Restrictive access practices Lobbying efforts against open access Elsevier have been known to be involved in lobbying against open access. These have included: • The
Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) • The
Research Works Act • PRISM. In the case of PRISM, the
Association of American Publishers hired
Eric Dezenhall, the so-called "Pit Bull Of Public Relations" •
Horizon 2020 •
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) • The
European Union's
Open Science Monitor was criticized after Elsevier were confirmed as a subcontractor •
UK Research and Innovation.
Sale of open-access articles In 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, Elsevier was found to be selling some articles that should have been open access, but had been put behind a paywall. 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.
Action against academics posting their own articles online In 2013,
Digimarc, a company representing Elsevier, told the
University of Calgary in
Calgary, Alberta 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, the university complied.
Harvard University in
Cambridge, Massachusetts and the
University of California, Irvine also received
takedown notices for self-archived academic articles, a first for Harvard, according to
Peter Suber. Months after its acquisition of
Academia.edu rival
Mendeley, Elsevier sent thousands of takedown notices to Academia.edu, a practice which has since ceased after widespread complaints by academics, according to Academia.edu founder and chief executive Richard Price.
Lawsuits against paper-sharing sites In 2015, Elsevier filed a lawsuit against the sites
Sci-Hub and
LibGen, which make copyright-protected articles available for free. Elsevier also claimed illegal access to institutional accounts. After a case was brought forward in 2017 by the Coalition for Responsible Sharing, a group of publishers which includes Elsevier and the
American Chemical Society, the chamber of the Munich Regional Court ruled that the research networking site ResearchGate has to take down articles uploaded without consent from their original publishers, including Elsevier.
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. The personnel created a new journal,
Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, with
Cambridge University Press in
Cambridge, England at a much lower price, • 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, at the suggestion of
Journal of Algorithms founder
Donald Knuth. The
Journal of Algorithms continued under Elsevier with a new editorial board until October 2009, when it was discontinued. • 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. • In 2006, the entire editorial board of the distinguished mathematical journal
Topology resigned because of stalled negotiations with Elsevier to lower the subscription price. This board then launched the new
Journal of Topology at a far lower price, under the auspices of the
London Mathematical Society.
Topology then remained in circulation under a new editorial board until 2009. • 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. 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. • In 2015, the entire editorial staff of the
general linguistics journal
Lingua resigned in protest of Elsevier's unwillingness to agree to their terms of
Fair Open Access. Editor-in-chief Johan Rooryck also announced that the
Lingua staff would establish a new journal,
Glossa. • 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. The resignation came in the context of Elsevier along among the major publishers declining to join the
Initiative for Open Citations. Elsevier finally joined the initiative in January 2021 after the data was already available with an
Open Data Commons license in
Microsoft Academic. • 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. • In 2023, the editorial board of the journal
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. • 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". 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.
"The Cost of Knowledge" boycott In 2003, various university librarians began coordinating with each other to complain about Elsevier's "
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. Librarians continued to discuss the implications of the pricing schemes, many feeling pressured into buying the Elsevier packages without other options. On 21 January 2012, mathematician
Timothy Gowers publicly announced that 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
SOPA,
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. Afterwards 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, 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. 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,
U.S. Representatives Darrell Issa and
Carolyn Maloney, issued a joint statement saying that they would not push the bill in Congress.
Plan S open-access initiative About a Europe-based initiative called
Plan S aimed at requiring researchers to publish in open-access journals, a spokesman for Elsevier said "If you think that information should be free of charge, go to
Wikipedia". 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.
Business practices and editorial standards "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, called "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" 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. 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.
Fake journals 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. Merck described the journal as a "complimentary publication", denied claims that articles within it were
ghost written by Merck, and said that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals. 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".
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.). Excerpta Medica was a "strategic medical communications agency" run by Elsevier, according to the imprint's web page. In October 2010, Excerpta Medica was acquired by Adelphi Worldwide.
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals There was speculation 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. The controversy was covered extensively in blogs. The publisher announced in January 2009 that El Naschie had retired as editor-in-chief. the co-Editors-in-Chief of the journal were Maurice Courbage and Paolo Grigolini. In June 2011, El Naschie sued the 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. 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. 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".
Plagiarism 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.
Scientific racism Angela Saini has criticized the two Elsevier journals
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. The journal
Intelligence has been criticized for having "occasionally included papers with pseudoscientific findings about intelligence differences between races". 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. 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. The article had claimed that there was scientific evidence that skin color was related to aggression and sexuality in humans.
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 of
prestige, can influence revenues, subscriptions, and academics' willingness to contribute unpaid work. However, there's evidence suggesting that reliability of published research works in several fields may
decrease with increasing journal rank. 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. 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.
Climate change Elsevier publishes research by
climate change researchers in many of its journals, but also publishes books for the
fossil fuel industry about expanding production, as well as other products such as a geomapping tool to help find oil and gas reserves. Climate scientists are concerned that this
conflict of interest could undermine the credibility of
climate science because they believe that fossil fuel extraction and
climate action are incompatible.
Involvement in international arms trade Elsevier organized international arms fairs until 2007, when they announced they would no longer do so, after various protests and calls to boycott their journals. == Antitrust lawsuit ==