Elsevier

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Elsevier
IndustryPublishing
Founded1880; 140 years ago (1880)
Headquarters
ParentRELX
Websitewww.elsevier.com

Elsevier is a Dutch publishing and analytics company specialized in scientific contents.

Major products[change | change source]

Elsevier provides various services to support researchers. Some of them are similar to Google Scholar by Google.

ScienceDirect[change | change source]

ScienceDirect is a website which gives subscription-based access to a large database of scientific and medical research.[1][2][3][4] It stores many papers and academic journals as PDF.

Scopus[change | change source]

Scopus is Elsevier’s abstract and citation database launched in 2004.[5][6][7][8][9][10] It gives four types of quality measure for each title; those are h-Index,[11][12][13][14] CiteScore,[15][16] SJR (SCImago Journal Rank[17][18]) and SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper).

International relationships[change | change source]

Elsevier is not a non-profit organization. Therefore, some of their products are not cheap. Due to this difficulty, some universities have terminated their contract with Elsevier.

France[change | change source]

The French Couperin consortium agreed in 2019 to a 4-year contract with Elsevier.[19] This agreement was made despite criticism from the scientific community.[20]

Germany[change | change source]

Almost no academic institution in Germany is subscribed to Elsevier.[21][22]

Italy[change | change source]

CRUI (an association of universities in Italy) sealed a 5-year-long deal for 2018–2022.[23] This decision was made despite protests from the scientific community.

Taiwan[change | change source]

In 2016, CONCERT (an association of universities in Taiwan) announced it would not renew its contract with Elsevier.[24][25][26]

Legal actions[change | change source]

Lobbying efforts against open access[change | change source]

Elsevier have been known to be involved in lobbying against open access.[27] These have included the likes of:

Lawsuits[change | change source]

In 2015, Elsevier filed a lawsuit against the sites Sci-Hub and Library Genesis. They were making copyright-protected articles available for free. Elsevier also claimed illegal access to institutional accounts.[44][45]

References[change | change source]

  1. Tober, M. (2011). PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus or Google Scholar–Which is the best search engine for an effective literature research in laser medicine?. Medical Laser Application, 26(3), 139-144.
  2. Gies, T. (2018). The ScienceDirect accessibility journey: A case study. Learned publishing, 31(1).
  3. Munnolli, S. S. (2005). Harnessing the online resources: A case study of ScienceDirect in India. The International Information & Library Review, 37(4), 353-363.
  4. Bengtson, J. (2011). ScienceDirect Through SciVerse: A New Way To Approach Elsevier. Medical reference services quarterly, 30(1), 42-49.
  5. Burnham, J. F. (2006). Scopus database: a review. Biomedical digital libraries, 3(1), 1-8.
  6. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228.
  7. de Moya-Anegón, F., Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Álvarez, E., Muñoz-Fernández, F., González-Molina, A., & Herrero-Solana, V. (2007). Coverage analysis of Scopus: A journal metric approach. Scientometrics, 73(1), 53-78.
  8. Bakkalbasi, N., Bauer, K., Glover, J., & Wang, L. (2006). Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical digital libraries, 3(1), 7.
  9. Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian social science, 9(5), 18-26.
  10. Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787-804.
  11. Bar-Ilan, J. (2008). Which h-index?—A comparison of WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar. Scientometrics, 74(2), 257-271.
  12. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2007). What do we know about the h index?. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology, 58(9), 1381-1385.
  13. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2005). Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work?. Scientometrics, 65(3), 391-392.
  14. Hirsch, J. E. (2007). Does the h index have predictive power?. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(49), 19193-19198.
  15. Da Silva, J. A. T., & Memon, A. R. (2017). CiteScore: A cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric?. Scientometrics, 111(1), 553-556.
  16. Fernandez-Llimos, F. (2018). Differences and similarities between journal impact factor and citescore. Pharmacy Practice (Granada), 16(2).
  17. Falagas, M. E., Kouranos, V. D., Arencibia-Jorge, R., & Karageorgopoulos, D. E. (2008). Comparison of SCImago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor. The FASEB journal, 22(8), 2623-2628.
  18. DELGADO‐LÓPEZ‐CÓZAR, E., & CABEZAS‐CLAVIJO, Á. (2013). Ranking journals: could Google scholar metrics be an alternative to journal citation reports and Scimago journal rank?. Learned publishing, 26(2), 101-114.
  19. Consortium Couperin (2019-06-11). "Communiqué sur la négociation Elsevier" (PDF).
  20. "Embrouilles à propos de l'accès aux revues scientifiques" (in French). 2019-05-13. Retrieved 2019-08-26.
  21. Haufe, Gottfried (20 November 2018). "Vertragskündigungen Elsevier 2018". www.projekt-deal.de. Retrieved 6 March 2019.
  22. Else, Holly (5 February 2019). "Thousands of scientists run up against Elsevier's paywall". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00492-4. Retrieved 6 March 2019.
  23. "I ricercatori italiani potranno beneficiare dell'accesso continuo al database ScienceDirect di Elsevier - CRUI - Conferenza dei Rettori delle Università italiane".
  24. "關於Elsevier資料庫合約談判 CONCERT聲明". Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  25. "Taiwan Tech to Discontinue Subscription to Elsevier ScienceDirect Starting 2017 - NTUST Library". Retrieved 27 December 2016.
  26. Schmitt, Jason (2017-03-30). "Asia Advances Open Access Research". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2017-04-29.
  27. "Lobbying Spending Database - RELX Group, 2017". Opensecrets.org. Retrieved 2017-08-30.
  28. "Federal Research Public Access Act (Alliance for Taxpayer Access)". Taxpayeraccess.org. Retrieved 2017-03-25.
  29. "Legislation to Bar Public-Access Requirement on Federal Research Is Dead". The Chronicle of Higher Education. 2012-02-27. Retrieved 2017-03-25.
  30. "How Corporations Score Big Profits By Limiting Access To Publicly Funded Academic Research". ThinkProgress. 2013-03-03. Retrieved 2017-03-25.
  31. Contributor. "The Dangerous "Research Works Act"". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2017-03-25.
  32. Hu, Jane C. "Academics Want You to Read Their Work for Free". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-03-25.
  33. Elsevier. "Message on the Research Works Act". Elsevier.com. Retrieved 2017-03-25.
  34. Kakaes, Konstantin (2012-02-28). "Scientists' Victory Over the Research Works Act Is Like the SOPA Defeat". Slate. ISSN 1091-2339. Retrieved 2017-03-25.
  35. "Elsevier withdraws support from Research Works Act, bill collapses". Boing Boing. 2012-02-28. Retrieved 2017-03-25.
  36. "Academic publishers have become the enemies of science". The Guardian. 2012-01-16. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  37. "Muscle from Brussels as open access gets an €80bn boost". Times Higher Education (THE). 2012-05-17. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  38. "Horizon 2020 to promote open access". Gowers's Weblog. 2012-05-17. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  39. "Horizon 2020: A €80 Billion Battlefield for Open Access". Science. 2012-05-24. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  40. "European Union links research grants to open access". Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  41. "Inside Higher Ed: Big push for open access". Times Higher Education (THE). 2013-02-26. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  42. "Elsevier distances itself from open-access article". Times Higher Education (THE). 2013-05-22. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  43. "How Corporations Score Big Profits By Limiting Access To Publicly Funded Academic Research". ThinkProgress. 2013-03-03. Retrieved 2017-03-26.
  44. McLaughlin, Stephen Reid (18 March 2016). "Elsevier v. Sci-Hub on the docket". Retrieved 2016-06-28.
  45. "Simba Information: Five Professional Publishing News Events of 2015 Signal Times Are A-Changin'". PR Newswire. 17 December 2015. Retrieved 28 June 2016.

Other websites[change | change source]