Editing Elsevier (section)

==== 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>