#Adventskalender #librarylife es geht vorwärts und ehrlich #Elsevier macht es einem mit dem #Puzzle nicht leicht.
#elsevier
El gasto en Web of Science e Incites de Clarivate y en Scopus y SciVal de Elsevier por la FECYT (Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología) - plr blog:
"He ampliado el análisis incluyendo licitaciones con #Elsevier para la base de datos #Scopus y la herramienta #SciVal, añadiéndolo a los datos del gasto en #WebofScience e #Incites de #Clarivate, y la #FECYT ha pagado desde 2020:
- Más de 46.6 millones de € con IVA (más de 38.5 sin IVA)..."
¡Menuda pasta! 💰
There are some great numbers and charts in "The Drain of Scientific Publishing" (Nov 2025):
> Abstract: The domination of scientific publishing in the Global North by major commercial publishers is harmful to science; we need the most powerful members of the research community – funders, governments and Universities – to lead the drive to re-communalise publishing to serve science not the market.
#Elsevier finally (after 25 years) retracted the primary study concluding that #glyphosate is safe for humans. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the #Roundup herbicide, manufactured by #Monsanto.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715
h/t @civodul.
https://fediscience.org/@civodul@toot.aquilenet.fr/115661046263238211
Among the grounds for the retraction:
* "The article's conclusions…are solely based on unpublished studies from Monsanto."
* "Employees of Monsanto may have contributed to the writing of the article without proper acknowledgment as co-authors."
* "The authors may have received [undisclosed] financial compensation from Monsanto for their work on this article."
Remember that in 2020, the #Trump #EPA "relied almost entirely on #Monsanto studies" to conclude that Roundup was safe.
https://x.com/petersuber/status/1224039859272212480
In 2016, Monsanto made a show of sharing its research on glyphosate with the public. But instead of making it #OpenAccess, it put print copies in a room in Brussels, required registration to use the room, and then closed the room after two months.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190119214350/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/ioy1fVqaLy1
Two questions for follow up studies:
1. Why did Elsevier's 𝘙𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘛𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 need 25 years to retract this piece of Monsanto advertising?
2. What harm did the article cause during the last 25 years?
@felixlinker @AndreasZeller It’s often a decision of the publisher. ACM, for example, preserves the capitalisation. Other publishers even require title case to be all lower case (looking at you, #springer, #elsevier). But I agree, it just does not make sense! The only true version of the title is the one on the paper, as provided by the authors 🤷♂️
Yet Another Elsevier Scandal
I wish to draw your attention to an article in the Spanish newspaper El Pais. I encourage you to read the full article, which in English here, and the headline is this:
The article is about a very dodgy journal called Science of the Total Environment published by Elsevier. As far as I can tell, despite the scandal, this journal is still listed in Scopus which is meant to mean that it is a quality journal. One shouldn’t be surprised however, because Scopus is itself owned by Elsevier. Why anyone would trust Scopus for anything is completely beyond me.
As well as the huge revenues and profit margins revealed in the article, it also mentions that Erik Engstrom, CEO of RELX (the multinational that owns Elsevier), earned more than €15 million ($17.4 million) in 2024 between his salary and other compensation. Nice work if you can get it…
Here’s a quote:
The scandal exposes the windfall profits of scientific publishers, who in recent years have amassed billions of dollars in earnings from public funds earmarked for science.
Quite so. I’ve been saying as much for years, in fact, and it is the major reason for setting up the Open Journal of Astrophysics. In my opinion, however, the scandalous behaviour of publishers is only half the problem: equally to blame are the institutions that go along with it.
#elsevier #journalOfTheTotalEnvironment #openAccessPublishing #scopus
Tag 2 und es hat sich wieder jemand gefunden, mal sehen ob das heute auch klappt #adventskalender #librarylife #elsevier🎄
Update. The French 𝘊𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦 𝘭𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦 (#CNRS) is canceling the #WebOfScience and encouraging its affiliates to use #OpenAlex. It canceled #Scopus last year.
https://www.cnrs.fr/en/update/cnrs-breaking-free-web-science
I am sorry. I do not get it. Those who negotiate with Springer, Wiley and Elsevier are guilty themselves. The main problem of all this is that the publishers own the journal brands. We have to publish in them, there is no market.
The solution is very simple: Take the journals away from them. Stop working for them and found your own journal. Just resign as the board and create a scholar-owned new instance of the journal. Linguistics started this process over a decade ago. Check out @glossa, a former #Elsevier journal.
Publishers should do the publishing bit, but not own and sell the journals. Then there would be a market and the best quality for the lowest price would win.
Profit margins of 40% or even 80% would be things of the past.
Und endlich hat auch das Werbegeschenk von #Elsevier eine sinnvolle Verwendung gefunden, die Kolleginnen (vermutlich nur diese ;)) waren gestern schon fleißig. #adventskalender #librarylife
Huch? Jetzt wäre ich ja fast mausgerutscht jnd hätte beinahe in #AnnasArchive ein für mich essentielles Buch geladen.
Gut, dass mir das noch aufgefallen ist. Kaufe das Buch jetzt lieber für $400 bei #Elsevier.
Librarians versus the world https://researchwhisperer.org/2025/11/25/librarians-versus-the-world/
Withdraw your (free) labour. It is the simplest and most powerful statement that you can make.
Edit: that was fast!! I got it now THANK YOU :)
Does anyone have pdf of this article?
- A critical appraisal of the what-where-when episodic-like memory test in rodents: Achievements, caveats and future directions? I have access to it through work but the #Elsevier website is not working... I found the 'author manuscript' version "somewhere" but it's not convenient to read.
As an #Academic, do you reject #Elsevier and other for-profit publishers? Do you think they should stop going in the way of free exchange of knowledge?
Or maybe you think Elsevier is not that bad and wonder why people are concerned with them?
In both cases, have a look at this list of researchers pledging to stop supporting Elsevier:
http://thecostofknowledge.com/index.php
And if you are convinced... add your name to the list :)
Quoting @djoerd for the link:
https://idf.social/@djoerd/115564353571445019
Trying to read a paper related to my research. I have access to it through my university's arrangements with the publisher, meaning that the uni pays (several £100k per year) for the access.
Publisher website (#Elsevier): error "there was a problem providing the content you requested"
#Scihub website: here you go, read this PDF for free and with no hassle whatsoever
Edit: I wasn't sure that it was really paying "millions per year" so I looked it up. Couldn't find current numbers but I found this list from 10y ago saying most UK unis pay an average of ~£800 000 per year just for Elsevier journals:
https://gowers.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/elsevier-journals-some-facts/
New blog post: ScienceDirect is marketing AI directly to students and researchers? – The Distant Librarian https://distlib.pival.me/sciencedirect-is-marketing-ai-directly-to-students-and-researchers/
Hab kurz geschaut geschaut, was #Elsevier an Publikationskosten aufruft, wenn ich #OpenAccess veröffentlichen will.
Also wenn ich mein Paper in dem Journal veröffentliche in dem auch das Referenzpaoer erschienen ist, auf das ich mich beziehe.
Die verlangen FUCKING 7500 €!
Danke. Nein.
21038 Researchers Taking a Stand against #Elsevier. These are some of their objections:
1. Elsevier charges exorbitantly high prices for subscriptions to individual journals.
2. the only realistic option for many libraries is to agree to buy very large "bundles"; Elsevier thus makes huge profits by exploiting the fact that some journals are essential.
3. Elsevier supports measures such as SOPA, PIPA that aim to restrict the free exchange of information.
Client Info
Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.07
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst