/zenodo.3333395|doi-access=free}}</ref> and [[Interfolio]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tucker |first=David |date=7 June 2022 |title=Elsevier closes Interfolio acquisition |url=https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/corporate/elsevier-closes-interfolio-acquisition |access-date=18 October 2022 |archive-date=17 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221017085704/https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/corporate/elsevier-closes-interfolio-acquisition |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Conferences ===
Elsevier also conducts conferences, exhibitions, and workshops around the world, with over 50 conferences a year covering life sciences, physical sciences and engineering, social sciences, and health sciences.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.elsevier.com/events/conferences|title=Conferences|work=elsevier.com|access-date=12 November 2019|archive-date=12 November 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191112020100/https://www.elsevier.com/events/conferences|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Shill review offer ===
According to the [[BBC]], in 2009, 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 responded by stating "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.<ref>Finlo Rohrer, "[https://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8118577.stm The perils of five-star reviews]", ''BBC News Magazine'', 25 June 2009.</ref>

=== Blocking text mining research ===
Elsevier seeks to regulate [[text and data mining]] with private licenses,<ref name=nature527413f/> claiming that reading requires extra permission if automated and that the publisher holds copyright on [[threshold of originality|output of automated processes]]. The conflict on research and copyright policy has often resulted in researchers being blocked from their work.<ref>{{cite journal|first1=Richard|last1=Van Noorden|title=Elsevier opens its papers to text-mining|journal=Nature|date=3 February 2014|issn=0028-0836|pages=17|volume=506|issue=7486|doi=10.1038/506017a|pmid=24499898|doi-access=free|quote="It was a legitimate criticism, that people sent text-mining requests in to publishers and they bounced around for a time without any response", admits Chris Shillum, vice-president of product management for platform and content at Elsevier.|bibcode=2014Natur.506...17V}}</ref> In November 2015, Elsevier blocked a scientist from performing [[text mining]] research at scale on Elsevier papers, even though his institution already pays for access to Elsevier journal content.<ref name="nature527413f">{{cite journal|last1=Bloudoff-Indelicato|first1=Mollie|title=Text-mining block prompts online response|journal=Nature|date=20 November 2015|volume=527|issue=7579|pages=413|doi=10.1038/527413f|bibcode=2015Natur.527..413B|s2cid=4457698|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Moody|first1=Glyn|title=Elsevier Says Downloading And Content-Mining Licensed Copies Of Research Papers 'Could Be Considered' Stealing|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151117/09383132839/elsevier-says-downloading-content-mining-licensed-copies-research-papers-could-be-considered-stealing.shtml|website=TechDirt|date=18 November 2015|access-date=21 November 2015|archive-date=21 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151121235758/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151117/09383132839/elsevier-says-downloading-content-mining-licensed-copies-research-papers-could-be-considered-stealing.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref> The data was collected using the [[R (programming language)|R]] package "statcheck".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Nuijten|first1=Michèle B.|last2=Hartgerink|first2=Chris H. J.|last3=van Assen|first3=Marcel A. L. M.|last4=Epskamp|first4=Sacha|last5=Wicherts|first5=Jelte M.|title=The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013)|journal=Behavior Research Methods|date=23 October 2015|volume=48|issue=4|pages=1205–1226|doi=10.3758/s13428-015-0664-2|pmid=26497820|pmc=5101263}}</ref>

=== Fossil fuel company consulting and advocacy ===
Elsevier is one of the most prolific publishers of books aimed at expanding the production of [[fossil fuels]]. Since at least 2010 the company has worked with the fossil fuel industry to optimise fossil fuel extraction. It commissions authors, journal advisory board members and editors who are employees of the largest oil firms. In addition it markets data services and research portals directly to the fossil fuel industry to help "increase the odds of exploration success".<ref>{{cite web|date=24 February 2022|title=Revealed: leading climate research publisher helps fuel oil and gas drilling|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/24/elsevier-publishing-climate-science-fossil-fuels|access-date=24 February 2022|website=The Guardian|archive-date=24 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220224082545/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/24/elsevier-publishing-climate-science-fossil-fuels|url-status=live}}</ref>

== Relationship with academic institutions ==

=== Finland ===
In 2015, Finnish research organizations paid a total of 27 million euros in subscription fees. Over one-third of the total costs went to 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ropengov.github.io/r/2016/06/10/FOI/|title=Scientific journal subscription costs in Finland 2010-2015: a preliminary analysis|website=rOpenGov |first1=Leo |last1=Lahti |date=June 10, 2016 |access-date=15 October 2017|archive-date=15 October 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171015203133/https://ropengov.github.io/r/2016/06/10/FOI/|url-status=dead}}</ref> Establishing this fact led to the creation of tiedonhinta.fi petition demanding more reasonable pricing and open access to content signed by more than 2800 members of the research community.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://tiedonhinta.fi/en/english/ |title=The Cost of Scientific Publications Must Not Get Out of Hand |access-date=3 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171015203433/https://tiedonhinta.fi/en/english/ |website=Tiedonhinta.fi |archive-date=15 October 2017}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nodealnoreview.org/|title=No Deal, No Review.|website=nodealnoreview.org |access-date=27 January 2021|archive-date=28 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210128094024/http://nodealnoreview.org/|url-status=usurped }}</ref>

In January 2018, it was confirmed that a deal had been reached between those concerned.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.kansalliskirjasto.fi/en/news/finelib-and-elsevier-reach-agreement-for-subscription-access-and-open-access-publishing|title=FinELib and Elsevier Reach Agreement for Subscription Access and Open Access Publishing |date=17 January 2018|website=The National Library of Finland |access-date=17 January 2018|archive-date=17 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180117192300/https://www.kansalliskirjasto.fi/en/news/finelib-and-elsevier-reach-agreement-for-subscription-access-and-open-access-publishing|url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.mostlyphysics.net/blog/2018/1/25/finland-takes-a-step-back-in-the-openness-of-academic-journal-pricing |first1=Toma |last1=Susi |title=Finland takes steps in the openness of academic journal pricing |date=25 January 2018 |newspaper=Mostly Physics |access-date=3 March 2021 |archive-date=1 May 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180501225922/https://www.mostlyphysics.net/blog/2018/1/25/finland-takes-a-step-back-in-the-openness-of-academic-journal-pricing |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/au-coeur-de-la-recherche/article/130418/transition-vers-l-acces-libre-le-piege-des-accords-globaux-avec-les-editeur |title=Transition vers l'Accès Libre: le piège des accords globaux avec les éditeurs |access-date=3 March 2021 |website=Mediapart |date=13 April 2018 |trans-title=Transition to Open Access: the Trap of Global Agreements with Publishers |language=fr |archive-date=8 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220408021709/https://blogs.mediapart.fr/edition/au-coeur-de-la-recherche/article/130418/transition-vers-l-acces-libre-le-piege-des-accords-globaux-avec-les-editeur |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== France ===
The French [[Couperin (consortium)|Couperin consortium]] agreed in 2019 to a 4-year contract with Elsevier,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.aefinfo.fr/assets/medias/documents/4/8/482545.pdf|title=Communiqué sur la négociation Elsevier|last=Consortium Couperin|date=11 June 2019|access-date=26 August 2019|archive-date=26 August 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190826202815/https://www.aefinfo.fr/assets/medias/documents/4/8/482545.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> despite criticism from the scientific community.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2019/05/13/embrouilles-a-propos-de-l-acces-aux-revues-scientifiques_5461530_1650684.html |title=Embrouilles à propos de l'accès aux revues scientifiques |last=Larousserie |first=David |date=13 May 2019 |access-date=27 January 2021 |language=fr |trans-title=Confusion over access to scientific journals |archive-date=18 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210118100253/https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2019/05/13/embrouilles-a-propos-de-l-acces-aux-revues-scientifiques_5461530_1650684.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

The French [[École Normale Supérieure]] has stopped having Elsevier publish the journal ''[[Annales Scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure]]''<ref>{{cite web |url=https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/journals.html |title=What We Can Do About Science Journals |last=Baez |first=John |date=24 January 2011 |access-date=27 January 2021 |archive-date=23 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201123101410/https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/journals.html |url-status=live }}</ref> (as of 2008).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600714/description|title=Annales Scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure |publisher=Elsevier |access-date=3 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080412014908/https://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600714/description |archive-date=12 April 2008 }}</ref>

Effective on 1 January 2020, the [[French Academy of Sciences]] stopped publishing its 7 journals [[Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences]] with Elsevier and switched to [[Centre Mersenne]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/|title=Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences|access-date=7 January 2021|archive-date=9 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210109091925/https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Germany ===
Since 2018 and as of 2023,<ref name="science202308" /> almost no academic institution in Germany is subscribed to Elsevier.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.projekt-deal.de/vertragskundigungen-elsevier-2018/|title=Vertragskündigungen Elsevier 2018|last=Haufe|first=Gottfried|date=20 November 2018|website=www.projekt-deal.de|access-date=6 March 2019|archive-date=6 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190306044759/https://www.projekt-deal.de/vertragskundigungen-elsevier-2018/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00492-4|title=Thousands of scientists run up against Elsevier's paywall|last=Else|first=Holly|date=5 February 2019|journal=Nature|access-date=6 March 2019|doi=10.1038/d41586-019-00492-4|s2cid=86526472|archive-date=8 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308013032/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00492-4|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

Germany's DEAL project ([[Projekt DEAL]]), which includes over 60 major research institutions<!--consortium of state-funded universities and research organizations-->, has announced that all of its members are cancelling their contracts with Elsevier, effective 1 January 2017. The boycott is in response to Elsevier's refusal to adopt "transparent business models" to "make publications more openly accessible".<ref>{{cite web|last1=Doctorow|first1=Cory|title=Germany-wide consortium of research libraries announce boycott of Elsevier journals over open access|url=https://boingboing.net/2016/12/15/germany-wide-consortium-of-res.html|publisher=Boing Boing|access-date=27 December 2016|date=15 December 2016|archive-date=27 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227040525/http://boingboing.net/2016/12/15/germany-wide-consortium-of-res.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=No full-text access to Elsevier journals to be expected from 1 January 2017 on|url=https://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/en/news/details/voraussichtlich-keine-volltexte-von-zeitschriften-des-elsevier-verlags-ab-dem-112017/|publisher=Göttingen State and University Library|access-date=27 December 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227132101/https://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/en/news/details/voraussichtlich-keine-volltexte-von-zeitschriften-des-elsevier-verlags-ab-dem-112017/|archive-date=27 December 2016}}</ref><ref name="nature1" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.lrk-bw.de/index.php/pressemitteilungen|title=Pressemitteilungen|website=Lrk-bw.de|language=de-de|access-date=11 July 2017|trans-title=Press Releases|archive-date=11 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170711132409/http://www.lrk-bw.de/index.php/pressemitteilungen|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49906/title/Major-German-Universities-Cancel-Elsevier-Contracts/ |title=Major German Universities Cancel Elsevier Contracts |website=The Scientist |last=Kwon |first=Diana |date=17 July 2017 |access-date=27 January 2021 |archive-date=28 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171028122903/http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/49906/title/Major-German-Universities-Cancel-Elsevier-Contracts/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/bold-open-access-push-germany-could-change-future-academic-publishing |title=A bold open-access push in Germany could change the future of academic publishing |last1=Kupferschmidt |first1=Kai |last2=Vogel |first2=Gretchen |date=23 August 2017 |website=Science |access-date=27 January 2021 |archive-date=6 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211106100330/https://www.science.org/content/article/bold-open-access-push-germany-could-change-future-academic-publishing |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.hrk.de/press/press-releases/press-release/meldung/researchers-resign-editorship-of-elsevier-journals-4237/ |title=Researchers resign editorship of Elsevier journals |publisher=[[German Rectors' Conference]] |date=12 October 2017 |access-date=27 January 2021 |archive-date=17 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171017042346/https://www.hrk.de/press/press-releases/press-release/meldung/researchers-resign-editorship-of-elsevier-journals-4237/ |url-status=live }}</ref> 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".<ref name="nature1" /> In July 2017, another 13 institutions announced that they would also be cancelling their subscriptions to Elsevier journals.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2017/07/26/93682/german-universities-to-let-elsevier-contracts-lapse/|title=German universities to let Elsevier contracts lapse {{!}} Books+Publishing|website=Booksandpublishing.com.au|access-date=29 July 2017|archive-date=29 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170729232013/https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2017/07/26/93682/german-universities-to-let-elsevier-contracts-lapse/|url-status=live}}</ref> In August 2017, at least 185 German institutions had cancelled their contracts with Elsevier.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.projekt-deal.de/vertragskundigungen-elsevier-2017/|title=Vertragskündigungen Elsevier 2017 – Projekt DEAL|website=Projekt-deal.de|access-date=12 September 2017|archive-date=12 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170912165826/https://www.projekt-deal.de/vertragskundigungen-elsevier-2017/|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2018, whilst negotiations were ongoing, around 200 German universities that cancelled their subscriptions to Elsevier journals were granted complimentary open access to them until this ended in July of the year.<ref name="matthews-2018">
{{cite news
|last1=Matthews
|first1=David
|title=Elsevier maintains German access despite failure to strike deal
|date=4 January 2018
|work=Times Higher Education (THE)
|location=London, United Kingdom
|issn=0049-3929
|url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/elsevier-maintains-german-access-despite-failure-strike-deal
|access-date=5 January 2018
|archive-date=5 January 2018
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180105021857/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/elsevier-maintains-german-access-despite-failure-strike-deal
|url-status=live
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/universities-in-germany-and-sweden-lose-access-to-elsevier-journals--64522 |title=Universities in Germany and Sweden Lose Access to Elsevier Journals |last=Kwon |first=Diana |date=19 July 2018 |website=The Scientist |access-date=3 March 2021 |archive-date=8 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308202352/https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/universities-in-germany-and-sweden-lose-access-to-elsevier-journals--64522 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="schiermeier-2018">{{cite journal |last1=Schiermeier |first1=Quirin |title=Germany vs Elsevier: universities win temporary journal access after refusing to pay fees |date=4 January 2018 |journal=Nature News |volume=553 |issue=7687 |page=137 |issn=1476-4687 |doi=10.1038/d41586-018-00093-7 |pmid=29323311 |bibcode=2018Natur.553..137S |doi-access=free}}</ref>

On 19 December 2018, the [[Max Planck Society]] (MPS) announced that the existing subscription agreement with Elsevier would not be renewed after the expiration date of 31 December 2018. MPS counts 14,000 scientists in 84 research institutes, publishing 12,000 articles each year.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.mpdl.mpg.de/en/505 |title=Max Planck Society discontinues agreement with Elsevier; stands firm with Projekt DEAL negotiations |website=Max Planck Digital Library |access-date=3 March 2021 |archive-date=11 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220111062713/https://www.mpdl.mpg.de/en/505 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="mps20181219">{{cite news|first1=Gary|last1=Price|url=https://www.infodocket.com/2018/12/19/max-planck-society-discontinues-agreement-with-elsevier-affirms-support-for-projekt-deal/|title=Max Planck Society Discontinues Agreement with Elsevier. Affirms Support for Projekt Deal|work=infodocket.com Library Journal|date=19 December 2018|access-date=19 December 2018|archive-date=20 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181220033858/https://www.infodocket.com/2018/12/19/max-planck-society-discontinues-agreement-with-elsevier-affirms-support-for-projekt-deal/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2023, Elsevier and DEAL reached a tentative agreement on a [[Project DEAL#Publish and read model|publish and read model]], which would take effect until 2028 if at least 70% of the eligible institutions opt into it.<ref name="science202308">{{cite web|url=https://www.science.org/content/article/german-science-organizations-strike-open-access-deal-elsevier|title=German science organizations strike open-access deal with Elsevier|date=2023-09-06|author=Gretchen Vogel}}</ref>

=== Hungary ===
In March 2018, the Hungarian ''Electronic Information Service National Programme'' entered negotiations on its 2019 Elsevier subscriptions, asking for a read-and-publish deal.<ref name="hungary_terminates">{{cite web|title=Hungarian Consortium terminates negotiations with Elsevier|url=https://eisz.mtak.hu/index.php/en/283-hungarian-consortium-terminates-negotiations-with-elsevier.html|website=eisz.mtak.hu|access-date=16 January 2019|archive-date=16 January 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190116195319/http://eisz.mtak.hu/index.php/en/283-hungarian-consortium-terminates-negotiations-with-elsevier.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Negotiations were ended by the Hungarian consortium in December 2018, and the subscription was not renewed.<ref name="editors-resign">{{cite news|last1=McKenzie|first1=Lindsay|title=Elsevier journal editors resign, start rival open-access journal|url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/14/elsevier-journal-editors-resign-start-rival-open-access-journal|access-date=16 January 2019|work=Inside Higher Ed |date=14 January 2019|archive-date=28 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211228034352/https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/14/elsevier-journal-editors-resign-start-rival-open-access-journal|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Iran ===
In 2013, Elsevier changed its policies in response to sanctions announced by the US [[Office of Foreign Assets Control]] that year. This included a request that all Elsevier journals avoid publishing papers by Iranian nationals who are employed by the Iranian government.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/articles/scientific-sanctions-a-catastrophe-for-the-civilised-world/?galley=print|title=Scientific sanctions: A catastrophe for the civilized world|first=Behnam|last=Baghianimoghadam|journal=[[Indian Journal of Medical Ethics]]|date=9 February 2014|volume=11|issue=2|page=130|pmid=24727630|access-date=25 December 2018|archive-date=14 March 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220314184545/https://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/articles/scientific-sanctions-a-catastrophe-for-the-civilised-world/?galley=print|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://en.farsnews.ir/print.aspx?nn=13920814000991 |title=Taylor & Francis group bans publication of articles by Iranian authors |website=Fars News |date=5 November 2013 |access-date=3 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181226084301/https://en.farsnews.ir/print.aspx?nn=13920814000991 |archive-date=26 December 2018 }}</ref> Elsevier executive Mark Seeley expressed regret on behalf of the company, but did not announce an intention to challenge this interpretation of the law.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.elsevier.com/connect/trade-sanctions-against-iran-affect-publishers|first=Mark|last=Seeley|title=Trade sanctions against Iran affect publishers|publisher=Elsevier|date=9 May 2013|access-date=25 December 2018|archive-date=26 December 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181226084256/https://www.elsevier.com/connect/trade-sanctions-against-iran-affect-publishers|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Italy ===
CRUI (an association of Italian universities) sealed a 5-year-long deal for 2018–2022,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.crui.it/archivio-notizie/i-ricercatori-italiani-potranno-beneficiare-dell%E2%80%99accesso-continuo-al-database-sciencedirect-di-elsevie.html |title=I ricercatori italiani potranno beneficiare dell'accesso continuo al database ScienceDirect di Elsevier |website=Conferenza dei Rettori delle Università italiane |access-date=3 March 2021 |language=Italian |trans-title=Italian researchers will benefit from continuous access to Elsevier's ScienceDirect database |archive-date=26 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210126072828/https://www.crui.it/archivio-notizie/i-ricercatori-italiani-potranno-beneficiare-dell%E2%80%99accesso-continuo-al-database-sciencedirect-di-elsevie.html |url-status=live }}</ref> despite protests from the scientific community, protests focused on aspects such as the lack of prevention of cost increases by means of the [[Double dipping (publishing)|double dipping]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.roars.it/online/svezia-italia-1-0-berlino-2018-italia-fanalino-di-coda-nellopen-science/ |title=Svezia-Italia 1-0. Berlino 2018: Italia fanalino di coda nell'Open Science |date=10 December 2018 |last=Galimberti |first=Paola |newspaper=Roars: Returns on Academic Research |access-date=3 March 2021 |language=Italian |trans-title=Sweden-Italy 1-0. Berlin 2018: Italy lagging behind in Open Science |archive-date=16 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210116205458/https://www.roars.it/online/svezia-italia-1-0-berlino-2018-italia-fanalino-di-coda-nellopen-science/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Netherlands ===
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. Gerard Meijer, president of [[Radboud University]] in [[Nijmegen]] and lead negotiator on the Dutch side noted, "it's not the 100% that I hoped for".<ref name="nature1">{{cite journal|last1=Schiermeier|first1=Quirin|last2=Mega|first2=Emiliano Rodríguez|title=Scientists in Germany, Peru and Taiwan to lose access to Elsevier journals|journal=Nature|volume=541|issue=7635|pages=13|doi=10.1038/nature.2016.21223|pmid=28054621|bibcode=2017Natur.541...13S|year=2016|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bohannon|first1=John|title=In unique deal, Elsevier agrees to make some papers by Dutch authors free|url=https://www.science.org/content/article/unique-deal-elsevier-agrees-make-some-papers-dutch-authors-free|journal=Science|access-date=27 December 2016|date=11 December 2015|doi=10.1126/science.aad7565|doi-access=free|archive-date=20 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220120080031/https://www.science.org/content/article/unique-deal-elsevier-agrees-make-some-papers-dutch-authors-free|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Dutch Universities and Elsevier reach agreement in principle - Library UvA - University of Amsterdam|url=https://uba.uva.nl/en/news/news/content/2015/12/elsevier-deal.html|publisher=Universiteit van Amsterdam|access-date=27 December 2016|date=12 October 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227130822/https://uba.uva.nl/en/news/news/content/2015/12/elsevier-deal.html|archive-date=27 December 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://medium.com/@SiccodeKnecht/how-elsevier-plans-to-sabotage-open-access-76fbd46593ae |title=How Elsevier plans to sabotage Open Access |last=De Knecht |first=Sicco |date=25 March 2017 |website=Medium |access-date=3 March 2021 |archive-date=28 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170328062324/https://medium.com/@SiccodeKnecht/how-elsevier-plans-to-sabotage-open-access-76fbd46593ae |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Norway ===
In March 2019, the Norwegian government on behalf of 44 institutions &mdash; universities, university colleges, research institutes, and hospitals &mdash; decided to break negotiations on renewal of their subscription deal with Elsevier, because of disagreement regarding open-access policy and Elsevier's unwillingness to reduce the cost of reading access.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.mynewsdesk.com/no/unit/pressreleases/norwegian-research-institutions-have-decided-not-to-renew-their-agreement-with-elsevier-2846284|title=Norwegian research institutions have decided not to renew their agreement with Elsevier|date=12 March 2019|website=UNIT|access-date=12 March 2019|archive-date=12 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190312104624/https://www.mynewsdesk.com/no/unit/pressreleases/norwegian-research-institutions-have-decided-not-to-renew-their-agreement-with-elsevier-2846284|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== South Korea ===
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.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://news.unn.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=183521 |title=70여개 대학 도서관, 새해 첫 날부터 일부 논문 못 봐 - 한국대학신문 |author=Kim Jung-hyun |date=29 December 2017 |access-date=3 March 2021 |language=ko-KR |trans-title=70 University Libraries Can't See Some Papers From New Year's Day |archive-date=9 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109041530/http://news.unn.net/news/articleView.html?idxno=183521 |url-status=live }}</ref> It was subsequently confirmed that an agreement had been reached.<ref>{{cite journal|url=https://www.science.org/content/article/south-korean-universities-reach-agreement-elsevier-after-long-standoff|title=South Korean universities reach agreement with Elsevier after long standoff|date=15 January 2018|journal=Science|access-date=16 January 2018|archive-date=15 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215075908/https://www.science.org/content/article/south-korean-universities-reach-agreement-elsevier-after-long-standoff|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Sweden ===
In May 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,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/sweden-cancels-elsevier-contract-open-access-dispute-spreads|title=Sweden cancels Elsevier contract as open-access dispute spreads|date=16 May 2018|website=www.timeshighereducation.com|access-date=5 March 2019|archive-date=6 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190306044618/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/sweden-cancels-elsevier-contract-open-access-dispute-spreads|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="sparc">{{citation|url=https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-cancellation-tracking/|title=Big Deal Cancellation Tracking|work=Sparcopen.org|publisher=[[Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition]]|location=US|access-date=30 June 2018|archive-date=30 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180630105134/https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-cancellation-tracking/|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.kb.se/bibliotek/centrala-avtal/|title=Bibsamkonsortiet - Kungliga biblioteket|last=annwen|website=www.kb.se|language=SV|access-date=31 May 2018|archive-date=30 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180630105807/http://www.kb.se/bibliotek/centrala-avtal/|url-status=live}}</ref> Swedish universities will still have access to articles published before 30 June 2018. Astrid Söderbergh Widding, chairman of the Bibsam Consortium, said, "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".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://openaccess.blogg.kb.se/2018/05/16/sweden-stands-up-for-open-access-cancels-agreement-with-elsevier/|title=Sweden stands up for open access – cancels agreement with Elsevier|date=16 May 2018|work=OpenAccess.se|access-date=30 May 2018|language=sv-SE|archive-date=22 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180522133021/http://openaccess.blogg.kb.se/2018/05/16/sweden-stands-up-for-open-access-cancels-agreement-with-elsevier/|url-status=live}}</ref> Sweden has a goal of open access by 2026.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://openaccess.blogg.kb.se/2018/05/16/sweden-stands-up-for-open-access-cancels-agreement-with-elsevier/|title=Sweden stands up for open access – cancels agreement with Elsevier|last=Wentzel|first=Annica|date=16 May 2018|website=openaccess.blogg.kb.se|access-date=6 March 2019|archive-date=3 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190403073606/https://openaccess.blogg.kb.se/2018/05/16/sweden-stands-up-for-open-access-cancels-agreement-with-elsevier/|url-status=live}}</ref> In November 2019 the negotiations concluded, with Sweden paying for reading access to Elsevier journals and open access publishing for all its researchers' articles.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.kb.se/samverkan-och-utveckling/nytt-fran-kb/nyheter-samverkan-och-utveckling/2019-11-22-%E2%80%8Bnew-transformative-agreement-with-elsevier-enables-unlimited-open-access-to-swedish-research.html|title=New transformative agreement with Elsevier enables unlimited open access to Swedish research|access-date=3 July 2020|publisher=Kungliga Biblioteket|archive-date=3 July 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200703091542/https://www.kb.se/samverkan-och-utveckling/nytt-fran-kb/nyheter-samverkan-och-utveckling/2019-11-22-%E2%80%8Bnew-transformative-agreement-with-elsevier-enables-unlimited-open-access-to-swedish-research.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Taiwan ===
In Taiwan, more than 75% of universities, including the country'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.<ref name="nature1" /><ref>{{cite web|title=關於Elsevier資料庫合約談判 CONCERT聲明|url=https://concert.stpi.narl.org.tw/news/249|access-date=27 December 2016|archive-date=27 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227130414/https://concert.stpi.narl.org.tw/news/249|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Taiwan Tech to Discontinue Subscription to Elsevier ScienceDirect Starting 2017 - NTUST Library|url=https://library.ntust.edu.tw/files/14-1025-58346,r1-1.php?Lang=en|access-date=27 December 2016|archive-date=27 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161227062141/https://library.ntust.edu.tw/files/14-1025-58346,r1-1.php?Lang=en|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/asia-advances-open-access-research_us_58dd0e6de4b0fa4c09598679|title=Asia Advances Open Access Research|last=Schmitt|first=Jason|date=30 March 2017|website=Huffington Post|access-date=29 April 2017|archive-date=25 April 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170425061726/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/asia-advances-open-access-research_us_58dd0e6de4b0fa4c09598679|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== United States ===
In March 2018, [[Florida State University]]'s faculty elected to cancel its $2 million subscription to a bundle of several journals. Starting in 2019, it will instead buy access to titles'' à la carte''.<ref name="sparc" />

In February 2019, the [[University of California]] said it would terminate subscriptions "in [a] push for open access to publicly funded research".<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-terminates-subscriptions-worlds-largest-scientific-publisher-push-open-access-publicly|title=UC terminates subscriptions with world's largest scientific publisher in push for open access to publicly funded research|date=28 February 2019|website=www.universityofcalifornia.edu|access-date=6 March 2019|archive-date=5 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190305182059/https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-terminates-subscriptions-worlds-largest-scientific-publisher-push-open-access-publicly|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://phys.org/news/2019-03-university-california-terminates-subscriptions-elsevier.html|title=University of California terminates subscriptions to Elsevier|last=Yirka|first=Bob|date=4 March 2019|website=phys.org|access-date=6 March 2019|archive-date=6 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190306044640/https://phys.org/news/2019-03-university-california-terminates-subscriptions-elsevier.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="AT 2019-03">{{cite news|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/uc-elsevier-publisher/583909/|title=The Real Cost of Knowledge|last=Zhang|first=Sarah|date=4 March 2019|work=[[The Atlantic]]|access-date=6 March 2019|archive-date=6 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190306043402/https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/uc-elsevier-publisher/583909/|url-status=live}}</ref> After months of negotiations over open access to research by UC researchers and prices for subscriptions to Elsevier journals, a press release by the UC Office of the President issued Thursday, 28 February 2019 stated "Under Elsevier's proposed terms, the publisher would have charged UC authors large publishing fees on top of the university's multimillion dollar subscription, resulting in much greater cost to the university and much higher profits for Elsevier."<ref name=":0" /><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-uc-split-publishing-giant-elsevier|title=Why UC split with publishing giant Elsevier|last1=Kell|first1=Gretchen|last2=Berkeley|first2=U. C.|date=6 March 2019|website=University of California|access-date=12 June 2019|archive-date=28 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190528210826/https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-uc-split-publishing-giant-elsevier|url-status=live}}</ref> On 10 July 2019, Elsevier began restricting access to all new paywalled articles and approximately 5% of paywalled articles published before 2019.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.statnews.com/2019/07/10/university-of-california-loses-access-to-new-journal-articles-published-by-elsevier-after-research-access-fight|title=University of California loses access to new journal articles published by Elsevier after research access fight|website=statnews.com|access-date=10 July 2019|date=10 July 2019|archive-date=10 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190710200028/https://www.statnews.com/2019/07/10/university-of-california-loses-access-to-new-journal-articles-published-by-elsevier-after-research-access-fight/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In April 2020, the [[University of North Carolina]] elected not to renew its bundled Elsevier package, citing a failure "to provide an affordable path".<ref>{{cite web|title=Upcoming Elsevier Cancellations|work=UNC-Chapel Hill Libraries |date=9 April 2020 |url=https://library.unc.edu/2020/04/upcoming-elsevier-cancellations|publisher=University of North Carolina|access-date=9 April 2020|archive-date=10 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200410022737/https://library.unc.edu/2020/04/upcoming-elsevier-cancellations/|url-status=live |last1=Panitch |first1=Judy }}</ref> Rather than extend the license, which was stated to cost $2.6 million annually, the university decided to continue subscribing to a smaller set of individual journals. The [[State University of New York]] Libraries Consortium also announced similar outcome,<ref>{{Cite news|publisher=Inside Highered|url=https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/04/13/suny-cancels-big-deal-elsevier|title=SUNY Cancels Big Deal With Elsevier|date=13 April 2020|access-date=16 April 2020|archive-date=21 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210921002922/https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/04/13/suny-cancels-big-deal-elsevier|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|publisher=SUNY Libraries Consortium (SLC)|title=State University of New York Steps Away From the "Big Deal" with Elsevier|url=https://slcny.libguides.com/slc/elsevier2020update|date=7 April 2020|access-date=16 April 2020|archive-date=18 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200418101851/http://slcny.libguides.com/slc/elsevier2020update|url-status=live}}</ref> with the help of estimates from [[Unpaywall Journals]].<ref>{{cite web|access-date=18 April 2020|title=SUNY Negotiates New, Modified Agreement with Elsevier - Libraries News Center University at Buffalo Libraries|url=https://library.buffalo.edu/news/2020/04/07/suny-negotiates-new-modified-agreement-with-elsevier/|website=library.buffalo.edu|archive-date=6 December 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201206111125/https://library.buffalo.edu/news/2020/04/07/suny-negotiates-new-modified-agreement-with-elsevier/|url-status=live}}</ref> Similarly, [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]] announced in June 2020 that it would no longer pay for access to new Elsevier articles.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://news.mit.edu/2020/guided-by-open-access-principles-mit-ends-elsevier-negotiations-0611|access-date=11 June 2020|title=MIT, guided by open access principles, ends Elsevier negotiations|date=11 June 2020 |archive-date=22 September 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210922192025/https://news.mit.edu/2020/guided-by-open-access-principles-mit-ends-elsevier-negotiations-0611|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=McKenzie|first1=Lindsay|title=MIT Ends Negotiations with Elsevier|url=https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/06/12/mit-ends-negotiations-elsevier|access-date=12 June 2020|work=Inside Higher Ed|date=12 June 2020|archive-date=12 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200612153424/https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2020/06/12/mit-ends-negotiations-elsevier|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2022, Elsevier and the [[University of Michigan]] established an agreement to support authors who wish to publish open access.<ref>{{Cite web|title=University of Michigan|url=https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/agreements/university-of-michigan|access-date=16 February 2022|website=www.elsevier.com|archive-date=16 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220216111934/https://www.elsevier.com/open-access/agreements/university-of-michigan|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Ukraine ===
In June 2020, the Ukrainian government cancelled subscriptions for all universities in the country after failed negotiations. The Ministry of Education claimed that Elsevier indexes journals in its register that call themselves Russian but are from "occupied territories".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://mon.gov.ua/ua/news/indeksaciya-naukovih-zhurnaliv-sho-vidayutsya-na-timchasovo-okupovanih-teritoriyah-ukrayini-ye-grubim-porushennyam-zakonodavstva-ukrayini-i-mizhnarodnogo-prava-poziciya-mon|website=mon.gov.ua|title=Індексація наукових журналів, що видаються на тимчасово окупованих територіях україни, є грубим порушенням законодавства України і міжнародного права – позиція МОН|date=22 July 2020|publisher=Ministry of Education of Ukraine|access-date=4 September 2020|archive-date=12 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200812212027/https://mon.gov.ua/ua/news/indeksaciya-naukovih-zhurnaliv-sho-vidayutsya-na-timchasovo-okupovanih-teritoriyah-ukrayini-ye-grubim-porushennyam-zakonodavstva-ukrayini-i-mizhnarodnogo-prava-poziciya-mon|url-status=live}}</ref>

== Criticism of academic practices ==
{{Very long section|date=March 2025}}
=== Lacking dissemination of its research ===

==== Lobbying efforts against open access ====
Elsevier have been known to be involved in lobbying against open access.<ref>{{cite web |title=Lobbying Spending Database - RELX Group, 2017 |url=https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000067394&year=2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170830193339/https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000067394&year=2017 |archive-date=30 August 2017 |access-date=30 August 2017 |website=Opensecrets.org}}</ref> These have included the likes of:
*The [[Federal Research Public Access Act]] (FRPAA)<ref>{{cite web |title=Federal Research Public Access Act (Alliance for Taxpayer Access) |url=https://www.taxpayeraccess.org/issues/frpaa/index.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170324042933/https://www.taxpayeraccess.org/issues/frpaa/index.shtml |archive-date=24 March 2017 |access-date=25 March 2017 |website=Taxpayeraccess.org}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=27 February 2012 |title=Legislation to Bar Public-Access Requirement on Federal Research Is Dead |url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/Legislation-to-Bar/130949/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170326052954/http://www.chronicle.com/article/Legislation-to-Bar/130949/ |archive-date=26 March 2017 |access-date=25 March 2017 |work=The Chronicle of Higher Education}}</ref>
*The [[Research Works Act]]<ref>{{Cite news |date=3 March 2013 |title=How Corporations Score Big Profits By Limiting Access To Publicly Funded Academic Research |url=https://thinkprogress.org/how-corporations-score-big-profits-by-limiting-access-to-publicly-funded-academic-research-fcee09671b22#.joxfvmi94 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180201075449/https://thinkprogress.org/how-corporations-score-big-profits-by-limiting-access-to-publicly-funded-academic-research-fcee09671b22/#.joxfvmi94 |archive-date=1 February 2018 |access-date=25 March 2017 |work=ThinkProgress}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Price |first=Richard |date=15 February 2012 |title=The Dangerous "Research Works Act" |url=https://techcrunch.com/2012/02/15/the-dangerous-research-works-act/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130312102036/http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/15/the-dangerous-research-works-act/ |archive-date=12 March 2013 |access-date=25 March 2017 |website=TechCrunch}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Hu |first=Jane C. |title=Academics Want You to Read Their Work for Free |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/01/elsevier-academic-publishing-petition/427059/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170326052319/https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/01/elsevier-academic-publishing-petition/427059/ |archive-date=26 March 2017 |access-date=25 March 2017 |work=The Atlantic}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Elsevier |title=Message on the Research Works Act |url=https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/message-on-the-research-works-act |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170326051344/https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/message-on-the-research-works-act |archive-date=26 March 2017 |access-date=25 March 2017 |website=Elsevier.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Kakaes |first=Konstantin |date=28 February 2012 |title=Scientists' Victory Over the Research Works Act Is Like the SOPA Defeat |url=https://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/02/28/research_works_act_elsevier_and_politicians_back_down_from_open_access_threat_.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170330205915/http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/02/28/research_works_act_elsevier_and_politicians_back_down_from_open_access_threat_.html |archive-date=30 March 2017 |access-date=25 March 2017 |work=Slate |issn=1091-2339}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=28 February 2012 |title=Elsevier withdraws support from Research Works Act, bill collapses |url=https://boingboing.net/2012/02/28/elsevier-withdraws-support-fro.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170226100343/http://boingboing.net/2012/02/28/elsevier-withdraws-support-fro.html |archive-date=26 February 2017 |access-date=25 March 2017 |website=Boing Boing}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=16 January 2012 |title=Academic publishers have become the enemies of science |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/16/academic-publishers-enemies-science |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210818054256/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/16/academic-publishers-enemies-science |archive-date=18 August 2021 |access-date=26 March 2017 |work=The Guardian |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>
*PRISM.<ref>{{cite news |title=Elsevier, Wiley are getting PR advice from Eric Dezenhall |url=https://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2007/01/27/elsevier-wiley-are-getting-pr/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170326135753/http://scienceblogs.com/transcript/2007/01/27/elsevier-wiley-are-getting-pr/ |archive-date=26 March 2017 |access-date=25 March 2017 |work=Transcription and Translation}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Dyer |first=Owen |date=3 February 2007 |title=Publishers hire PR heavyweight to defend themselves against open access |journal=BMJ: British Medical Journal |volume=334 |issue=7587 |pages=227 |doi=10.1136/bmj.39112.439051.DB |issn=0959-8138 |pmc=1790741 |pmid=17272546}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |date=4 June 2013 |title=Scientific Publishers Offer Solution to White House's Public Access Mandate |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/scientific-publishers-offer-solution-white-houses-public-access-mandate |url-status=live |journal=Science |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215075910/https://www.science.org/content/article/scientific-publishers-offer-solution-white-houses-public-access-mandate |archive-date=15 February 2022 |access-date=25 March 2017}}</ref> In the case of PRISM, the [[Association of American Publishers]] hired [[Eric Dezenhall]], the so-called "Pit Bull Of Public Relations"<ref>{{Cite news |date=17 April 2006 |title="The Pit Bull Of Public Relations" - Bloomberg |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-04-16/the-pit-bull-of-public-relations |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170407020817/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-04-16/the-pit-bull-of-public-relations |archive-date=7 April 2017 |access-date=25 March 2017 |work=Bloomberg.com}}</ref>
*[[Horizon 2020]]<ref>{{cite news |date=17 May 2012 |title=Muscle from Brussels as open access gets an €80bn boost |url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/muscle-from-brussels-as-open-access-gets-an-80bn-boost/419949.article |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170327081702/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/muscle-from-brussels-as-open-access-gets-an-80bn-boost/419949.article |archive-date=27 March 2017 |access-date=26 March 2017 |work=Times Higher Education (THE)}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=17 May 2012 |title=Horizon 2020 to promote open access |url=https://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/horizon-2020-to-promote-open-access/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170327080814/https://gowers.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/horizon-2020-to-promote-open-access/ |archive-date=27 March 2017 |access-date=26 March 2017 |website=Gowers's Weblog}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |date=24 May 2012 |title=Horizon 2020: A €80 Billion Battlefield for Open Access |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/horizon-2020-80-billion-battlefield-open-access |url-status=live |journal=Science |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220629160856/https://www.science.org/content/article/horizon-2020-80-billion-battlefield-open-access |archive-date=29 June 2022 |access-date=26 March 2017}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=European Union links research grants to open access |url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/05/17/european-union-links-research-grants-open-access |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170327174328/https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/05/17/european-union-links-research-grants-open-access |archive-date=27 March 2017 |access-date=26 March 2017}}</ref>
*[[Office of Science and Technology Policy]] (OSTP)<ref>{{cite news |date=26 February 2013 |title=Inside Higher Ed: Big push for open access |url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/inside-higher-ed-big-push-for-open-access/2002057.article |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170327080950/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/inside-higher-ed-big-push-for-open-access/2002057.article |archive-date=27 March 2017 |access-date=26 March 2017 |work=Times Higher Education (THE)}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=22 May 2013 |title=Elsevier distances itself from open-access article |url=https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/elsevier-distances-itself-from-open-access-article/2004055.article |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170327081327/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/elsevier-distances-itself-from-open-access-article/2004055.article |archive-date=27 March 2017 |access-date=26 March 2017 |work=Times Higher Education (THE)}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date=3 March 2013 |title=How Corporations Score Big Profits By Limiting Access To Publicly Funded Academic Research |url=https://thinkprogress.org/how-corporations-score-big-profits-by-limiting-access-to-publicly-funded-academic-research-fcee09671b22#.u06x7x9zu |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180201075449/https://thinkprogress.org/how-corporations-score-big-profits-by-limiting-access-to-publicly-funded-academic-research-fcee09671b22/#.u06x7x9zu |archive-date=1 February 2018 |access-date=26 March 2017 |work=ThinkProgress}}</ref>
*The [[European Union]]'s [[Open science|Open Science]] Monitor was criticised after Elsevier were confirmed as a subcontractor<ref>{{Cite news |title=Hated Science Publisher Elsevier To Help EU Monitor Open Science - Including Open Access |url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180402/09131239544/hated-science-publisher-elsevier-to-help-eu-monitor-open-science-including-open-access.shtml |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180405014800/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180402/09131239544/hated-science-publisher-elsevier-to-help-eu-monitor-open-science-including-open-access.shtml |archive-date=5 April 2018 |access-date=5 April 2018 |work=Techdirt.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Lykkja |first1=Pål Magnus |last2=Myklebust |first2=Jan Petter |date=17 March 2018 |title=Open science in the EU – Will the astroturfers take over? |url=https://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20180317044918836 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180318145545/http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20180317044918836 |archive-date=18 March 2018 |access-date=13 April 2018 |website=University World News}}</ref>
*[[UK Research and Innovation|UK Research and Innovation.]]<ref>{{cite news |date=5 August 2021 |title=Elsevier lobbying UKRI last minute over funder's OA policy |url=https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-open-access-2021-8-elsevier-lobbying-ukri-last-minute-over-funder-s-oa-policy/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210805121159/https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-open-access-2021-8-elsevier-lobbying-ukri-last-minute-over-funder-s-oa-policy/ |archive-date=5 August 2021 |access-date=5 August 2021 |work=Research Professional News}}</ref>

===== Selling open-access articles =====
In 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017,<ref>{{cite news |author=Ross Mounce |date=20 February 2017 |title=Hybrid open access is unreliable |url=https://rossmounce.co.uk/2017/02/20/hybrid-open-access-is-unreliable/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180620191427/http://rossmounce.co.uk/2017/02/20/hybrid-open-access-is-unreliable/ |archive-date=20 June 2018 |access-date=30 April 2018}}</ref> Elsevier was found to be selling some articles that should have been open access, but had been put behind a paywall.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Jump |first1=Paul |date=27 March 2014 |title=Elsevier: bumps on road to open access |url=https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/elsevier-bumps-on-road-to-open-access/2012238.article |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150310222805/http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/elsevier-bumps-on-road-to-open-access/2012238.article |archive-date=10 March 2015 |access-date=9 March 2015 |work=[[Times Higher Education]]}}</ref> A related case occurred in 2015, when Elsevier charged for downloading an open-access article from a journal published by [[John Wiley & Sons]]. However, whether Elsevier was in violation of the license under which the article was made available on their website was not clear.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Vollmer |first1=Timothy |date=13 March 2015 |title=Are commercial publishers wrongly selling access to openly licensed scholarly articles? |url=https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/45175 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150315032557/http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/45175 |archive-date=15 March 2015 |access-date=14 March 2015 |work=Creative Commons News}}</ref>

===== Action against academics posting their own articles online =====
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]],<ref>{{cite news |author=Mike Masnick |title=Elsevier Ramps Up Its War On Access To Knowledge |url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131218/00393725601/elsevier-ramps-up-its-war-access-to-knowledge.shtml |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180412001756/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131218/00393725601/elsevier-ramps-up-its-war-access-to-knowledge.shtml |archive-date=12 April 2018 |access-date=1 May 2018 |newspaper=[[Techdirt]]}}</ref> the university complied. [[Harvard University]] and the [[University of California, Irvine]] also received [[Notice and take down|takedown notices]] for self-archived academic articles, a first for Harvard, according to [[Peter Suber]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Peterson |first1=Andrea |date=19 December 2013 |title=How one publisher is stopping academics from sharing their research |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/19/how-one-publisher-is-stopping-academics-from-sharing-their-research/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150106141817/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/19/how-one-publisher-is-stopping-academics-from-sharing-their-research/ |archive-date=6 January 2015 |access-date=6 January 2015 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Masnick |first1=Mike |date=20 December 2013 |title=Elsevier Ramps Up Its War On Access To Knowledge |url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131218/00393725601/elsevier-ramps-up-its-war-access-to-knowledge.shtml |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180412001756/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131218/00393725601/elsevier-ramps-up-its-war-access-to-knowledge.shtml |archive-date=12 April 2018 |access-date=6 January 2015 |work=[[Techdirt]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=How one publisher is stopping academics from sharing their research |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/12/19/how-one-publisher-is-stopping-academics-from-sharing-their-research/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161119234726/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/12/19/how-one-publisher-is-stopping-academics-from-sharing-their-research/ |archive-date=19 November 2016 |access-date=26 March 2017 |newspaper=Washington Post}}</ref>

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 complaints by academics, according to Academia.edu founder and chief executive Richard Price.<ref name="Parr2014">{{cite journal |last1=Parr |first1=Chris |date=12 June 2014 |title=Sharing is a way of life for millions on Academia.edu |url=https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/sharing-is-a-way-of-life-for-millions-on-academiaedu/2013839.article?nopaging=1 |url-status=live |journal=Times Higher Education |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230208173402/https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/sharing-is-a-way-of-life-for-millions-on-academiaedu/2013839.article?nopaging=1 |archive-date=8 February 2023 |access-date=14 September 2015}}</ref><ref name="Howard2013">{{cite journal |last1=Howard |first1=Jennifer |date=6 December 2013 |title=Posting Your Latest Article? You Might Have to Take It Down |url=https://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865 |url-status=live |journal=The Chronicle of Higher Education |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150908075810/http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/posting-your-latest-article-you-might-have-to-take-it-down/48865 |archive-date=8 September 2015 |access-date=14 September 2015}}</ref>

After Elsevier acquired the repository [[SSRN]] in May 2016, academics started complaining that some of their work had been removed without notice. The action was explained as a technical error.<ref>Mike Masnick [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160718/02211935003/just-as-open-competitor-to-elseviers-ssrn-launches-ssrn-accused-copyright-crackdown.shtml ''SSRN accused of copyright crackdown''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180625214815/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160718/02211935003/just-as-open-competitor-to-elseviers-ssrn-launches-ssrn-accused-copyright-crackdown.shtml|date=25 June 2018}}, Techdirt.</ref>

===== Sci-Hub and LibGen lawsuit =====
In 2015, Elsevier filed a lawsuit against the sites [[Sci-Hub]] and [[Library Genesis|LibGen]], which make copyright-protected articles available for free. Elsevier also claimed illegal access to institutional accounts.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McLaughlin |first=Stephen Reid |date=18 March 2016 |title=Elsevier v. Sci-Hub on the docket |url=https://www.stephenmclaughlin.net/2016/03/18/elsevier-v-sci-hub-on-the-docket/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160627074218/http://www.stephenmclaughlin.net/2016/03/18/elsevier-v-sci-hub-on-the-docket/ |archive-date=27 June 2016 |access-date=28 June 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=17 December 2015 |title=Simba Information: Five Professional Publishing News Events of 2015 Signal Times Are A-Changin' |url=https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/simba-information-five-professional-publishing-news-events-of-2015-signal-times-are-a-changin-300194611.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160520230451/http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/simba-information-five-professional-publishing-news-events-of-2015-signal-times-are-a-changin-300194611.html |archive-date=20 May 2016 |access-date=28 June 2016 |website=PR Newswire}}</ref>

===== Initial rejection of the Initiative for Open Citations =====
Among the major academic publishers, Elsevier alone declined to join the [[Initiative for Open Citations]]. In the context of the resignation of the ''Journal of Informetrics''{{'}} editorial board, the firm stated: "Elsevier invests significantly in citation extraction technology. While these are made available to those who wish to license this data, Elsevier cannot make such a large corpus of data, to which it has added significant value, available for free."<ref name="Elsevier">{{cite web |last=Reller |first=Tom |date=15 January 2019 |title=About the resignation of the Journal of Informetrics Editorial Board |url=https://www.elsevier.com/connect/about-the-resignation-of-the-journal-of-informetrics-editorial-board |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190810004223/https://www.elsevier.com/connect/about-the-resignation-of-the-journal-of-informetrics-editorial-board |archive-date=10 August 2019 |access-date=15 March 2019 |work=Elsevier Connect}}</ref>

Elsevier finally joined the initiative in January 2021 after the data was already available with an [[Open Data Commons]] license in [[Microsoft Academic]].<ref name="leid_Q&Aa">{{Cite web |last=Waltman |first=Ludo |date=22 December 2020 |title=Q&A about Elsevier's decision to open its citations |url=https://leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/q-a-about-elseviers-decision-to-open-its-citation |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210610215701/https://leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/q-a-about-elseviers-decision-to-open-its-citation |archive-date=10 June 2021 |access-date=11 June 2021 |work=Leiden Madtrics |publisher=[[Universiteit Leiden]]}}</ref>

===== ResearchGate take down =====
A chamber of the Munich Regional Court has ruled that the research networking site ResearchGate has to take down articles uploaded without consent from their original publishers and [[ResearchGate]] must take down Elsevier articles. A case was brought forward in 2017 by the [[Coalition for Responsible Sharing]], a group of publishers that includes Elsevier and the [[American Chemical Society]].<ref>{{cite web |date=15 February 2022 |title=ResearchGate must take down Elsevier articles, court rules |url=https://researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-germany-2022-2-researchgate-must-take-down-elsevier-articles-court-rules/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215160818/https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-europe-germany-2022-2-researchgate-must-take-down-elsevier-articles-court-rules/ |archive-date=15 February 2022 |access-date=15 February 2022 |website=Research Professional News}}</ref>

===== Resignation of editorial boards =====
The editorial boards of a number of journals have resigned because of disputes with Elsevier over pricing:
* In 1999, the entire editorial board of the ''[[Journal of Logic Programming]]'' resigned after 16 months of unsuccessful negotiations with Elsevier about the price of library subscriptions.<ref name="birman">[[Joan Birman|Birman, Joan]]. "[https://www.ams.org/notices/200007/forum-birman.pdf Scientific publishing: a mathematician's viewpoint] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210412151956/http://www.ams.org/notices/200007/forum-birman.pdf|date=12 April 2021}}". ''[[Notices of the AMS]]''. Vol. 47, No. 7, August 2000.</ref> The personnel created a new journal, ''Theory and Practice of Logic Programming'', with [[Cambridge University Press]] at a much lower price,<ref name="birman" /> while Elsevier continued publication with a new editorial board and a slightly different name (the ''[[Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming]]'').
* 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]]''.<ref>{{cite web |author=EffeDesign |title=The EEA's journal: a brief history |url=https://www.eeassoc.org/index.php?page=14 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131227021455/http://www.eeassoc.org/index.php?page=14 |archive-date=27 December 2013 |access-date=26 December 2013 |publisher=Eeassoc.org}}</ref> 
* 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,<ref>{{cite web |title=Changes at the Journal of Algorithms |url=https://www.cs.colorado.edu/~hal/s.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130112222907/http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~hal/s.pdf |archive-date=12 January 2013 |access-date=26 December 2013}}</ref> at the suggestion of ''Journal of Algorithms'' founder [[Donald Knuth]].<ref>{{cite web |author=Donald Knuth |date=25 October 2003 |title=Letter to the editorial board of the Journal of Algorithms |url=https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/joalet.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080406004348/http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/joalet.pdf |archive-date=6 April 2008 |access-date=18 February 2008}}</ref> The ''Journal of Algorithms'' continued under Elsevier with a new editorial board until October 2009, when it was discontinued.<ref>{{cite web |title=Journal of Algorithms page at ScienceDirect |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01966774 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130627022129/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01966774 |archive-date=27 June 2013 |access-date=26 December 2013 |publisher=Sciencedirect.com}}</ref>
* In 2005, the editors of the ''International Journal of Solids and Structures'' 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Journal declarations of independence |url=https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Journal_declarations_of_independence#2005 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120503001428/http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Journal_declarations_of_independence#2005 |archive-date=3 May 2012 |access-date=23 May 2012 |work=Open Access Directory |publisher=Simmons College}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Kyriakides |first=Stelios |author2=Hills, David A. |date=1 January 2006 |title=Editorial |journal=International Journal of Solids and Structures |volume=43 |issue=1 |page=1 |doi=10.1016/j.ijsolstr.2005.11.001 |quote=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. |doi-access=free}}</ref> 
* In 2006, the entire editorial board of the distinguished [[mathematical journal]] ''[[Topology (journal)|Topology]]'' resigned because of stalled negotiations with Elsevier to lower the subscription price.<ref>{{cite web |date=10 August 2006 |title=Resignation letter from the editors of Topology |url=https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/topology-letter.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080511212648/http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/topology-letter.pdf |archive-date=11 May 2008 |access-date=18 February 2008}}</ref> This board then launched the new ''[[Journal of Topology]]'' at a far lower price, under the auspices of the [[London Mathematical Society]].<ref>[https://www.lms.ac.uk/publications/jtop.html Journal of Topology] (pub. London Mathematical Society) {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070207123258/https://www.lms.ac.uk/publications/jtop.html|date=7 February 2007}}</ref> ''Topology'' then remained in circulation under a new editorial board until 2009.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://www.journals.elsevier.com/topology/ |title=Topology |publisher=elsevier.com |access-date=13 March 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402124324/http://www.journals.elsevier.com/topology/ |archive-date=2 April 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Topology page at ScienceDirect |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00409383/48/2-4 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130119001301/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00409383/48/2-4 |archive-date=19 January 2013 |access-date=26 December 2013 |publisher=Sciencedirect.com}}</ref>
* In 2023, the editorial board of the open access journal [[NeuroImage]] resigned and started a new journal because of Elsevier's unwillingness to reduce article-processing charges.<ref name="NeuroImage2023" /> The editors called Elsevier's $3,450 per article processing charge "unethical and unsustainable".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Zahneis |first=Megan |date=21 April 2023 |title='It Feels Like Things Are Breaking Open': High Publishing Charges Spur Neuroscientists to Start Own Journal |url=https://www.chronicle.com/article/it-feels-like-things-are-breaking-open-high-access-charges-spur-neuroscientists-to-start-their-own-journal |url-status=live |journal=The Chronicle of Higher Education |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230424093457/https://www.chronicle.com/article/it-feels-like-things-are-breaking-open-high-access-charges-spur-neuroscientists-to-start-their-own-journal |archive-date=24 April 2023 |access-date=24 April 2023}}</ref>

Editorial boards have also resigned over open access policies or other issues:
* In 2015, [[Stephen Leeder]] was removed from his role as editor of the ''[[Medical Journal of Australia]]'' when 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.<ref>{{cite web |date=3 May 2015 |title=Medical journal editor sacked and editorial committee resigns |url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/medical-journal-editor-sacked-and-editorial-committee-resigns-20150503-1myr8q.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150506230840/http://www.smh.com.au/national/medical-journal-editor-sacked-and-editorial-committee-resigns-20150503-1myr8q.html |archive-date=6 May 2015 |access-date=18 May 2015}}</ref> 
* In 2015, the entire editorial staff of the [[general linguistics]] journal ''[[Lingua (journal)|Lingua]]'' resigned in protest of Elsevier's unwillingness to agree to their terms of [[Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act|Fair Open Access]]. Editor-in-chief Johan Rooryck also announced that the ''Lingua'' staff would establish a new journal, ''[[Glossa (journal)|Glossa]]''.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Jaschik |first=Scott |date=2 November 2015 |title=Language of Protest |url=https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/02/editors-and-editorial-board-quit-top-linguistics-journal-protest-subscription-fees |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170205223608/https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/02/editors-and-editorial-board-quit-top-linguistics-journal-protest-subscription-fees |archive-date=5 February 2017 |access-date=18 January 2017 |work=Inside Higher Ed}}</ref> 
* In 2019, the entire editorial board of Elsevier's ''[[Journal of Informetrics]]'' resigned over the open-access policies of its publisher and founded open-access journal called ''Quantitative Science Studies''.<ref name="editors-resign" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Chawla |first=Dalmeet Singh |date=14 January 2019 |title=Open-access row prompts editorial board of Elsevier journal to resign |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00135-8 |url-status=live |journal=Nature |doi=10.1038/d41586-019-00135-8 |s2cid=159142533 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215051248/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00135-8 |archive-date=15 February 2022 |access-date=15 February 2022|url-access=subscription }}</ref> 
* In 2020, Elsevier effectively severed the tie between the ''[[Journal of Asian Economics]]'' and the academic society that founded it, the American Committee on Asian Economic Studies (ACAES), by offering the ACAES-appointed editor, Calla Wiemer, a terminal contract for 2020. As a result, a majority of the editorial board eventually resigned.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stakeholders speak to Elsevier on the future of the Journal of Asian Economics |url=https://acaes.us/stakeholder-voice |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809144743/http://acaes.us/stakeholder-voice |archive-date=9 August 2020 |access-date=20 August 2020 |website=American Committee on Asian Economic Studies}}</ref><ref name="Wiemer">{{cite web |last1=Wiemer |first1=Calla |title=The state of journal publishing: Elsevier vs Academics |url=https://acaes.us/blog/state-of-journal-publishing-elsevier-vs-academics |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200809145941/http://acaes.us/blog/state-of-journal-publishing-elsevier-vs-academics |archive-date=9 August 2020 |access-date=20 August 2020 |website=Asia Economics Blog}}</ref>
* In 2023, the editorial board of the journal [[Design Research Society|''Design Studies'']] resigned over Elsevier's 1) plans to increase publications seven-fold; 2) the appointment of an external Editor-in-Chief who had not previously published in the journal; and 3) changing the scope of the journal without consulting the editorial team or the journal's parent society.<ref>{{cite web |last1=The DRS Executive Board |title=The Future of Design Studies Update |url=https://www.designresearchsociety.org/articles/the-future-of-design-studies-update |access-date=14 July 2023 |website=Design Research Society}}</ref>
* In December 2024, the editorial board of ''[[Journal of Human Evolution]]'', including [[emeritus]] editors and all but one associate editor, resigned, citing actions by Elsevier that they said "are fundamentally incompatible with the ethos of the journal and preclude maintaining the quality and integrity fundamental to JHE's success".<ref>{{cite web |date=December 27, 2024 |title=Evolution journal editors resign en masse to protest Elsevier changes |url=https://retractionwatch.com/2024/12/27/evolution-journal-editors-resign-en-masse-to-protest-elsevier-changes/ |access-date=December 27, 2024 |website=Retraction Watch}}</ref> In addition to pricing, specific complaints also included interference in the editorial board, lack of necessary support from the company, and the disruptive use of [[generative artificial intelligence]] by the company to alter submissions without informing editors or contributors.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Ouellette |first1=Jennifer |date=30 December 2024 |title=Evolution journal editors resign en masse |url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/12/journal-editors-resign-to-protest-ai-use-high-fees-and-more/ |access-date=5 January 2025 |work=Ars Technica}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=online |first1=heise |date=3 January 2025 |title="Highly embarrassing" introduction of AI: editors of science magazine quit |url=https://www.heise.de/en/news/Highly-embarrassing-introduction-of-AI-editors-of-science-magazine-quit-10224275.html |access-date=5 January 2025 |work=Heise Online |publisher=[[Heise (company)|Heise]] |language=en}}</ref>

===== "The Cost of Knowledge" boycott =====
{{Main|The Cost of Knowledge}}

In 2003, various university librarians began coordinating with each other to complain about Elsevier's "[[Subscription business model|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 no economical option was available to subscribe to only the popular journals at a rate comparable to the bundled rate.{{sfn|Groen|2007|p=177}} Librarians continued to discuss the implications of the pricing schemes, many feeling pressured into buying the Elsevier packages without other options.{{sfn|Groen|2007|p=180}}

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 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 [[Stop Online Piracy Act|SOPA]], [[PROTECT IP Act|PIPA]], and the [[Research Works Act]], which would have prohibited open-access mandates for U.S. federally-funded research and severely restricted the sharing of scientific data.<ref name="Guardian">{{cite news |last=Flood |first=Alison |date=2 February 2012 |title=Scientists sign petition to boycott academic publisher Elsevier |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/02/academics-boycott-publisher-elsevier |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205081212/http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/02/academics-boycott-publisher-elsevier |archive-date=5 February 2012 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref><ref name="Chronicle">{{cite news |last=Fischman |first=Josh |date=30 January 2012 |title=Elsevier Publishing Boycott Gathers Steam Among Academics |url=https://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/elsevier-publishing-boycott-gathers-steam-among-academics/35216 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120210210215/http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/elsevier-publishing-boycott-gathers-steam-among-academics/35216 |archive-date=10 February 2012 |newspaper=The Chronicle of Higher Education}}</ref><ref name="Economist">{{cite news |date=4 February 2012 |title=Scientific publishing: The price of information |url=https://www.economist.com/node/21545974 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120217030535/http://www.economist.com/node/21545974 |archive-date=17 February 2012 |newspaper=The Economist}}</ref>

Following this, a petition advocating noncooperation 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,<ref name="Guardian" /><ref name="Chronicle" /> growing to over 17,000 by November 2018.<ref>{{cite web |title=thecostofknowledge.com |url=https://thecostofknowledge.com/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151204054058/https://thecostofknowledge.com/ |archive-date=4 December 2015 |access-date=12 January 2013}}</ref> The firm disputed the claims, claiming 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.<ref name="Guardian" /> The company also claimed that its profit margins are "simply a consequence of the firm's efficient operation".<ref name="Economist" /> The academics replied that their work was funded by public money, thus should be freely available.

On 27 February 2012, Elsevier issued a statement on its website that declared that it had withdrawn support from the Research Works Act.<ref>{{cite web |title=Elsevier Backs Down as Boycott Grows |url=https://www.elsevier.com/about/issues-and-information/newmessagerwa |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140911222130/https://www.elsevier.com/about/issues-and-information/newmessagerwa |archive-date=11 September 2014 |access-date=25 August 2014}}</ref> 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, [[United States House of Representatives|US House Representatives]] [[Darrell Issa]] and [[Carolyn Maloney]], issued a joint statement saying that they would not push the bill in Congress.<ref>{{cite web |title=Sponsors and Supporters Back Away from Research Works Act |url=https://www.sparc.arl.org/news/sponsors-and-supporters-back-away-research-works-act |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402190111/https://www.sparc.arl.org/news/sponsors-and-supporters-back-away-research-works-act |archive-date=2 April 2015 |access-date=25 August 2014}}</ref>

===== Plan S open-access initiative =====
The [[Plan S]] open-access initiative, which began in Europe and has since spread to some US research funding agencies, would require researchers receiving some grants to publish in open-access journals by 2020.<ref name="US_funders">{{cite journal |last1=Noorden |first1=Richard Van |date=5 November 2018 |title=Wellcome and Gates join bold European open-access plan |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07300-5 |url-status=live |journal=Nature |doi=10.1038/d41586-018-07300-5 |s2cid=239818967 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201116071302/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07300-5 |archive-date=16 November 2020 |access-date=16 January 2019|url-access=subscription }}</ref> A spokesman for Elsevier said "If you think that information should be free of charge, go to [[Wikipedia]]".<ref>{{cite news |last=Keulemans |first=Maarten |date=4 September 2018 |title=11 EU-landen besluiten: vanaf 2020 moet alle wetenschappelijke literatuur gratis beschikbaar zijn |url=https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/11-eu-landen-besluiten-vanaf-2020-moet-alle-wetenschappelijke-literatuur-gratis-beschikbaar-zijn~be002c39/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180907221521/https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/11-eu-landen-besluiten-vanaf-2020-moet-alle-wetenschappelijke-literatuur-gratis-beschikbaar-zijn~be002c39/ |archive-date=7 September 2018 |access-date=25 September 2018 |newspaper=De Volkskrant |language=nl |quote=Als je vindt dat informatie gratis moet zijn: ga naar Wikipedia.}}</ref> In September 2018, [[UBS]] advised to sell Elsevier (RELX) stocks, noting that Plan S could affect 5-10% of scientific funding and may force Elsevier to reduce pricing.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Elder |first1=Bryce |date=12 September 2018 |title=Stocks to watch: SSE, BAT, Galápagos, RELX, Telefónica, RBS |url=https://www.ft.com/content/2a2064e2-b669-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085ffe |url-access=subscription |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/https://www.ft.com/content/2a2064e2-b669-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085ffe |archive-date=10 December 2022 |access-date=14 October 2018 |work=[[Financial Times]]}}</ref>

=== "Who's Afraid of Peer Review" ===
{{main|Who's Afraid of Peer Review?}}

In 2013, one of Elsevier's journals was caught in the sting set up by [[John Bohannon]], published in [[Science (journal)|''Science'']], called "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?"<ref name="Bohannon2013">{{Cite journal |last1=Bohannon |first1=John |author-link1=John Bohannon |year=2013 |title=Who's Afraid of Peer Review? |journal=Science |volume=342 |issue=6154 |pages=60–65 |bibcode=2013Sci...342...60B |doi=10.1126/science.342.6154.60 |pmid=24092725 |doi-access=free}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news |author=Claire Shaw |date=4 October 2013 |title=Hundreds of open access journals accept fake science paper |url=https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131227070106/http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper |archive-date=27 December 2013 |access-date=26 December 2013 |newspaper=The Guardian |publisher=Theguardian.com}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Drug Invention Today |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09757619 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170615014113/http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09757619 |archive-date=15 June 2017 |access-date=15 February 2022 |work=sciencedirect.com}}</ref>

=== Fake journals ===
<!-- See talk section "Elsevier published 6 fake journals" for discussion of this heading" -->
{{further|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.<ref>{{cite news |last=Rout |first=Milanda |date=9 April 2009 |title=Doctors signed Merck's Vioxx studies |url=https://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25311725-5013871,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090506064629/https://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25311725-5013871,00.html |archive-date=6 May 2009 |access-date=4 May 2009 |work=[[The Australian]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Grant |first=Bob |date=30 April 2009 |title=Merck published fake journal |url=https://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55671/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110816103436/http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55671/ |archive-date=16 August 2011 |access-date=4 May 2009 |work=[[The Scientist (magazine)|The Scientist]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Hagan |first=Kate |date=23 April 2009 |title=Merck accused of 'ghost writing' medical article |url=https://www.theage.com.au/national/merck-accused-of-ghost-writing-medical-article-20090422-afdk.html?page=-1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090508025532/http://www.theage.com.au/national/merck-accused-of-ghost-writing-medical-article-20090422-afdk.html?page=-1 |archive-date=8 May 2009 |access-date=4 May 2009 |work=[[The Age]]}}</ref><ref>Ben Goldacre, [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/may/09/bad-science-medical-journals-companies "The danger of drugs ... and data"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090625155428/http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/09/bad-science-medical-journals-companies|date=25 June 2009}}, ''The Guardian'', 9 May 2009</ref> Merck described the journal as a "complimentary publication", denied claims that articles within it were [[ghost writer|ghost written]] by Merck, and stated that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals.<ref>{{cite press release |title=Merck Responds to Questions about the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine Journal |date=30 April 2009 |publisher=[[Merck & Co.]] |url=https://www.merck.com/newsroom/vioxx/pdf/statement_20090430.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091231104929/https://merck.com/newsroom/vioxx/pdf/statement_20090430.pdf |archive-date=31 December 2009}}</ref> 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".<ref>{{cite press release |title=Statement from Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division, regarding Australia based sponsored journal practices between 2000 and 2005 |publisher=Elsevier |url=https://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.cws_home/companynews05_01203}}</ref> ''[[The Scientist (magazine)|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.'').<ref>{{cite news |last=Grant |first=Bob |date=7 May 2009 |title=Elsevier published 6 fake journals |url=https://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110118084129/https://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/ |archive-date=18 January 2011 |access-date=8 May 2009 |work=[[The Scientist (magazine)|The Scientist]]}}</ref> Excerpta Medica was a "strategic medical communications agency" run by Elsevier, according to the imprint's web page.<ref>{{cite web |title="Excerpta Medica", official webpage |url=https://www.excerptamedica.com/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220210014923/https://excerptamedica.com/ |archive-date=10 February 2022 |access-date=15 February 2022 |publisher=Elsevier}}</ref> In October 2010, Excerpta Medica was acquired by Adelphi Worldwide.<ref>{{cite web |title="Excerpta Medica Joins Adelphi Worldwide", press release |url=https://www.excerptamedica.com/?page=newsroom&item=301 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210704100049/https://excerptamedica.com/?page=newsroom&item=301 |archive-date=4 July 2021 |access-date=15 February 2022 |publisher=Elsevier}}</ref>

==== ''Chaos, Solitons & Fractals'' ====
There was speculation<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schiermeier |first1=Q |year=2008 |title=Self-publishing editor set to retire |journal=Nature |volume=456 |issue=7221 |pages=432 |doi=10.1038/456432a |pmid=19037282 |doi-access=free}}</ref> 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.<ref>''Chaos, Solitons & Fractals'' '''38'''(5), pp. 1229–1534 (December 2008)</ref> The controversy was covered extensively in blogs.<ref>{{cite web |title=The Scholarly Kitchen |url=https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?s=el+naschie |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215051250/https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/?s=el+naschie |archive-date=15 February 2022 |access-date=15 February 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=El Naschie Watch Blog |url=https://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101015195449/https://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/ |archive-date=15 October 2010}}</ref> The publisher announced in January 2009 that El Naschie had retired as editor-in-chief.<ref>{{Cite journal |year=2009 |title=Publisher's note |journal=Chaos, Solitons & Fractals |volume=39 |pages=v– |bibcode= |doi=10.1016/S0960-0779(09)00060-5}}</ref> {{As of|2011|11}} the co-Editors-in-Chief of the journal were Maurice Courbage and Paolo Grigolini.<ref>{{cite book |url=https://www.journals.elsevier.com/chaos-solitons-and-fractals/ |title=Chaos, Solitons and Fractals |date=November 2011 |access-date=15 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220215063855/https://www.journals.elsevier.com/chaos-solitons-and-fractals |archive-date=15 February 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref> In June 2011, El Naschie sued the journal ''[[Nature (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.<ref name="BBC-CSF-libel">{{cite news |last1=Ghosh |first1=Pallab |date=11 November 2011 |title=Nature journal libel case begins |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15697636 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111112090500/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15697636 |archive-date=12 November 2011 |access-date=11 November 2011 |work=BBC News}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Guardian2">{{cite web |last1=Sample |first1=Ian |date=6 July 2012 |title=Nature libel verdict 'a victory for free speech' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/06/nature-libel-peer-review |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200426083633/http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/06/nature-libel-peer-review?newsfeed=true |archive-date=26 April 2020 |website=The Guardian}}</ref> 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".<ref>
{{cite journal |last=Aron |first=Jacob |date=6 July 2012 |title=Nature Publishing Group wins libel trial |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22026-nature-publishing-group-wins-libel-trial.html |url-status=live |journal=New Scientist |issue=2873 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120706163129/http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22026-nature-publishing-group-wins-libel-trial.html |archive-date=6 July 2012 |access-date=14 July 2012}}</ref>

=== Plagiarism ===
Elsevier's 'Duties of Authors' states that authors should ensure they have written entirely original works, and that proper acknowledgement of others' work must always be given. Elsevier claims plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Publishing Ethics for Editors |url=https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122121141/https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics |archive-date=22 January 2021 |access-date=13 January 2021 |website=www.elsevier.com}}</ref> Some Elsevier journals automatically screen submissions for plagiarism,<ref>{{cite web |title=Plagiarism detection |url=https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/plagiarism-complaints/plagiarism-detection |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180830124203/https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/plagiarism-complaints/plagiarism-detection |archive-date=30 August 2018 |access-date=30 August 2018 |publisher=Elsevier}}</ref> but not all.<ref>{{cite web |author=Ivan Oransky |date=23 August 2018 |title=UPDATED: Elsevier retracts a paper on solar cells that appears to plagiarize a Nature journal. But the reason is…odd |url=https://retractionwatch.com/2018/08/23/elsevier-investigating-paper-on-solar-cells-that-appears-to-plagiarize-a-nature-journal/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180823210527/https://retractionwatch.com/2018/08/23/elsevier-investigating-paper-on-solar-cells-that-appears-to-plagiarize-a-nature-journal/ |archive-date=23 August 2018 |access-date=30 August 2018}}</ref>

Albanian politician Taulant Muka claimed that Elsevier journal ''[[Procedia]]'' had plagiarized in the abstract of one of its articles. It is unclear whether or not Muka had access to the entirety of the article.<ref>{{cite news |date=25 December 2018 |title=Massive Plagiarism Scandal Hits Albanian Officials without Consequences |url=https://exit.al/en/2018/12/25/massive-plagiarism-scandal-hits-albanian-officials/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181230233833/https://exit.al/en/2018/12/25/massive-plagiarism-scandal-hits-albanian-officials/ |archive-date=30 December 2018 |access-date=10 May 2019}}</ref>

=== Scientific racism ===
[[Angela Saini]] has criticized the two Elsevier journals ''[[Intelligence (journal)|Intelligence]]'' and ''[[Personality and Individual Differences]]'' for having included on their editorial boards such well-known proponents of [[scientific racism]] as [[Richard Lynn]] and [[Gerhard Meisenberg]]; in response to her inquiries, Elsevier defended their presence as editors.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Saini |first=Angela |date=22 January 2018 |title=Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/22/eugenics-racism-mainstream-science |url-status=live |journal=The Guardian |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190208111417/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/22/eugenics-racism-mainstream-science |archive-date=8 February 2019 |access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref> The journal ''Intelligence'' has been criticized for having "occasionally included papers with pseudoscientific findings about intelligence differences between races".<ref>{{cite journal |last=Skibba |first=Ramin |date=20 May 2019 |title=The Disturbing Resilience of Scientific Racism |url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/disturbing-resilience-scientific-racism-180972243/ |url-status=live |journal=Smithsonian Magazine |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221011071349/https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/disturbing-resilience-scientific-racism-180972243/ |archive-date=11 October 2022 |access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref> It is the official journal of the [[International Society for Intelligence Research]], which organizes the controversial series of conferences [[London Conference on Intelligence]], described by the ''New Statesman'' as a forum for scientific racism.<ref>{{cite news |last=Van Der Merwe |first=Ben |date=19 February 2018 |title=It might be a pseudoscience, but students take the threat of eugenics seriously |url=https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2018/02/it-might-be-pseudo-science-students-take-threat-eugenics-seriously |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190730052747/https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/education/2018/02/it-might-be-pseudo-science-students-take-threat-eugenics-seriously |archive-date=30 July 2019 |access-date=19 June 2020 |work=New Statesman}}</ref>

In response to a 2019 open letter, efforts by [[Retraction Watch]] and a petition, on 17 June 2020 Elsevier announced it was retracting an article that [[J. Philippe Rushton]] and [[Donald Templer]] published in 2012 in the Elsevier journal ''Personality and Individual Differences''.<ref>{{cite web |title=Personality and Individual Differences Retracts Rushton and Templer Article |url=https://www.journals.elsevier.com/personality-and-individual-differences/announcements/rushton-and-templer-article |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210418102719/https://www.journals.elsevier.com/personality-and-individual-differences/announcements/rushton-and-templer-article |archive-date=18 April 2021 |access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref> The article had claimed that there was scientific evidence that skin color was related to aggression and sexuality in humans.<ref>{{cite web |date=17 June 2020 |title=Elsevier journal to retract 2012 paper widely derided as racist |url=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/17/elsevier-journal-to-retract-2012-paper-widely-derided-as-racist/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210624184303/https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/17/elsevier-journal-to-retract-2012-paper-widely-derided-as-racist/ |archive-date=24 June 2021 |access-date=19 June 2020}}</ref>

=== Manipulation of bibliometrics ===

According to the signatories of the [[San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment]] (see also [[Goodhart's law]]), commercial academic publishers benefit from manipulation of [[bibliometrics]] and [[scientometrics]], such as the [[journal impact factor]]. The impact factor, which is often used as a [[Proxy (statistics)|proxy]] of [[Occupational prestige|prestige]], can influence revenues, subscriptions, and academics' willingness to contribute unpaid work.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McKiernan |first1=Erin C. |last2=Schimanski |first2=Lesley A. |last3=Muñoz Nieves |first3=Carol |last4=Matthias |first4=Lisa |last5=Niles |first5=Meredith T. |last6=Alperin |first6=Juan P. |year=2019 |title=Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations |journal=eLife |volume=8 |doi=10.7554/eLife.47338 |pmc=6668985 |pmid=31364991 |doi-access=free}}</ref> However, there's evidence suggesting that reliability of published research works in several fields may ''decrease'' with increasing journal rank.<ref name="Brembs2018">{{cite journal |vauthors=Brembs B |year=2018 |title=Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability |journal=Frontiers in Human Neuroscience |volume=12 |page=37 |doi=10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037 |pmc=5826185 |pmid=29515380 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Nine Elsevier journals, which exhibited unusual levels of [[self-citation]], had their journal impact factor of 2019 suspended from ''[[Journal Citation Reports]]'' in 2020, a sanction that hit 34 journals in total.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Oransky |first1=Ivan |date=29 June 2020 |title=Major indexing service sounds alarm on self-citations by nearly 50 journals |url=https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/29/major-indexing-service-sounds-alarm-on-self-citations-by-nearly-50-journals/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200629225455/https://retractionwatch.com/2020/06/29/major-indexing-service-sounds-alarm-on-self-citations-by-nearly-50-journals/ |archive-date=29 June 2020 |access-date=1 July 2020}}</ref>

In 2023, the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, which is published by Elsevier, was criticized for desk-rejecting a submitted article for the main reason that it did not cite enough articles from the same journal.<ref name="cen23" /><ref name="singh23" />

One of their journals, ''Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis'', was involved in the manipulation of the peer review report.<ref>{{cite web |last=Raman |first=T. R. Shankar |date=4 April 2021 |title=Why I Won't Review or Write for Elsevier and Other Commercial Scientific Journals |url=https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/why-i-wont-review-or-write-for-elsevier-and-other-commercial-scientific-journals/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211008034601/https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/why-i-wont-review-or-write-for-elsevier-and-other-commercial-scientific-journals/ |archive-date=8 October 2021 |access-date=5 October 2021 |work=[[The Wire (India)|The Wire]] |location=New Delhi, India}}</ref>

===Conflict of interest===
Elsevier is a publisher of [[climate change]] research, but they partnered with the [[fossil fuel industry]]. Climate scientists are concerned that this [[conflict of interest]] could undermine the credibility of [[climatology|climate science]] because they believe that fossil fuel extraction and [[climate action]] are incompatible.<ref>{{cite news |title=Revealed: leading climate research publisher helps fuel oil and gas drilling |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/24/elsevier-publishing-climate-science-fossil-fuels |author=
Amy Westervelt |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=24 February 2022 |access-date=6 April 2025}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Governing fossil fuel production in the age of climate disruption: Towards an international law of 'leaving it in the ground' |author=Harro van Asselt |year=2021 |journal=Earth System Governance |volume=9 |issue= |pages=100118 |doi=10.1016/j.esg.2021.100118|bibcode=2021ESGov...900118V }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Little room for new fossil fuel development if global temperatures are to stay below 1.5°C |author1=David L. McCollum |author2=Alaa Al Khourdajie |year=2021 |journal=Joule |volume=5 |issue=10 |pages=2542–2545 |doi=10.1016/j.joule.2021.10.003|bibcode=2021Joule...5.2542M }}</ref>

== Antitrust lawsuit ==
In September 2024, [[Lucina Uddin]], a neuroscience professor at [[University of California, Los Angeles|UCLA]], sued Elsevier along with five other [[academic journal]] publishers in a proposed [[Class action|class-action]] lawsuit, alleging that the publishers violated [[Competition law|antitrust]] law by agreeing not to compete against each other for manuscripts and by denying scholars payment for [[peer review]] services.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Scarcella |first=Mike |date=2024-09-13 |title=Academic publishers face class action over 'peer review' pay, other restrictions |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/academic-publishers-face-class-action-over-peer-review-pay-other-restrictions-2024-09-13/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240914212841/https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/academic-publishers-face-class-action-over-peer-review-pay-other-restrictions-2024-09-13/ |archive-date=2024-09-14 |access-date=2024-09-15 |work=[[Reuters]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Abdur-Rahman |first=Sulaiman |date=2024-09-13 |title='Illegal Conspiracy'?: EDNY Antitrust Class Action Challenges Publishers' Unpaid Peer Review Rule |url=https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2024/09/13/illegal-conspiracy-edny-antitrust-class-action-challenges-publishers-unpaid-peer-review-rule/?slreturn=20240815103952 |url-access=registration |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240913230833/https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2024/09/13/illegal-conspiracy-edny-antitrust-class-action-challenges-publishers-unpaid-peer-review-rule/ |archive-date=2024-09-13 |access-date=2024-09-15 |website=[[New York Law Journal]] |language=en}}</ref>

== Awards ==
<!---redirects target this section--->
Elsevier has partnered with a number of organisations and lent its name to several awards.

Since 1987, Elsevier has partnered with the academic journal ''[[Spectrochimica Acta Part B]]'' to award the Elsevier / Spectrochimica Acta Atomic Spectroscopy Award. This award is given each year for a jury-selected best paper of the year. The award is worth $1000.<ref>{{cite web | title=Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy | website=ScienceDirect.com by Elsevier | url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/spectrochimica-acta-part-b-atomic-spectroscopy/publish/guide-for-authors | access-date=2 April 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author1=Nicolò Omenetto |author2=Greet de Loos |title=Elsevier/Spectrochimica Acta Atomic Spectroscopy Award 2002 |journal=Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy |date=20 September 2004 |volume=59 |issue=9 |page=1335 |doi=10.1016/j.sab.2004.08.002 |bibcode=2004AcSpB..59.1335O }}</ref>

Starting in 1987, the [[IBMS Elsevier Award]] was awarded in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007 by the [[International Bone and Mineral Society]] in partnership with Elsevier, "for outstanding research and teaching throughout their career by an IBMS member in the fields of bone and mineral metabolism".<ref>{{cite web | title=IBMS Society Awards | website=IBMS | url=https://www.ibmsonline.org/IBMSSocietyAwards/tabid/114/Default.aspx | access-date=2 April 2024}}</ref>

From 2007, the [[Coordenação de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior]] (CAPES) in Brazil partnered with Elsevier to award the CAPES Elsevier Award, the award being restricted to women from 2013 to encourage more women to pursue scientific careers. Several awards were awarded each year, as of 2014.<ref>{{cite web | last=Lins | first=Ana Luisa Maia | title=Awards recognize women scientists in Brazil | website=elsevier.com | date=24 May 2014 | url=http://www.elsevier.com/connect/awards-recognize-women-scientists-in-brazil | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140524163055/http://www.elsevier.com/connect/awards-recognize-women-scientists-in-brazil | archive-date=24 May 2014 | url-status=dead | access-date=2 April 2024}}</ref>

From 2011, the [[OWSD-Elsevier Foundation Awards for Early-Career Women Scientists in the Developing World]] (OWSD-Elsevier Foundation Awards) have been awarded annually to early-career women scientists in selected developing countries in four regions: [[Latin America]] and the [[Caribbean]], [[East Asia|East]] and [[Southeast Asia|Southeast]] [[Asia]] and the [[Pacific region|Pacific]], [[Central Asia|Central]] and [[South Asia|South]] Asia, and [[Sub-Saharan Africa]]. The [[Organization for Women in Science for the Developing World]] (OWSD), the Elsevier Foundation, and [[The World Academy of Sciences]] first partnered to recognize achievements of early-career women scientists in developing countries in 2011.<ref>{{cite web | title=OWSD-Elsevier Foundation Awards for Early-Career Women Scientists in the Developing World | website=The Elsevier Foundation | date=20 February 2020 | url=https://elsevierfoundation.org/partnerships/diversity-in-stm/womenscientists/ | access-date=2 April 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Awards | website=OWSD | date=23 May 2014 | url=https://owsd.net/awards/awards | access-date=2 April 2024}}</ref>

In 2016, the Elsevier Foundation awarded the Elsevier Foundation-ISC3 Green and Sustainable Chemistry Challenge. From 2021 and {{as of|2024|lc=yes}}, the annual award is known as the Elsevier Foundation Chemistry for Climate Action Challenge. Two prizes have been awarded each year; until 2020, the first prizewinner was awarded €50,000, and the second prize was €25,000. Since then, €25,000 has been awarded to each winner, usually an entrepreneur who has created a project or proposal that aids the fight against [[climate change]].<ref>{{cite web | title=Our winners | website=The Elsevier Foundation | date=22 March 2024 | url=https://elsevierfoundation.org/partnerships/research-in-developing-countries/greenchem/our-winners/ | access-date=2 April 2024}}</ref>

== Imprints ==
Elsevier uses its [[Imprint (trade name)|imprint]]s (that is, [[Brand|brand names]] used in publishing) to market to different consumer segments. Many of the imprints have previously been the names of publishing companies that were purchased by Reed Elsevier.
{{cols|colwidth=16em}}
* [[Academic Press]]
* Baillière Tindall
* BC Decker
* [[Butterworth–Heinemann]]
* CMP
* [[Cell Press]]
* [[Churchill Livingstone]]
* Digital Press
* Elsevier
* [[Gulf Professional Publishing]]
* GW Medical Publishing
* Hanley & Belfus
* [[Masson (publisher)|Masson]]
* [[Medicine Publishing]]
* [[Morgan Kaufmann Publishers]]
* [[Mosby (publisher)|Mosby]]
* Newnes
* North-Holland Publishing Company
* [[Pergamon Press]]
* Pergamon Flexible Learning
* [[Saunders (publisher)|Saunders]]
* Syngress <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/corporate/elsevier-acquires-syngress-publishing|title=Elsevier Acquires Syngress Publishing|access-date=14 June 2021|archive-date=14 June 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210614025811/https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/corporate/elsevier-acquires-syngress-publishing|url-status=live}}</ref>
* Urban & Fischer
* [[William Andrew (publisher)|William Andrew]]
* [[Woodhead Publishing]] (including Chandos and Horwood)
{{colend}}

== See also ==
{{Portal|Netherlands|Companies|Books}}
{{colbegin}}
* [[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 that is involved in a legal case with Elsevier
* [[Bertelsmann]]
* [[Holtzbrinck Publishing Group]]
* [[Lagardère Publishing]]
* [[McGraw Hill Education]]
* [[News Corp]]
* [[Pearson plc]]
* [[Scholastic Corporation]]
* [[Thomson Reuters]]
* [[Wiley (publisher)]]
{{colend}}
{{clear}}

== References ==

=== Citations ===
{{reflist|refs=
<ref name="singh23">{{cite journal | last=Singh Chawla | first=Dalmeet | title=Researchers who agree to manipulate citations are more likely to get their papers published | journal=Nature | date=2023-05-03 | issn=0028-0836 | doi=10.1038/d41586-023-01532-w | page=| pmid=37138067 | s2cid=258484904 }}</ref>
<ref name="cen23">{{cite web | website=cen.acs.org | title=Elsevier journal under fire for rejecting paper that didn't cite enough of its old papers | url=https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/Elsevier-journal-under-fire-for-rejecting-paper/101/web/2023/02 | access-date=2023-05-16 | archive-date=12 May 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230512024757/https://cen.acs.org/policy/publishing/Elsevier-journal-under-fire-for-rejecting-paper/101/web/2023/02 | url-status=live }}</ref>
<ref name="NeuroImage2023">{{cite journal | title=Editors quit top neuroscience journal to protest against open-access charges | publisher=Nature Publishing Group | date=2023-04-21 | doi=10.1038/d41586-023-01391-5 | last1=Sanderson | first1=Katharine | journal=Nature | volume=616 | issue=7958 | page=641 | pmid=37085706 | bibcode=2023Natur.616..641S | s2cid=258275824 | doi-access=free }}</ref>
}}

=== Sources ===
{{refbegin}}
* {{cite book|last=Groen|first=Frances K.|title=Access to medical knowledge : libraries, digitization, and the public good|year=2007|publisher=Scarecrow Press|location=Lanham, Mar.|isbn=978-0-8108-52723|page=217 }}
{{refend}}

== External links ==
{{commons category|Elsevier}}
* {{Official website}}
* [https://www.caat.org.uk/issues/arms-fairs/reed-elsevier/ Campaign success: Reed Elsevier sells international arms fairs] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180806024547/https://www.caat.org.uk/issues/arms-fairs/reed-elsevier/ |date=6 August 2018 }}
* {{cite web|title=Reed Elsevier Timeline|url=https://www.ulib.niu.edu/publishers/index.htm|work=The Academic Publishing Industry: A Story of Merger and Acquisition|author=Mary H. Munroe|year=2004|via=Northern Illinois University|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141020153836/https://www.ulib.niu.edu/publishers/Holtzbrinck.htm|archive-date=20 October 2014}}

{{Reed Elsevier|state=collapsed}}
{{authority control}}

[[Category:Elsevier| ]]
[[Category:Academic publishing companies]]
[[Category:Bibliographic database providers]]
[[Category:Companies based in Amsterdam]]
[[Category:Multinational companies headquartered in the Netherlands]]
[[Category:Publishing companies established in 1880]]
[[Category:Publishing companies of the Netherlands]]
[[Category:Dutch companies established in 1880]]
[[Category: Companies formerly listed on Euronext Amsterdam]]