#Elsevier

Christian Meestersrupdecat@fediscience.org
2025-06-20

I am a member of the German Association for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (to stay in the loop and be able to attend conferences). Today, I received an email from them distributing a mail from FEBS letters. They remind us scientists that they (the FEBS association) use their revenue from the journals to support meetings, fund fellowships, courses, etc.

They state that German scientists seem rather to publish with PLOS, Elsevier and MDPI. Now, while we can certainly all agree that publishing with #Elsevier and #MDPI is NOT a good idea.

Yet, FEBS' APCs are so high, that my uni would not support publishing with them. 🤷‍♂️

#academicpublishing #academicchatter

2025-06-20

Event: #Academia at the Digital Crossroads - join us to discuss chances and risks of the digital transformation of the #university, #DigitalSovereignty, #publishing and #BigTech. September 25 in #Groningen

Register at: rug.nl/library/calendar/250925

With: Tamar Sharon (Radboud #Philosophy), Juliette Schaafsma (Tilburg), David Cheruiyot (UG journalism), Marijke Folgering-van der Vliet (@Bibliothecaris) Michiel Kolman (#Elsevier), Nolda Tipping (@CIT_RUG), and @FleurZeldenrust (@DeJongeAkademie)

2025-06-12

Update. "Since 2017, the #UK has mandated organisations employing more than 250 people to publicly report their annual #gender #PayGap…Every science publisher pays men more than women. In 2024, the lowest median pay gap favouring men was 9.5% (#SpringerNature), followed by #Sage (13.3%), #Wiley (17.7%), and #Informa (formerly Taylor & Francis) (22.7%). #Elsevier remains an outlier in the magnitude of its gender pay gap and in the lack of progress. Eight years ago Elsevier stood out among publishers, with a median pay gap in 2017 of 40.4% in favour of men over women in its UK business…Elsevier’s median pay gap for 2024 is 32.8%, maintaining its position as worst performer among peers over all eight years of mandatory reporting."
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0

#Publishers #ScholComm

Ross Mouncermounce
2025-06-12

Read of the day:

Clark J, Zuccala E (2025) Gender pay gaps and inequity at science publishers. PLOS Glob Public Health 5(6): e0004673. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0

"Eight years ago Elsevier stood out among publishers, with a median pay gap in 2017 of 40.4% in favour of men over women in its UK business. The UK average that year was 18.4% and we called Elsevier’s gap – double the national average – unacceptable"

not enough seems to have changed 😠

Elsevier's gender pay gap in the UK remains consistently above every other publisher across the entire 8-year period
2025-06-10

Eleven studies by Spanish scientist Rafael Luque are retracted due to fraudulent practices.

A new tool reveals the alleged cheating committed for years by the chemist, who was suspiciously prolific.

With his 11 studies eliminated by publishers, he is already “in the top 0.1% of the most retracted authors of all time”.

mediafaro.org/article/20250610

#Science #RafaelLuque #ScientificIntegrity #Argos #Research #DataManipulation #Retraction #Academia #Cheating #Chemistry #Wiley #Elsevier #Scitility

2025-06-09

New From #Elsevier / #Scopus: "Introducing #CiteScore 2024: A Comprehensive and Transparent Metric for Journal Impact" blog.scopus.com/introducing-ci #scholcomm #libraries #metrics #publishing

Kevin Karhan :verified:kkarhan@infosec.space
2025-06-06

@neuralreckoning not to mention many journals are absurldy #paywalled (#Elsevier are just the greediest #rentseekers!) whilst also charging for #submissions to the point that some are existing mostly as a means of #corporations to commit "#AssetDenial" against competitiors by #publishing their own research, thus enshuring the #competition can't #patent a specific product.

  • Don't ask me how I know...
Nemo_bis 🌈nemobis@mamot.fr
2025-06-05
Nemo_bis 🌈nemobis@mamot.fr
2025-05-24

Why does #DOAJ have abstracts for articles which are closed access (nonfreely licensed and paywalled)?

doaj.org/article/13b03a41fdac4 (doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2016.07.010, #GreenOA at hdl.handle.net/10138/311483)

This is an article published in 2017 in an #Elsevier journal which in 2020 professed to turn "#OpenAccess".
doaj.org/toc/1095-953X

منصة يمن أكاديميكyemenacademic
2025-05-21

كلية أيلول الجامعية : نشر بحث علمي عنوان البحث:”Assessment of Radon Concentrations and Associated Health Risks via Surface and Groundwater Consumption in the Utmah, Yemen”

🌹 تهنئة بمناسبة إنجاز علمي🌹تبارك كلية أيلول الجامعية AUC للدكتور مراد المجاهد عميد الكلية و الاستاذ الدكتور فاهم بجاش نائب العميد لشئون التطوير وضمان الجودة والباحث صقر الجهمي نشر البحث العلمي الذي يحمل اسم الكلية في مجلة علمية مرموقة مصنفة ضمن فئة Q2 وتابعة لدار النشر ، وتحمل معامل تأثير…

yemenacademic.net/archives/958

Craig Aaen Stockdaleopenwarfare@openbiblio.social
2025-05-19

#EltonJohn is right about #AI, but for scientists it’s already too late because #Elsevier and #SpringerNature have already used our original works to train #ScopusAI and #Curie

(Marie Sklodowska-Curie is also presumably turning in her grave about her name being stolen too).

#scholarlyPublishing

2025-05-18

Retraction Watch: Scopus indexed a journal with a fake editorial board and a sham archive. “Scopus indexed Science of Law in July 2024. According to its profile in the database, the journal is published by the ‘Editorial Team of SoL.’ However, ‘the editorial team’ and many members of the editorial board are fake names and that such individuals do not actually exist.”

https://rbfirehose.com/2025/05/18/retraction-watch-scopus-indexed-a-journal-with-a-fake-editorial-board-and-a-sham-archive/

Ross Mouncermounce
2025-05-16

Rafael Luque in the news again... cen.acs.org/people/Russia-hono

No mention of Elsevier's role in his prodigious output 🤷‍♂️

A screenshot of Rafael Luque's google scholar profile as of April 2023, the Elsevier logo has been added in next to each item to more clearly indicate who is the publisher of each of the journal items.
Ross Mouncermounce
2025-04-29

Publish with Elsevier at your peril...

“Williams-Hoffman was surprised to discover that the online version of the paper contained an AI-generated question and answer section immediately below the abstract. She was even more surprised to read its claim that the paper was based on just three measurements, not 51. “

timeshighereducation.com/news/

Craig Aaen Stockdaleopenwarfare@openbiblio.social
2025-04-26

Rest in Power #VirginiaGiuffre - It took some guts to take on the people you accused and win.

Remember that #ghislainemaxwell who helped #jeffreyepstein sell Virginia into slavery moved in such rarified circles (that included scum like #PrinceAndrew and #DonaldTrump) because of her dad’s insanely profitable business in #scholarlyPublishing. Pergamon Press is now owned by #Elsevier

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pergam

Stefan Müller :verified:stefanmuelller@climatejustice.social
2025-04-03

@thorsten4future Wenn der Kapitalismus allen die Luft abschnührt, merken vielleicht doch manche was.

Ich erinnere mich noch an eine Mail des Bibliothek-Chefs in Bremen aus dem Jahr 2003 mit der Betreffzeiel: Das #Elsevier-Trauma.

Seit dem ist alles nur noch schlimmer geworden.

Stefan Müller :verified:stefanmuelller@climatejustice.social
2025-04-02

Ganz genau! Macht einfach nicht mehr mit. Gründet die Zeitschriften neu und macht alles eigenverantwortlich. Dafür braucht man kein #Elsevier oder #Springer oder #Wiley mehr. Arbeitet nicht für die, weder als Autor*innen noch als Gutachter*innen.

faz.net/aktuell/wissen/geist-s

Die #Linguistik hat das zum Teil schon geschafft.

faz.net/aktuell/wissen/geist-s

2025-04-01

ResearchFish Again

One of the things I definitely don’t miss about working in the UK university system is the dreaded Researchfish. If you’ve never heard of this bit of software, it’s intended to collect data relating to the outputs of research grants funded by the various Research Councils. That’s not an unreasonable thing to want to do, of course, but the interface is – or at least was when I last used it several years ago – extremely clunky and user-unfriendly. That meant that, once a year, along with other academics with research grants (in my case from STFC) I had to waste hours uploading bibliometric and other data by hand. A sensible system would have harvested this automatically as it is mostly available online at various locations or allowed users simply to upload their own publication list as a file; most of us keep an up-to-date list of publications for various reasons (including vanity!) anyway. Institutions also keep track of all this stuff independently. All this duplication seemed utterly pointless.

I always wondered what happened to the information I uploaded every year, which seemed to disappear without trace into the bowels of RCUK. I assume it was used for something, but mere researchers were never told to what purpose. I guess it was used to assess the performance of researchers in some way.

When I left the UK in 2018 to work full-time in Ireland, I took great pleasure in ignoring the multiple emails demanding that I do yet another Researchfish upload. The automated reminders turned into individual emails threatening that I would never again be eligible for funding if I didn’t do it, to which I eventually replied that I wouldn’t be applying for UK research grants anymore anyway. So there. Eventually the emails stopped.

Then, about three years ago, ResearchFish went from being merely pointless to downright sinister as a scandal erupted about the company that operates it (called Infotech), involving the abuse of data and the bullying of academics. I wrote about this here. It then transpired that UKRI, the umbrella organization governing the UK’s research council had been actively conniving with Infotech to target critics. An inquiry was promised but I don’t know what became of that.

Anyway, all that was a while ago and I neither longer live nor work in the UK so why mention ResearchFish again, now?

The reason is something that shocked me when I found out about it a few days ago. Researchfish is now operated by commercial publishing house Elsevier.

Words fail. I can’t be the only person to see a gigantic conflict of interest. How can a government agency allow the assessment of its research outputs to be outsourced to a company that profits hugely by the publication of those outputs? There’s a phrase in British English which I think is in fairly common usage: marking your own homework. This relates to individuals or organizations who have been given the responsibility for regulating their own products. Is very apt here.

The acquisition of Researchfish isn’t the only example of Elsevier getting its talons stuck into academia life. Elsevier also “runs” the bibliometric service Scopus which it markets as a sort of quality indicator for academic articles. I put “runs” in inverted commas because Scopus is hopelessly inaccurate and unreliable. I can certainly speak from experience on that. Nevertheless, Elsevier has managed to dupe research managers – clearly not the brightest people in the world – into thinking that Scopus is a quality product. I suppose the more you pay for something the less inclined you are to doubt its worth, because if you do find you have paid worthless junk you look like an idiot.

A few days ago I posted a piece that include this excerpt from an article in Wired:

Every industry has certain problems universally acknowledged as broken: insurance in health care, licensing in music, standardized testing in education, tipping in the restaurant business. In academia, it’s publishing. Academic publishing is dominated by for-profit giants like Elsevier and Springer. Calling their practice a form of thuggery isn’t so much an insult as an economic observation. 

With the steady encroachment of the likes of Elsevier into research assessment, it is clear that as well as raking in huge profits, the thugs are now also assuming the role of the police. The academic publishing industry is a monstrous juggernaut that is doing untold damage to research and is set to do more. It has to stop.

#bibliometrics #Elsevier #Infotech #ResearchAssessment #Researchfish #SCOPUS #UKRI

Client Info

Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.04
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst