Editing Elsevier (section)

== 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 complaint 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 has 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 has 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}}</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}}</ref>