Editing RELX (section)

==Controversy==
{{further|Elsevier#Criticism and controversies}}

=== Mercury contamination in Grassy Narrows ===
{{Main|Mercury contamination in Grassy Narrows}}
{{Double image
| image1            = Dryden mill.JPG
| image2            = Wabigoon river.JPG
| caption1          = [[Dryden Mill]]
| caption2          = The [[Wabigoon River]] as it exits the [[Wabigoon Lake]].
}}
The mercury contamination of the [[Wabigoon River]] in Ontario Canada by a corporate subsidiary between 1962 and 1970 was "one of the worst cases of environmental poisoning in Canadian history."<ref name="Lancet_Philibert_20200401">{{Cite journal |last1=Philibert |first1=Aline |last2=Fillion |first2=Myriam |last3=Mergler |first3=Donna |date=April 1, 2020 |title=Mercury exposure and premature mortality in the Grassy Narrows First Nation community: a retrospective longitudinal study |journal=The Lancet Planetary Health |volume=4 |issue=4 |pages=–141–e148 |doi=10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30057-7 |issn=2542-5196 |pmid=32353294 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="RCNE_198506282">{{cite report |url=https://archive.org/stream/finalreponorenviron00onta/finalreponorenviron00onta_djvu.txt |title=Report and Recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment |last=Fahlgreen |first=J.E.J. |date=June 28, 1985 |publisher=Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General |location=Toronto, Ontario |pages=440 |isbn=0-7729-0628-9 |access-date=March 24, 2021}}</ref> Reed sold the [[Dryden Mill]] to Great Lakes Forest Products in 1980.<ref name="RCNE_198506282"/> As of 2017, [[Asubpeeschoseewagong First Nation|Grassy Narrows First Nation]] chief Simon Fobister stated that the river remained highly contaminated.<ref name="Macleans_Forbes_20170228">{{cite news |last=Loriggio |first=Paola |date=February 28, 2017 |title=Chief says mercury still leaking from mill near Grassy Narrows – According to Chief Simon Fobister, a new report suggests there is ongoing contamination from the Dryden, Ont., mill |url=https://www.macleans.ca/news/chief-says-mercury-still-leaking-from-mill-near-grassy-narrows/ |access-date=March 5, 2021}}</ref>

===Academic journal prices===
Reed Elsevier has been criticised for the high prices of its journals and services, especially those published by Elsevier. It has also supported [[SOPA]], [[Personal Information Protection Act|PIPA]] and the [[Research Works Act]], although it no longer supports the last. Because of this, members of the scientific community have boycotted Elsevier journals. In January 2012, the boycott gained an online pledge and petition ([[The Cost of Knowledge]]) initiated by mathematician and [[Fields medal]]ist Sir [[Timothy Gowers]].<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Testify: The Open Science Movement Catches Fire|url=https://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/testify-the-open-science-movement-catches-fire/|access-date=2 February 2012 |magazine=Wired|first=David|last=Dobbs|date=30 January 2012}}</ref> The movement has received support from noted science bloggers, such as biologist [[Jonathan Eisen]].<ref>{{cite web|author=Jop de Vrieze|title=Thousands of Scientists Vow to Boycott Elsevier|url=http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/thousands-of-scientists-vow-to-b.html|work=Science Magazine|date=1 February 2012|access-date=2 February 2012}}</ref> Between 2012 and February 2023, about 20,500 scientists signed The Cost of Knowledge boycott.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thecostofknowledge.com/|title=The Cost of Knowledge|access-date=15 February 2023}}</ref>

===2019 UC system negotiations ===
On 28 February 2019, following long negotiations, the [[University of California]] announced it would be terminating all subscriptions with Elsevier.<ref>{{cite web|author=UC Office of the President|title=UC terminates subscriptions with world's largest scientific publisher in push for open access to publicly funded research|url=https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-terminates-subscriptions-worlds-largest-scientific-publisher-push-open-access-publicly|date=28 February 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190305103252/https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-terminates-subscriptions-worlds-largest-scientific-publisher-push-open-access-publicly|archive-date=5 March 2019}}</ref> On 16 March 2021, following further negotiations and significant changes including (i) universal open access to University of California research and (ii) containing the "excessively high costs" being charged by publishers, the university renewed its subscription.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/uc-publisher-relationships/uc-and-elsevier/|title=UC and Elsevier|date=16 March 2021|publisher= University of California|access-date=15 February 2023}}</ref>

===Privacy===
As a [[data broker]] Reed Elsevier collected, used, and sold data on millions of consumers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=0d2b3642-6221-4888-a631-08f2f255b577|title=A Review of the Data Broker Industry: Collection, Use, and Sale of Consumer Data for Marketing Purposes|publisher=US Senate|access-date=21 March 2015}}</ref> In 2005, a [[Computer security|security breach]] occurred through a recently purchased subsidiary, Seisint, which allowed identity thieves to steal the records of at least 316,000 people.<ref name="seisint-settlement">{{cite web|url=http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2008/03/agency-announces-settlement-separate-actions-against-retailer-tjx|title=Agency Announces Settlement of Separate Actions Against Retailer TJX, and Data Brokers Reed Elsevier and Seisint for Failing to Provide Adequate Security for Consumers Data|date=27 March 2008|publisher=Federal Trade Commission|access-date=21 March 2015}}</ref> The database contained names, current and prior addresses, dates of birth, drivers license numbers and [[Social Security number]]s, among other data obtained from credit reporting agencies and other sources. In 2008 the company settled an action taken against it by the [[Federal Trade Commission]] for multiple failures of security practice in how the data was stored and protected. The settlement required Reed Elsevier and Seisint to establish and maintain a comprehensive security program to protect nonpublic personal information.<ref name="seisint-settlement"/>

===Defence exhibitions===
Between 2005 and 2007, members of the medical and scientific communities, which purchase and use many journals published by Reed Elsevier, agitated for the company to cut its links to the arms trade. Two UK academics, Tom Stafford of [[Sheffield University]] and Nick Gill, launched petitions calling for it to stop organising arms fairs.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.idiolect.org.uk/elsevier/petition.php |title=Elsevier petition|work=idiolect.org.uk|access-date=21 March 2015}}</ref> A subsidiary, Spearhead, organised defence shows, including an event where it was reported that [[cluster bombs]] and extremely powerful [[riot control]] equipment were offered for sale.<ref>{{Cite news |first=Saeed |last=Shah |title=Cluster bombs on offer at arms fair despite sales ban |url=http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article312473.ece |work=The Independent |location=UK |date=14 September 2005 |access-date=21 February 2007 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first=Richard |last=Norton-Taylor |author-link=Richard Norton-Taylor|title=Banned stun guns and leg irons advertised at arms fair |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk_news/story/0,,1571378,00.html |work=The Guardian |location=UK |date=16 September 2005 |access-date=21 February 2007}}</ref> <!-- not at all complete or fair or NPOV, but worth a mention. sources for above: http://www.idiolect.org.uk/notes/archives/cat_elsevier.html http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article312473.ece http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1571378,00.html -thedeadlyshoe --> In February 2007 [[Richard Smith (editor)|Richard Smith]], former editor of the ''[[British Medical Journal]]'', published an editorial in the ''[[Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine]]'' arguing that Reed Elsevier's involvement in both the arms trade and medical publishing constituted a conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite news |first=Richard |last=Smith |title=Lancet publishers condemned over promotion of arms |url= http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/pr234.htm |work=Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine |date=20 February 2007 |access-date=18 March 2007 }}</ref> Subsequently, in June the company announced that they would be exiting the defence exhibition business during the second half of the year.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Reed Elsevier says to exit defence industry shows |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-reedelsevier-defence-idUKL0135316020070601|publisher=Reuters|date=1 June 2007|access-date=18 September 2015}}{{dead link|date=September 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref>

===Collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)===
In November 2019, legal scholars and [[human rights activists]] called on RELX to cease work with [[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] because their product [[LexisNexis]] directly contributes to the [[deportation]] of [[Illegal immigration|illegal immigrants]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Currier |first=Cora |date=14 November 2019 |title=Lawyers and Scholars to LexisNexis, Thomson Reuters: Stop Helping ICE Deport People |url=https://theintercept.com/2019/11/14/ice-lexisnexis-thomson-reuters-database/ |work=[[The Intercept]]}}</ref>

===Support for fossil fuel expansion===
An article in ''[[The Guardian]]'' in February 2022 revealed that Elsevier products and services support expanding the production aims of the fossil fuel industry. The company disclosed that it is "not prepared to draw a line between the transition away from fossil fuels and the expansion of oil and gas extraction."<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|date=24 February 2022|access-date=1 October 2022}}</ref> In response, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Scientists for Global Responsibility launched a petition in 2022, and issued a response to the company's reply in 2023. UCS noted in a blog post that "Elsevier and RELX claimed to be focused on a transition to clean energy. Given the services Elsevier and RELX continue to provide, these claims are demonstrably false."<ref>{{cite web|author=Union of Concerned Scientists|title=Elsevier and RELX's Climate Problem|url=https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/elsevier-and-relxs-climate-problem|date=19 September 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926113537/https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/elsevier-and-relxs-climate-problem|archive-date=26 September 2023}}</ref> Scientists for Global Responsibility also noted on their website that the company's "actions fall short of meeting the standards set in their own pledges"<ref>{{cite web|author=Scientists for Global Responsibility|title=Elsevier is still enabling high-carbon emitters|url=https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/elsevier-still-enabling-high-carbon-emitters|date=19 September 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231014015047/https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/elsevier-still-enabling-high-carbon-emitters|archive-date=14 October 2023}}</ref> and pointed campaigners to the website of Climate Rights Coalition,<ref>{{cite web|author=Climate Rights Coalition|title=Climate Rights Coalition homepage | url=https://www.climaterightscoalition.com/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231012185403/https://www.climaterightscoalition.com/|archive-date=12 October 2023}}</ref> which revealed such concerns had been raised by employees years prior.<ref>{{cite web|author=Climate Rights Coalition|title=Climate Rights Coalition advocacy page |url=https://www.climaterightscoalition.com/advocacy|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231017013259/https://www.climaterightscoalition.com/advocacy|archive-date=17 October 2023}}</ref>