Wikipedia

Talk:Elsevier/Archive 1

< Talk:Elsevier
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Nemo bis in topic Insanely long criticism/controversy section
Archive 1
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elsevier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Corporate affairs

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Corporate Social Responsibility

The Elsevier Foundation supports libraries in developing countries, women scientists and nursing facilities.[1]

In 2016 Elsevier's not-for-profit Elsevier Foundation committed $1m a year, for 3 years, to programmes encouraging diversity in science, technology and medicine and promoting science research in developing countries.[2]

I received no further comments or objections, so I've made this change now. Ryoba (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

2. Also this update somewhere if possible?:

In 1995, Forbes Magazine (wrongly) predicted Elsevier would be "the first victim of the internet" as it was disrupted and disintermediated by the world wide web.[3][4]

  1. ^ "11 women scientists announced as winners of Elsevier Foundation OWSD awards". Eurekalert. 29 September 2011. Retrieved 23 September 2015.
  2. ^ "Elsevier Foundation commits $1m to diversity in science". The Bookseller. 2 February 2016. Retrieved 4 February 2016.
  3. ^ "Elsevier leads the business the internet could not kill". Financial Times. Retrieved 25 November 2015.
  4. ^ "Academic Publishing Meets Open Access". Bloomberg. Retrieved 13 July 2016.

Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested edits 11 October 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it possible to update this sentence in the Company Statistics section, from "In 2003 Elsevier accounted for 25% of the world market in science, technology, and medical publishing" to "In 2013 Elsevier accounted for 16% of the world market in science, technology, and medical publishing" citing this Financial Times article?: https://www.ft.com/content/93138f3e-87d6-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896#axzz3rakz3UEH

Thanks Ryoba (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggested edit 8 November 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Suggested edit: In 2016 Elsevier signed a landmark agreement with the UK’s research institutions, granting academics access to globally-published research at costs lower than the industry average. (https://www.researchinformation.info/news/elsevier-unveils-jisc-collaboration) Ryoba (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ryoba: This seems like a press release. The paper says that they offer their product at a lower price than others of comparable quality. Can you identify any more critical journalism on this change? I think whoever wrote this was restrained by only being able to present a corporate perspective. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Blueraspberry: This agreement has now also been mentioned on The Bookseller, which should be impartial. http://www.thebookseller.com/news/elsevier-and-jisc-low-cost-uk-deal-429686. They say "The UK's higher education digital services body Jisc has signed what is being described as a "landmark" agreement with publisher Elsevier, giving academics access to research "at costs lower than the industry average"." Ryoba (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Elsevier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Elsevier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elsevier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Elsevier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elsevier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggested change - 26 Jan 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, would it be possible for someone to please take a look at the Company Statistics section? It currently states "Over 17,000 editors (almost all of them unpaid)...", but I think the "(almost all of them unpaid)" seems unfairly critical. The statement isn't sourced to anywhere, and also isn't correct, so it would be great to get that removed for accuracy.

Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not object to anything without citations being removed.
Of course the nature of peer review is for contributors to not be paid but that is not the usual way to describe the situation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that Elsevier publishes the journal called Homeopathy? It's notable as a quackery journal published alongside with mostly legitimate scientific work. Heptor talk 03:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggested changes - 2016 figures

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi - Elsevier's parent company RELX Group (who I work for) published their 2016 annual report (http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2016/relxgroup_ar_2016.pdf) recently, so there are some numbers on this page which can now be updated:

Right-hand panel: Revenue - £2.320 billion (2016)

2nd paragraph: "...approximately 420,000 articles..." - "Total yearly downloads amount to more than 900 million"

3rd paragraph: "(37% in 2016)"

Company statistics section:

1st paragraph: "In the primary research market during 2016" - "...over 1.5m research papers" - "Over 20,000 editors managed..." - "...more than 420,000 articles..."

3rd paragraph: "Approximately 42% of revenue by geography..." - "26% from Europe" - Electronic/Print/Face to face should now be: 79%/20%/1%

4th paragraph: "The company publishes 2,500 journals and 30,000 e-books." - delete (repetition)

5th paragraph: "In 2016, Elsevier accounted for 34% of the revenues of RELX group (₤2.320 billion of ₤6.895 billion). In operating profits, it represented 40% (₤853 million out of ₤2,114 million). Adjusted operating profits (with constant currency) rose by 2% from 2015 to 2016"

Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added a sentence to the intro text to give a clearer overview of the business - citing an independent article. This change has been made in good faith and I think it's impartial, but as I'm an employee of the parent company, please let me know if you disagree. Thanks Ryoba (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Questioning Open Access changes

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi - Would it be possible for someone to take a look at the new section that has been added called 'Lobbying efforts against open access' and see if you agree that this content is somewhat unfair? Most of the citations don't mention Elsevier at all, and the ones that do are 5 years old and don't reflect the company's current position on the matter - Elsevier is in fact now one of the world's largest Open Access publishers. The author seems to have a bias against Elsevier which doesn't seem helpful in creating an accurate, impartial Wikipedia entry. Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry and Randykitty:Did anyone have any thoughts on this? Ryoba (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I have (mostly) given up trying to make a neutral article out of this. There are too many people who hate Elsevier's guts. Just one example: the fizzled "Cost of Knowledge" boycott gets an entry here, has its own article, and is the repeated one more time in the academic spring article (a term that was used a few times and has since disappeared). It would take someone akin to Attila the Hun to take on all of this. I came here because you pinged me, but I don't have this on my watch list any more. As an aside, what many of the anti-Elsevier warriors ignore (or don't know) is that some OA publishers (and not only predatory ones) have higher profit margins than Elsevier... --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Ryoba Some citations mention Elsevier. There are about 20 sources cited and I did not check them all. If it is part of the organization's media record then typically it would be summarized in Wikipedia according to its weight among other sources.
Do you have a proposal for a better narrative? What, if anything, from these sources do you think merits summarizing here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll have a think about other sources/narrative. As Randykitty said above, its just very difficult getting this page to be fair, balanced and impartial, when this user in particular keeps posting content which is so clearly driven by an anti-Elsevier agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoba (talk • contribs) 16:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Insanely long criticism/controversy section

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia articles are expected to give due weight to aspects of a subject that matter. While criticism and controversy are to be expected on media pages, one that is literally half of the article is simply ridiculous. I'm adding a tag. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Reviewed the article, and looks like the points made are properly supported by references and/or external resources. It seems logical that the main focus of an article about the most controversial organization in its field/category is indeed the source of controversy itself. ArticCynda (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
ArticCynda seems right. However, I think we could do better by distinguishing one-off events (which can go in a chronological section like "Criticism and controversies") and long-running themes. I've tried and reshuffled sections in a way that allows to cover the various aspects and possible add some other topics which have been requested in this talk page. I've kept each section exactly as it was and I left the controversy section for sub-sections mostly focused on events of specific years.
I'm open to alternative proposals for an outline of the article to fit the existing content, this is just my current best take. For a more general discussion on what topics to cover in the article and how, see the section below on mergers and acquisitions etc. --Nemo 06:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I see there's some analysis of the mergers at http://knowledgegap.org/index.php/sub-projects/rent-seeking-and-financialization-of-the-academic-publishing-industry/preliminary-findings/ (with number of launched and acquisitions over 20 years). Nemo 13:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elsevier/Archive_1&oldid=1136696636"