Hubbry Logo
ElsevierElsevierMain
Open search
Elsevier
Community hub
Elsevier
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Elsevier
Elsevier
from Wikipedia

Elsevier (/ˈɛlsəvɪər/ EL-sə-veer) is a Dutch academic publishing company specializing in scientific, technical, and medical content. Its products include journals such as The Lancet, Cell, the ScienceDirect collection of electronic journals, Trends, the Current Opinion series, the online citation database Scopus, the SciVal tool for measuring research performance, the ClinicalKey search engine for clinicians, and the ClinicalPath evidence-based cancer care service. Elsevier's products and services include digital tools for data management, instruction, research analytics, and assessment.[4][5] Elsevier is part of the RELX Group, known until 2015 as Reed Elsevier, a publicly traded company. According to RELX reports, in 2022 Elsevier published more than 600,000 articles annually in over 2,800 journals.[1] As of 2018, its archives contained over 17 million documents and 40,000 e-books, with over one billion annual downloads.[6]

Key Information

Researchers have criticized Elsevier for its high profit margins and copyright practices.[7][8] The company had a reported profit before tax of £2.295 billion with an adjusted operating margin of 33.1% in 2023.[9] Much of the research that Elsevier publishes is publicly funded; its high costs have led to accusations of rent-seeking,[10] boycotts against them, and the rise of alternate avenues for publication and access, such as preprint servers and shadow libraries.[11][12]

History

[edit]
The original seal of the Elzevir family is used by Elsevier as its logo.

Elsevier was founded in 1880[13] and adopted the name and logo from the Dutch publishing house Elzevir that was an inspiration but has no connection to the contemporary Elsevier.[13] The Elzevir family operated as booksellers and publishers in the Netherlands; the founder, Lodewijk Elzevir (1542–1617), lived in Leiden and established that business in 1580. As a company logo, Elsevier used the Elzevir family's printer's mark, a tree entwined with a vine and the words Non Solus, which is Latin for "not alone".[14] According to Elsevier, this logo represents "the symbiotic relationship between publisher and scholar".[15]

The expansion of Elsevier in the scientific field after 1945 was funded with the profits of the newsweekly Elsevier, which published its first issue on 27 October 1945. The weekly was an instant success and very profitable.[16] The weekly was a continuation, as is stated in its first issue, of the monthly Elsevier, which was founded in 1891 to promote the name of the publishing house and had to stop publication in December 1940 because of the German occupation of the Netherlands.[17]

In May 1939, Klautz established the Elsevier Publishing Company Ltd. in London to distribute these academic titles in the British Commonwealth (except Canada). When the Nazis occupied the Netherlands for the duration of five years from May 1940, he had just founded a second international office, the Elsevier Publishing Company Inc. in New York City.[18] In 1947, Elsevier began publishing its first English-language journal, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta.[19]

In 1970, Elsevier acquired competing firm North Holland Publishing Co. In 1971 the firm acquired Excerpta Medica, a small medical abstract publisher based in Amsterdam.[19] As the first and only company in the world that employed a database for the production of journals, it introduced computer technology to Elsevier.[20] In 1978 Elsevier merged with Dutch newspaper publisher NDU, and devised a strategy to broadcast textual news to people's television sets through Viewdata and Teletext technology.[21]

In 1979, Elsevier Science Publishers launched the Article Delivery Over Network Information System (ADONIS) project in conjunction with four business partners. The project aims to find a way to deliver scientific articles to libraries electronically, and would continue for over a decade.[22] In 1991, in conjunction with nine American universities, Elsevier's The University Licensing Project (TULIP) was the first step in creating published, copyrighted material available over the Internet. It formed the basis for ScienceDirect, launched six years later.[23][24] In 1997, after almost two decades of experiments, ScienceDirect was launched as the first online repository of electronic (scientific) books and articles. Though librarians and researchers were initially hesitant regarding the new technology, more and more of them switched to e-only subscriptions.[25][26]

In 2004, Elsevier launched Scopus - a multidisciplinary metadata database of scholarly publications, only the second of such kind (after the Web of Science, although free Google Scholar was also launched in 2004). Scopus covers journals, some conference papers and books from various publishers, and measures performance on both author and publication levels.[27] In 2009 SciVal Spotlight was released. The tool enabled research administrators to measure their institution's relative standing in terms of productivity, grants, and publications.[28][29]

In 2013, Elsevier acquired Mendeley, a UK company making software for managing and sharing research papers. Mendeley, previously an open platform for sharing of research, was greatly criticized for the sale, which users saw as acceding to the "paywall" approach to research literature. Mendeley's previously open-sharing system now allows exchange of paywalled resources only within private groups.[30] The New Yorker described Elsevier's reasons for buying Mendeley as two-fold: to acquire its user data, and to "destroy or coöpt an open-science icon that threatens its business model".[31]

Company statistics

[edit]

During 2018, researchers submitted over 1.8 million research papers to Elsevier-based publications. Over 20,000 editors managed the peer review and selection of these papers, resulting in the publication of more than 470,000 articles in over 2,500 journals.[6] Editors are generally unpaid volunteers who perform their duties alongside a full-time job in academic institutions,[32] although exceptions have been reported. In 2013, the five editorial groups Elsevier, Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor & Francis, and SAGE Publications published more than half of all academic papers in the peer-reviewed literature.[33][34] At the time, Elsevier accounted for 16% of the world market in science, technology, and medical publishing.[35] In 2019, Elsevier accounted for the review, editing and dissemination of 18% of the world's scientific articles.[36] About 45% of revenue by geography in 2019 derived from North America, 24% from Europe, and the remaining 31% from the rest of the world. Around 84% of revenue by format came from electronic usage and 16% came from print.[6][37]

The firm employs 8,100 people.[37] The CEO is Kumsal Bayazit, who was appointed on 15 February 2019.[38] In 2018, it reported a mean 2017 gender pay gap of 29.1% for its UK workforce, while the median was 40.4%, the highest yet reported by a publisher in UK. Elsevier attributed the result to the under-representation of women in its senior ranks and the prevalence of men in its technical workforce.[39] The UK workforce consists of 1,200 people in the UK, and represents 16% of Elsevier's global employee population.[39] Elsevier's parent company, RELX, has a global workforce that is 51% female to 49% male, with 43% female and 57% male managers, and 29% female and 71% male senior operational managers.[39][40]

In 2018, Elsevier accounted for 34% of the revenues of RELX group (£2.538 billion of £7.492 billion). In operating profits, it represented 40% (£942 million of £2,346 million). Adjusted operating profits (with constant currency) rose by 2% from 2017 to 2018.[6] Profits grew further from 2018 to 2019, to a total of £982 million.[41] The first half of 2019, RELX reported the first slowdown in revenue growth for Elsevier in several years: 1% vs. an expectation of 2% and a typical growth of at least 4% in the previous 5 years.[42] Overall for 2019, Elsevier reported revenue growth of 3.9% from 2018, with the underlying growth at constant currency at 2%.[43] In 2019, the company accounted for 34% of the revenues of RELX (£2.637billion of £7.874billion). In adjusted operating profits, it represented 39% (£982m of £2.491bn). Adjusted operating profits (with constant currency) rose by 2% from 2018 to 2019.[37] In 2019, researchers submitted over two million research papers to Elsevier-based publications. Over 22,000 editors managed the peer review and selection of these papers, resulting in the publication of about 500,000 articles in over 2,500 journals.[37]

In 2020, Elsevier was the largest academic publisher, with approximately 16% of the academic publishing market and more than 3000 journals.[44]

Market model

[edit]

Products and services

[edit]

Products and services include electronic and print versions of journals, textbooks and reference works, and cover the health, life, physical, and social sciences.

The target markets are academic and government research institutions, corporate research labs, booksellers, librarians, scientific researchers, authors, editors, physicians, nurses, allied health professionals, medical and nursing students and schools, medical researchers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and research establishments. It publishes in 13 languages including English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Polish, Japanese, Hindi, and Chinese.

Flagship products and services include VirtualE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Scirus, EMBASE, Engineering Village, Compendex, Cell, Knovel, SciVal, Pure, and Analytical Services, The Consult series (FirstCONSULT, PathCONSULT, NursingCONSULT, MDConsult, StudentCONSULT), Virtual Clinical Excursions, and major reference works including Gray's Anatomy, Nelson Pediatrics, Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy, and online versions of many journals[45] including The Lancet.

ScienceDirect is Elsevier's platform for online electronic access to its journals and over 40,000 e-books, reference works, book series, and handbooks. The articles are grouped in four main sections: Physical Sciences and Engineering, Life Sciences, Health Sciences, and Social Sciences and Humanities. For most articles on the website, abstracts are freely available; access to the full text of the article (in PDF, and also HTML for newer publications) often requires a subscription or pay-per-view purchase.[37]

In 2019, Elsevier published 49,000 free open access articles and 370 full open access journals. Moreover, 1,900 of its journals sold hybrid open access options.[37]

Pricing

[edit]

The subscription rates charged by the company for its journals have been criticized; some very large journals (with more than 5,000 articles) charge subscription prices as high as £9,634, far above average,[46] and many British universities pay more than a million pounds to Elsevier annually.[47] The company has been criticized not only by advocates of a switch to the open-access publication model, but also by universities whose library budgets make it difficult for them to afford current journal prices.

For example, in 2004, a resolution by Stanford University's senate singled out Elsevier's journals as being "disproportionately expensive compared to their educational and research value", which librarians should consider dropping, and encouraged its faculty "not to contribute articles or editorial or review efforts to publishers and journals that engage in exploitive or exorbitant pricing".[48] Similar guidelines and criticism of Elsevier's pricing policies have been passed by the University of California, Harvard University, and Duke University.[49]

In July 2015, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands threatened to boycott Elsevier, which refused to negotiate on any open access policy for Dutch universities.[50] After a year of negotiation, Elsevier pledged to make 30% of research published by Dutch researchers in Elsevier journals open access by 2018.[51] In October 2018, a complaint against Elsevier was filed with the European Commission, alleging anticompetitive practices stemming from Elsevier's confidential subscription agreements and market dominance. The European Commission decided not to investigate.[52][53]

The elevated pricing of field journals in economics, most of which are published by Elsevier, was one of the motivations that moved the American Economic Association to launch the American Economic Journal in 2009.[54]

Mergers and acquisitions

[edit]

RELX Group has been active in mergers and acquisitions. Elsevier has incorporated other businesses which were either complementing or competing in the field of research and publishing and that reinforce its market power[55] including Mendeley (after the closure of 2collab), SSRN,[56] bepress/Digital Commons, PlumX, Hivebench, Newsflo, Science-Metrix,[57] and Interfolio.[58]

Conferences

[edit]

Elsevier conducts conferences, exhibitions, and workshops around the world with over 50 conferences a year covering life sciences, physical sciences and engineering, social sciences, and health sciences.[59]

Shill review offer

[edit]

According to the BBC, in 2009, the firm [Elsevier] offered a £17.25 Amazon voucher to academics who contributed to the textbook Clinical Psychology if they would go on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble (a large U.S. books retailer) and give it five stars. Elsevier responded, "Encouraging interested parties to post book reviews isn't outside the norm in scholarly publishing, nor is it wrong to offer to nominally compensate people for their time. But in all instances the request should be unbiased, with no incentives for a positive review, and that's where this particular e-mail went too far", and that it was a mistake by a marketing employee.[60]

Blocking text mining research

[edit]

Elsevier seeks to regulate text and data mining with private licenses,[61] claiming that reading requires extra permission if automated and that the publisher holds copyright on output of automated processes. The conflict on research and copyright policy has often resulted in researchers being blocked from their work.[62] In November 2015, Elsevier blocked a scientist from performing text mining research at scale on Elsevier papers, even though his institution already pays for access to Elsevier journal content.[61][63] The data was collected using the R package "statcheck".[64]

Fossil fuel company consulting and advocacy

[edit]

Elsevier is one of the most prolific publishers of books aimed at expanding the production of fossil fuels. Since at least 2010 the company has worked with the fossil fuel industry to optimise fossil fuel extraction. It commissions authors, journal advisory board members and editors who are employees of the largest oil firms. In addition it markets data services and research portals directly to the fossil fuel industry to help "increase the odds of exploration success".[65]

Relationship with academic institutions

[edit]

Finland

[edit]

In 2015, Finnish research organizations paid a total of 27 million euros in subscription fees. Over one-third of the total costs went to Elsevier. The information was revealed after successful court appeal following a denied request on the subscription fees, due to confidentiality clauses in contracts with the publishers.[66] Establishing that fact led to the creation of tiedonhinta.fi petition demanding more reasonable pricing and open access to content signed by more than 2800 members of the research community.[67] While deals with other publishers have been made, it was not the case for Elsevier, leading to the nodealnoreview.org boycott of the publisher signed more than 600 times.[68]

In January 2018, it was confirmed that a deal had been reached between those concerned.[69][70][71]

France

[edit]

The French Couperin consortium agreed in 2019 to a 4-year contract with Elsevier,[72] despite criticism from the scientific community.[73] The French École Normale Supérieure has stopped having Elsevier publish the journal Annales Scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure[74] (as of 2008).[75]

Effective on 1 January 2020, the French Academy of Sciences stopped publishing its seven journals Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences with Elsevier and switched to Centre Mersenne in Grenoble, France.[76]

Germany

[edit]

Since 2018 and as of 2023,[77] almost no academic institution in Germany is subscribed to Elsevier.[78][79] Germany's DEAL project (Projekt DEAL), which includes over 60 major research institutions, has announced that all of its members are cancelling their contracts with Elsevier, effective 1 January 2017. The boycott is in response to Elsevier's refusal to adopt "transparent business models" to "make publications more openly accessible".[80][81][82][83][84][85][86] Horst Hippler, spokesperson for the DEAL consortium states that "taxpayers have a right to read what they are paying for" and that "publishers must understand that the route to open-access publishing at an affordable price is irreversible".[82] In July 2017, another 13 institutions announced that they would also be cancelling their subscriptions to Elsevier journals.[87] In August 2017, at least 185 German institutions had cancelled their contracts with Elsevier.[88] In 2018, whilst negotiations were ongoing, around 200 German universities that cancelled their subscriptions to Elsevier journals were granted complimentary open access to them until this ended in July of the year.[89][90][91]

On 19 December 2018, the Max Planck Society (MPS) in Munich, Germany announced that the existing subscription agreement with Elsevier would not be renewed after the expiration date of 31 December 2018. MPS counts 14,000 scientists in 84 research institutes, publishing 12,000 articles each year.[92][93]

In 2023, Elsevier and DEAL reached a tentative agreement on a publish and read model, which would take effect until 2028 if at least 70% of the eligible institutions opt into it.[77]

Hungary

[edit]

In March 2018, the Hungarian Electronic Information Service National Programme entered negotiations on its 2019 Elsevier subscriptions, asking for a read-and-publish deal.[94] Negotiations were ended by the Hungarian consortium in December 2018, and the subscription was not renewed.[95]

Iran

[edit]

In 2013, Elsevier changed its policies in response to sanctions announced by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control that year. Included was a request that all Elsevier journals avoid publishing papers by Iranian nationals who are employed by the Iranian government.[96][97] Elsevier executive Mark Seeley expressed regret on behalf of the company, but did not announce an intention to challenge this interpretation of the law.[98]

Italy

[edit]

CRUI (an association of Italian universities) sealed a 5-year-long deal for 2018–2022,[99] despite protests from the scientific community, protests focused on aspects such as the lack of prevention of cost increases by means of the double dipping.[100]

Netherlands

[edit]

In 2015, a consortium of all of Netherlands' 14 universities threatened to boycott Elsevier if it could not agree that articles by Dutch authors would be made open access and settled with the compromise of 30% of its Dutch papers becoming open access by 2018. Gerard Meijer, president of Radboud University in Nijmegen and lead negotiator on the Dutch side noted, "it's not the 100% that I hoped for".[82][101][102][103]

Norway

[edit]

In March 2019, the Norwegian government on behalf of 44 institutions—universities, university colleges, research institutes, and hospitals—decided to break negotiations on renewal of their subscription deal with Elsevier, because of disagreement regarding open-access policy and Elsevier's unwillingness to reduce the cost of reading access.[104]

South Korea

[edit]

In 2017, over 70 university libraries confirmed a "contract boycott" movement involving three publishers including Elsevier. As of January 2018, whilst negotiations remain underway, a decision will be made as to whether or not continue the participating libraries will continue the boycott.[105] It was then confirmed that an agreement had been reached.[106]

Sweden

[edit]

In May 2018, the Bibsam Consortium, which negotiates license agreements on behalf of all Swedish universities and research institutes, decided not to renew their contract with Elsevier,[107][108] alleging that the publisher does not meet the demands of transition towards a more open-access model, and referring to the rapidly increasing costs for publishing.[109] Swedish universities will still have access to articles published before 30 June 2018. Astrid Söderbergh Widding, chairman of the Bibsam Consortium, said, "the current system for scholarly communication must change and our only option is to cancel deals when they don't meet our demands for a sustainable transition to open access".[110] Sweden has a goal of open access by 2026.[111] In November 2019 the negotiations concluded, with Sweden paying for reading access to Elsevier journals and open access publishing for all its researchers' articles.[112]

Taiwan

[edit]

In Taiwan, more than 75% of universities, including the country's top 11 institutions, have joined a collective boycott against Elsevier. On 7 December 2016, the Taiwanese consortium, CONCERT, which represents more than 140 institutions, announced it would not renew its contract with Elsevier.[82][113][114][115]

United States

[edit]

In March 2018, the faculty of Florida State University in Tallahassee faculty elected to cancel its $2 million subscription to a bundle of several journals. In 2019, it began buying access to titles à la carte.[108]

In February 2019, the University of California said it would terminate subscriptions "in [a] push for open access to publicly funded research".[116][117][14] After months of negotiations over open access to research by UC researchers and prices for subscriptions to Elsevier journals, a press release by the UC Office of the President issued Thursday, 28 February 2019 stated "Under Elsevier's proposed terms, the publisher would have charged UC authors large publishing fees on top of the university's multimillion dollar subscription, resulting in much greater cost to the university and much higher profits for Elsevier."[116][118] On 10 July 2019, Elsevier began restricting access to all new paywalled articles and approximately 5% of paywalled articles published before 2019.[119]

In April 2020, the University of North Carolina elected not to renew its bundled Elsevier package, citing a failure "to provide an affordable path".[120] Rather than extend the license, which was stated to cost $2.6 million annually, the university decided to continue subscribing to a smaller set of individual journals. The State University of New York Libraries Consortium also announced similar outcome,[121][122] with the help of estimates from Unpaywall Journals.[123] Similarly, MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts announced in June 2020 that it would no longer pay for access to new Elsevier articles.[124][125]

In 2022, Elsevier and the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor established an agreement to support authors who wish to publish open access.[126]

Ukraine

[edit]

In June 2020, the Ukrainian government canceled subscriptions for all universities in the country after failed negotiations. The Ministry of Education claimed that Elsevier indexes journals in its register that call themselves Russian but are from "occupied territories".[127]

Criticism of academic practices

[edit]

Lacking dissemination of its research

[edit]

Lobbying efforts against open access

[edit]

Elsevier have been known to be involved in lobbying against open access.[128] These have included:

Selling open-access articles
[edit]

In 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017,[152] Elsevier was found to be selling some articles that should have been open access, but had been put behind a paywall.[153] 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.[154]

Action against academics posting their own articles online
[edit]

In 2013, Digimarc, a company representing Elsevier, told the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta 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,[155] the university complied. Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts and the University of California, Irvine also received takedown notices for self-archived academic articles, a first for Harvard, according to Peter Suber.[156][157][158]

Months after its acquisition of Academia.edu rival Mendeley, Elsevier sent thousands of takedown notices to Academia.edu, a practice which has since ceased after widespread complaints by academics, according to Academia.edu founder and chief executive Richard Price.[159][160]

After Elsevier acquired the repository SSRN in May 2016, academics started complaining that some of their work had been removed without notice. The action was explained as a technical error.[161]

Sci-Hub and LibGen lawsuit
[edit]

In 2015, Elsevier filed a lawsuit against the sites Sci-Hub and LibGen, which make copyright-protected articles available for free. Elsevier also claimed illegal access to institutional accounts.[162][163]

Initial rejection of the Initiative for Open Citations
[edit]

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."[164]

Elsevier finally joined the initiative in January 2021 after the data was already available with an Open Data Commons license in Microsoft Academic.[165]

ResearchGate take down
[edit]

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 which includes Elsevier and the American Chemical Society.[166]

Resignation of editorial boards
[edit]

The editorial boards of a number of journals have resigned because of disputes with Elsevier over pricing:

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.[180]
  • In 2015, the entire editorial staff of the general linguistics journal Lingua resigned in protest of Elsevier's unwillingness to agree to their terms of Fair Open Access. Editor-in-chief Johan Rooryck also announced that the Lingua staff would establish a new journal, Glossa.[181]
  • 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.[95][182]
  • 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.[183][184]
  • In 2023, the editorial board of the journal 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.[185]
  • 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".[186] 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.[187][188]
"The Cost of Knowledge" boycott
[edit]

In 2003, various university librarians began coordinating with each other to complain about Elsevier's "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.[189] Librarians continued to discuss the implications of the pricing schemes, many feeling pressured into buying the Elsevier packages without other options.[190]

On 21 January 2012, mathematician Timothy Gowers publicly announced that 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 SOPA, 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.[191][192][193]

Afterwards 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,[191][192] growing to over 17,000 by November 2018.[194] 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.[191] The company also claimed that its profit margins are "simply a consequence of the firm's efficient operation".[193] 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 had withdrawn support from the Research Works Act.[195] 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, U.S. Representatives Darrell Issa and Carolyn Maloney, issued a joint statement saying that they would not push the bill in Congress.[196]

Plan S open-access initiative
[edit]

About a Europe-based initiative called Plan S aimed at requiring researchers to publish in open-access journals,[197] a spokesman for Elsevier said "If you think that information should be free of charge, go to Wikipedia".[198] 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.[199]

"Who's Afraid of Peer Review"

[edit]

In 2013, one of Elsevier's journals was caught in the sting set up by John Bohannon, published in Science, called "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?"[200] 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.[201] 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.[202]

Fake journals

[edit]

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.[203][204][205][206] Merck described the journal as a "complimentary publication", denied claims that articles within it were ghost written by Merck, and said that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals.[207] 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".[208] 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.).[209] Excerpta Medica was a "strategic medical communications agency" run by Elsevier, according to the imprint's web page.[210] In October 2010, Excerpta Medica was acquired by Adelphi Worldwide.[211]

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals

[edit]

There was speculation[212] 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.[213] The controversy was covered extensively in blogs.[214][215] The publisher announced in January 2009 that El Naschie had retired as editor-in-chief.[216] As of November 2011 the co-Editors-in-Chief of the journal were Maurice Courbage and Paolo Grigolini.[217] In June 2011, El Naschie sued the 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.[218] 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.[219] 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".[220]

Plagiarism

[edit]

Elsevier's 'Duties of Authors' says that authors should ensure that 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.[221] Some Elsevier journals automatically screen submissions for plagiarism,[222] but not all.[223]

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.[224]

Scientific racism

[edit]

Angela Saini has criticized the two Elsevier journals 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.[225] The journal Intelligence has been criticized for having "occasionally included papers with pseudoscientific findings about intelligence differences between races".[226] 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.[227]

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.[228] The article had claimed that there was scientific evidence that skin color was related to aggression and sexuality in humans.[229]

Manipulation of bibliometrics

[edit]

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 of prestige, can influence revenues, subscriptions, and academics' willingness to contribute unpaid work.[230] However, there's evidence suggesting that reliability of published research works in several fields may decrease with increasing journal rank.[231]

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.[232]

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.[233][234] One of their journals, Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, was involved in the manipulation of the peer review report.[235]

Conflicts because of relations to industry

[edit]

Elsevier publishes research by climate change researchers in many of its journals, but also publishes books for the fossil fuel industry about expanding production, as well as other products such as a geomapping tool to help find oil and gas reserves.[236] Climate scientists are concerned that this conflict of interest could undermine the credibility of climate science because they believe that fossil fuel extraction and climate action are incompatible.[237][238]

Involvement in international arms trade

[edit]

Elsevier organized international arms fairs until 2007, when they announced they would no longer do so, after various protests and calls to boycott their journals.[239]

Antitrust lawsuit

[edit]

In September 2024, Lucina Uddin, a neuroscience professor at UCLA, sued Elsevier along with five other academic journal publishers in a proposed class-action lawsuit, alleging that the publishers violated antitrust law by agreeing not to compete against each other for manuscripts and by denying scholars payment for peer review services.[240][241]

Awards

[edit]

Elsevier has partnered with a number of organisations and lent its name to several awards. Since 1987, Elsevier has partnered with the academic journal Spectrochimica Acta Part B to award the Elsevier / Spectrochimica Acta Atomic Spectroscopy Award. This award is given each year for a jury-selected best paper of the year. The award is worth $1000.[242][243]

Starting in 1987, the IBMS Elsevier Award was awarded in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, and 2007 by the International Bone and Mineral Society in partnership with Elsevier, "for outstanding research and teaching throughout their career by an IBMS member in the fields of bone and mineral metabolism".[244]

From 2007, the Coordenação de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) in Brazil partnered with Elsevier to award the CAPES Elsevier Award, the award being restricted to women from 2013 to encourage more women to pursue scientific careers. Several awards were awarded each year, as of 2014.[245]

From 2011, the OWSD-Elsevier Foundation Awards for Early-Career Women Scientists in the Developing World (OWSD-Elsevier Foundation Awards) have been awarded annually to early-career women scientists in selected developing countries in four regions: Latin America and the Caribbean; East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific; Central and South Asia; and Sub-Saharan Africa. The Organization for Women in Science for the Developing World (OWSD), the Elsevier Foundation, and The World Academy of Sciences first partnered to recognize achievements of early-career women scientists in developing countries in 2011.[246][247]

In 2016, the Elsevier Foundation awarded the Elsevier Foundation-ISC3 Green and Sustainable Chemistry Challenge. From 2021 and as of 2024, the annual award is known as the Elsevier Foundation Chemistry for Climate Action Challenge. Two prizes have been awarded each year; until 2020, the first prizewinner was awarded €50,000, and the second prize was €25,000. Since then, €25,000 has been awarded to each winner, usually an entrepreneur who has created a project or proposal that aids the fight against climate change.[248]

Imprints

[edit]

Elsevier uses its imprints (that is, brand names used in publishing) to market to different consumer segments. Many of the imprints have previously been the names of publishing companies which were purchased by Reed Elsevier.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Elsevier B.V. is a Netherlands-based multinational company specializing in scientific, technical, and medical and , operating as the primary scientific division of plc. Founded in 1880 in , it has evolved from a small Dutch publisher of books and journals into a global provider of digital platforms and data services supporting research, health, and education sectors. Elsevier publishes more than 2,900 peer-reviewed journals, including high-impact titles such as and Cell, along with over 46,000 e-book titles and hundreds of thousands of research articles annually via platforms like and . These resources facilitate access to over 18 million peer-reviewed documents and abstract and citation data for more than 84 million records, respectively. The company has achieved prominence through its extensive portfolio and investments in digital infrastructure but has also encountered substantial controversies, including academic boycotts over high subscription fees and article processing charges that critics argue extract undue profits from publicly funded research, as exemplified by the 2012 "Cost of Knowledge" pledge signed by over 10,000 researchers and recent institutional terminations of agreements. Elsevier defends its model as necessary to sustain rigorous , editorial quality, and technological advancements amid rising demands.

History

Founding and Early Development

Elsevier was established in 1880 in , , as Uitgeversmaatschappij Elsevier by a group of five Dutch booksellers and publishers led by Jacobus George Robbers. The company adopted its name from the historic , a 16th- and 17th-century Dutch known for compact editions of , though no direct lineage connected the two entities. Initial operations centered on general , launching with a literary journal, Dutch translations of Jules Verne's novels, and contributions to the Winkler Prins encyclopedia, a comprehensive Dutch comparable to . By 1887, the firm had relocated its headquarters to , the ' publishing hub, which facilitated growth in literary and scholarly output. That year, Elsevier acquired Dutch rights to Verne's Illustrated Travels, a 57-volume series, underscoring its early emphasis on accessible, high-quality editions of popular and classic literature. The company maintained a focus on reprints and scholarly books, drawing inspiration from Elzevir traditions of diminutive, portable formats, while building a reputation through reference works and translations. Early development into scientific publishing began tentatively in amid broader international ambitions. In , Elsevier initiated efforts in global scientific dissemination, followed in by the publication of an English translation of Paul Karrer's , marking its initial foray into technical content. The same year, it formed a with Nordemann Publishing Company to open a New York branch, expanding its operational footprint beyond . These steps laid groundwork for later specialization, though pre-war activities remained dominated by literary and reference publishing.

Post-War Expansion and International Growth

Following , Elsevier capitalized on the postwar demand for by leveraging profits from its newly launched newsweekly, Elsevier, which debuted on October 27, 1945, to fund expansion into international scientific publishing. This revenue stream enabled the company to invest in multilingual journals and books, positioning it as a key player in fields like biochemistry and physics amid Europe's scientific recovery. In , Elsevier introduced (BBA), an early international multidisciplinary journal that became a cornerstone of its portfolio, publishing research in English, French, and German to attract global contributors. International growth accelerated through strategic office establishments and partnerships. Building on wartime outposts in (1939) and New York to safeguard operations during the Nazi occupation of the , Elsevier formalized its U.S. presence with Elsevier Press Inc. in in 1951, followed by expanded publishing offices in New York and in 1962 for marketing, distribution, and editorial functions. These moves facilitated entry into English-language markets, where demand for translated European research surged. By the 1960s, Elsevier had established subsidiaries across , supporting the export of Dutch-edited journals to and beyond, with annual output growing to hundreds of titles by the decade's end. Mergers and acquisitions further propelled scale. In 1970, Elsevier merged with rival North-Holland Publishing Company, integrating its physics and imprints to form a dominant STM (science, technology, ) portfolio exceeding 300 journals. The 1971 acquisition of Excerpta Medica, a Dutch medical abstracts firm, added specialized indexing services; this led to the 1972 launch of , a biomedical database that enhanced Elsevier's role in for international researchers. These steps diversified revenue beyond books into subscription-based periodicals, aligning with postwar academic library expansions in the U.S. and , where Elsevier's titles captured a growing share of citations in emerging fields like . By the late , the company's global footprint included representation in over 20 countries, with revenues supporting further localization efforts, such as French-language editions.

Digital Transformation and Modern Era

In the late 1990s, Elsevier accelerated its shift from print-dominated publishing to digital platforms amid the broader expansion in scientific communication. After nearly two decades of internal experimentation with starting in the 1980s, the company launched in March 1997 as the world's first online full-text repository for scientific journals and books, initially hosting content from several hundred titles. This platform enabled searchable, electronic access to peer-reviewed articles, fundamentally altering dissemination by reducing reliance on physical subscriptions and libraries while introducing scalable online licensing models. By the early 2000s, had integrated advanced search functionalities and multimedia, serving as the backbone for Elsevier's electronic revenue, which grew as print circulation declined. The 2000s and 2010s saw Elsevier expand its digital ecosystem through acquisitions and product integrations under parent company RELX (formed from the 1993 Reed Elsevier merger). Key developments included the 2004 launch of Scopus, a comprehensive abstract and citation database covering over 70 million records, which complemented ScienceDirect by providing bibliometric tools for researchers to track impact and trends. Elsevier also digitized legacy content, such as mid-20th-century books added to ScienceDirect in 2012, and developed reference tools like ScienceDirect Topics in 2017 to curate topic-specific overviews from full-text analyses. These initiatives positioned Elsevier as a leader in research analytics, with digital products generating the majority of revenue by emphasizing data-driven insights over traditional publishing. In the modern era since the 2010s, Elsevier has incorporated and to enhance platform capabilities, reflecting RELX's broader pivot toward analytics and decision-support services. The 2025 launch of AI introduced generative tools for rapid summarization, comparison, and extraction of insights from millions of full-text articles, aiming to accelerate research workflows while drawing on curated peer-reviewed data. By 2023, Elsevier handled nearly 3 million article submissions and published over 630,000 new peer-reviewed outputs annually, underscoring the scale of its digital operations amid ongoing debates over subscription pricing and mandates. This era has also involved hybrid options and partnerships, though Elsevier maintains that its proprietary platforms provide value through and advanced discoverability not fully replicated in fully open models.

Corporate Overview

Ownership and Governance

Elsevier is a wholly owned subsidiary of , the operating holding company of , a multinational information and analytics company publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange (primary listing), , and the via American Depositary Receipts. serves as the sole parent entity, owning 100% of , which in turn controls all major operating subsidiaries including Elsevier's scientific, technical, and medical publishing operations. This structure resulted from a 2015 simplification of the prior dual-listed companies arrangement between Reed Elsevier PLC and Reed Elsevier NV, aligning ownership under while maintaining economic parity for legacy stakeholders. Governance of Elsevier falls under the oversight of PLC's , which sets group-wide strategy, , and compliance standards in line with codes and disclosures for its multi-jurisdictional listings. The board is chaired by , appointed in March 2021, and comprises executive directors including Chief Executive Officer Erik Engström (appointed November 2009) and Nick Luff (appointed September 2014), alongside independent non-executive directors such as Senior Independent Director Suzanne Wood (appointed September 2017). Key board committees include the (chaired by Suzanne Wood), Remuneration Committee (chaired by Alistair Cox), and Nominations and Committees (both chaired by ), which address financial reporting, , director appointments, and overall efficacy. At the operational level, Elsevier is led by Kumsal Bayazit, appointed effective February 15, 2019, succeeding Ron Mobed and reporting to 's executive . Bayazit, with prior roles at including in exhibitions and analytics, directs Elsevier's strategic initiatives in research publishing, data analytics, and digital tools, while adhering to the parent company's governance framework for ethical publishing practices and stakeholder accountability. 's governance emphasizes board independence, with a majority of non-executive directors, and annual evaluations to ensure alignment with shareholder interests and regulatory requirements across its global operations.

Financial Performance and Scale

The Scientific, Technical & Medical (STM) division of , predominantly comprising Elsevier's operations, reported of £3,051 million for the year ended December 31, 2024, compared to £3,062 million in 2023, reflecting a reported decline primarily due to foreign exchange effects, though underlying growth stood at 4% driven by digital subscriptions, analytics, and transitions. Adjusted operating profit for the STM segment reached £1.17 billion in 2024, underscoring margins exceeding 38%, attributable to scalable digital platforms like and high demand for data analytics tools amid rising research outputs. Elsevier's scale positions it as the largest player in , with over 2,900 journals and publication of more than 720,000 peer-reviewed articles in 2024, representing a significant portion of global scholarly output and commanding an estimated 16-20% by journal coverage and . This dominance stems from extensive archives exceeding 24 million articles accessible via platforms like and , serving millions of researchers and institutions worldwide, though it has drawn scrutiny for pricing practices amid consolidation trends where the top publishers control over 50% of influential journals. Financial resilience is evident in STM's contribution to RELX's overall 7% underlying revenue growth to £9.434 billion in , with Elsevier benefiting from AI-enhanced tools and synergies, yet facing headwinds from print declines (down to 46% of revenue mix) and geopolitical pressures on institutional budgets. Profitability remains robust, with adjusted operating margins outpacing peers due to low marginal costs in digital dissemination and subscription lock-in effects, enabling consistent dividend support for RELX shareholders.

Leadership and Organizational Structure

Elsevier is led by Kumsal Bayazit, appointed in 2019, who directs the company's global strategy in scientific publishing, data analytics, and healthcare solutions as part of 's Scientific, Technical & Medical segment. Bayazit, with prior experience in operations since 2004, emphasizes innovation in research dissemination and decision-support tools. The senior executive team supports the CEO in overseeing core functions, including Ed Cassar as Chief Financial Officer, responsible for financial planning and risk management; Anita Chandraprakash as Executive Vice President of Global Operations, managing content production, customer service, and distribution; and Olivier Dumon as Chief Product Officer, focusing on product strategy and development. Additional key roles include as Chief Academic Officer, handling academic partnerships and content strategy, and presidents for specific markets such as Gino Ussi for Corporate Markets and Judy Verses for Academic & Government sectors. In June 2025, Jamie Buckley joined as Chief Product Officer, complementing product leadership while retaining duties at affiliate . Organizationally, Elsevier functions as a wholly owned subsidiary of plc, headquartered in with over 40 global offices and approximately 8,500 employees as of recent reports. Its structure aligns with RELX's divisional model, integrating functional hierarchies for publishing, technology, and analytics across science, technology, and health domains, with governance ultimately accountable to RELX's . This setup facilitates coordinated operations in journal publishing, digital platforms like , and ancillary services, emphasizing efficiency in content lifecycle and customer engagement.

Business Model

Revenue Streams and Market Positioning

Elsevier's primary revenue streams derive from its operations within RELX's Scientific, Technical & Medical (STM) division, which generated £3,051 million in revenue for the year ended December 31, 2024, reflecting underlying growth of 4%. Subscriptions accounted for 74% of STM revenue (£2,250 million), primarily through multi-year institutional licenses providing access to journals, books, and databases via platforms like , which hosts over 22 million content pieces including more than 720,000 articles published across 3,000+ journals in 2024. Transactional revenues contributed 26% (£801 million), encompassing article processing charges for publications—over 250,000 articles in 2024 across 890+ dedicated journals—pay-per-view access, and individual sales. Content segments further delineate these streams, with academic and government primary research (journals and books) comprising approximately 45% of STM revenue, paralleled by databases, tools, and electronic references for corporate and professional use (another ~45%), while print formats represent less than 10% and continue to decline amid a shift to electronic delivery, which constituted 91% of 2024 revenues. Geographic distribution underscores reliance on (46% of revenue, £1,411 million) and the rest of the world (32%, £984 million), with at 22%. Supplementary streams include analytics tools like , which indexes over 30,000 journals, and clinical decision support products, often bundled into subscription packages or sold transactionally to enhance recurring income stability through three-year contracts. In market positioning, Elsevier maintains dominance as the global leader in STM , holding an estimated 16-20% share of the scholarly journals market and publishing a significant portion of peer-reviewed output, including 720,000+ articles annually. This position stems from scale advantages in content aggregation, digital infrastructure, and AI-enhanced tools, enabling high margins—historically around 37-40% for Elsevier's publishing arm—amid competition from , Wiley, and . The company's hybrid model balances subscription stability with growing uptake, though subscriptions remain predominant, positioning Elsevier to capitalize on institutional demand for comprehensive access while navigating pressures from open access mandates and consortia negotiations.

Subscription vs. Open Access Dynamics

Elsevier's core business model has historically centered on subscription-based access to its journal collections, where institutions and libraries pay annual fees for bundled access to paywalled content, generating the majority of its revenue. In 2024, subscription revenue accounted for 74% of Elsevier's total revenue in its scientific, technical, and medical segment, with transactional revenues—including article processing charges (APCs) for —comprising the remaining 26%. This subscription dominance stems from "big deal" packages, where libraries subscribe to large portfolios of journals to avoid losing access, enabling Elsevier to maintain high margins despite criticisms of pricing opacity and annual increases often exceeding . Open access publishing, by contrast, shifts costs upfront to authors or funders via APCs, allowing immediate public availability without subscriptions. Elsevier offers gold open access journals fully funded by APCs, averaging around $2,000–$4,000 per article depending on the title, and hybrid options in subscription journals where authors pay an (typically $2,000–$6,000) to make individual articles open. In 2023, Elsevier generated an estimated $582.8 million in APC revenue, reflecting growth driven by funder mandates like and institutional policies, though this remains a fraction of overall income compared to subscription streams. Hybrid models have seen steady but modest uptake, with open access articles doubling in Elsevier's hybrid journals from 2015 to 2019, yet comprising only a small of total output as subscriptions continue to underpin portfolio value. The dynamics between these models involve tension and adaptation, as pressures erode traditional subscription exclusivity while publishers like Elsevier leverage hybrids to monetize both systems simultaneously. Transformative agreements, negotiated with over 2,000 institutions globally, bundle subscription access with capped or unlimited OA publishing credits, effectively transitioning costs without fully displacing subscriptions; for instance, these deals covered in nearly 2,300 hybrid and journals under arrangements like the University of California's 2021 agreement with Elsevier. Critics argue this enables "double dipping," where institutions pay for both access and publishing without proportional subscription reductions, but Elsevier maintains that subscription excludes open access articles and reflects value from non-OA content. Empirical analyses indicate open access disrupts the subscription market by increasing author choice and visibility, yet Elsevier's financials show resilience, with its parent reporting a 10% profit rise to £1.79 billion in 2023 amid OA expansion, suggesting the hybrid approach sustains revenue diversification rather than cannibalization.

Pricing Mechanisms and Economic Rationale

Elsevier employs a tiered subscription pricing model for its journals hosted on the ScienceDirect platform, where electronic access fees are determined by factors including journal size, research output intensity, and institutional usage patterns. Prices for individual journal subscriptions can range widely, but institutional "big deals"—bundled, multi-year contracts granting access to large portfolios of titles—dominate revenue, often negotiated confidentially with universities and libraries to include usage caps or offset-based pricing. For example, the University of Washington's 2023 agreement with Elsevier provides access to 678 journals for approximately $2 million annually, reflecting a negotiated reduction from prior terms amid broader efforts to curb escalating costs. In parallel, Elsevier operates hybrid options in many subscription journals, where authors pay article processing charges () to make individual articles freely accessible immediately upon publication, while non-paying articles remain behind paywalls. vary by journal and , typically falling between $1,500 and $3,000 but reaching higher for premium titles, with a comprehensive list maintained for transparency; these fees are often covered by research grants or institutional agreements rather than authors directly. Transformative agreements, such as those integrating discounts or waivers into big deals, have proliferated since , as seen in deals with the system, where hybrid fees are bundled to shift toward read-and-publish models without net cost increases. The economic rationale underpinning these mechanisms stems from the structure of , where production costs—primarily editorial management and digital hosting—are low relative to revenue, as relies on uncompensated academic labor and research is publicly funded. Elsevier's operating profit margins, reported at 37-40% for its scientific, technical, and medical divisions, exceed those of tech giants like (21%) or Apple (25%), enabling prices 3-7 times above marginal costs due to inelastic institutional driven by citation imperatives and limited substitutes for high-impact journals. Big deals mitigate risks of selective cancellations by locking in broad access, while APCs capture value from grant-funded authors in an era of mandates, sustaining high returns amid fixed costs and like journal prestige. Factors such as currency fluctuations, agent discounts, and discipline-specific funding levels further calibrate pricing to maximize yield without eroding market share. This model has drawn scrutiny for opacity and , yet it aligns with in a sector where rigidity—rooted in "publish or perish" incentives—permits premiums over competitive norms.

Products and Services

Core Publishing Outputs

Elsevier's core publishing outputs encompass peer-reviewed journals, scholarly books, and reference works, primarily in science, technology, health sciences, and social sciences. These materials are produced through rigorous editorial and peer-review processes, emphasizing original research, reviews, and synthesized knowledge. The outputs are distributed in both traditional print formats and digital versions, with a shift toward electronic access via platforms like , which hosts full-text content for enhanced discoverability and usage analytics. Peer-reviewed journals constitute the largest segment of Elsevier's outputs, with the publisher maintaining a portfolio of over 2,900 titles as of 2024, covering disciplines from physics and to and . These journals collectively publish more than 470,000 articles annually, including articles, reviews, and editorials, many of which achieve high citation rates due to their selective acceptance criteria—typically below 20% for top-tier titles. Elsevier supports both subscription-based and models within this portfolio, with nearly all journals offering hybrid or fully options to balance accessibility and revenue sustainability. Notable examples include in and Cell in , which rank among the most cited in their fields based on independent bibliometric analyses. Scholarly books and book series represent another key output, including monographs, textbooks, and multi-volume handbooks tailored for academic, professional, and student audiences. Elsevier releases thousands of such titles yearly, often in digital formats with interactive elements like embedded datasets or multimedia supplements. These works focus on specialized topics, such as advanced engineering references or clinical guides, and are curated to provide in-depth, authoritative coverage beyond journal-length formats. Reference works, including and major compilations like Comprehensive Biomaterials or , offer curated syntheses of established knowledge, updated periodically to reflect emerging research.
Output TypeApproximate VolumeKey Characteristics
Journals2,900+ titles; 470,000+ articles/yearPeer-reviewed; hybrid OA options; high-impact in STEM and health fields
Books & SeriesThousands annuallyMonographs, textbooks, handbooks; digital-first with supplementary data
Reference WorksMulti-volume setsSynthesized overviews; periodic updates for topical relevance

Digital Platforms and Tools

Elsevier's digital platforms and tools encompass databases, reference managers, and research information systems that support literature discovery, , , and institutional reporting. These offerings integrate with Elsevier's publishing outputs to streamline workflows for researchers, institutions, and clinicians, emphasizing interoperability and AI-enhanced functionalities. ScienceDirect, launched in 1997, functions as Elsevier's flagship full-text platform, hosting peer-reviewed journals, books, and articles primarily from Elsevier imprints. It featured 751,000 newly published articles in 2024, marking a 17% increase from the prior year, and incorporated nearly 1,600 new books during the same period. The platform supports advanced search, browsing, and linking to over 430,000 topic pages, with recent additions like ScienceDirect AI enabling users to query, compare, and cite evidence embedded in literature. Approximately 3.3 million articles on ScienceDirect are designated , allowing free public retrieval alongside subscription-based content. Scopus operates as an abstract and citation database with multidisciplinary coverage of scientific, technical, medical, and social sciences literature, curated by independent subject experts to ensure source neutrality. It indexes primary document types such as journals, book series, and conference proceedings from serial publications with ISSNs, spanning contributions from thousands of publishers worldwide. Key features include cited reference searching, author profiles, and Scopus AI for workflow acceleration, facilitating bibliometric evaluations and trend identification without inherent bias toward specific outlets. Mendeley provides a free, cloud-based reference manager for storing, organizing, annotating, and citing scholarly references and datasets, acquired by on April 9, 2013, to expand social and collaborative research tools. It supports private groups for collaboration, with free accounts allowing up to five owned groups and unlimited joins, alongside integration with repositories like Mendeley Data for public data sharing. Following acquisition, user base expanded to four million by 2015, driven by doubled storage (2 GB free) and API-enabled third-party applications exceeding 300. Pure constitutes Elsevier's research information management system (RIMS), aggregating from diverse sources into a unified portal for institutional oversight of research outputs, impacts, and compliance. Its interconnected model automates inbound collection, enables granular access controls, and supports monitoring through features like outbound integrations and analytics. Pure Impact AI analyzes content via to generate insights, such as fingerprint-based profiles of research themes. Digital Commons serves as an institutional platform for curating, publishing, and disseminating scholarly works, including journals, repositories, exhibits, and datasets. It offers via dashboards tracking downloads, views, and metrics from tools like PlumX, alongside preservation features for external sharing. Institutions leverage it for research data management, ensuring verification for and compliance with accessibility standards.

Conferences, Events, and Supplementary Services

Elsevier organizes over 50 conferences annually, serving as a platform for global researchers and industry professionals to engage in scientific discourse across disciplines including life sciences, physical sciences and engineering, social sciences, and health sciences. These events encompass symposia, such as the Cell Symposia series on and cell-based therapies, and specialized gatherings like the Nano Today Conference and the Materials Today Conference, often featuring peer-reviewed proceedings integrated with Elsevier's ecosystem. In addition to hosting its own events, Elsevier supports third-party conference organization through comprehensive services, including venue negotiation, online abstract management systems, global promotional campaigns, logistical planning, marketing strategies, and efforts to secure sponsors and exhibitors. For strategic partners, the company develops event programs, recruits speakers, produces content such as proceedings or digital abstracts, and leverages its international network for attendee outreach, thereby extending its role beyond pure hosting to enable customized academic and professional gatherings. Supplementary services tied to these events include mobile applications for attendee interaction, such as schedule access and networking features, and integration with Elsevier's digital tools for abstract submission and post-event content dissemination. Elsevier also participates in broader event formats like exhibitions, congresses, and webinars, which facilitate knowledge exchange and product demonstrations in research-intensive fields, with examples including the Elsevier Impact Conference series focused on research management and analytics platforms. These activities complement core publishing by generating revenue through registration fees, sponsorships, and ancillary sales while fostering community building among scholars.

Growth Strategies

Mergers and Acquisitions

Elsevier's expansion has been propelled by strategic mergers and acquisitions, with the pivotal 1993 merger between Elsevier NV and Reed International PLC forming Reed Elsevier (rebranded as RELX Group in 2015), valued at approximately £5.3 billion at announcement. This union integrated Reed's business information and exhibition operations with Elsevier's strengths in scientific, technical, and medical publishing, establishing a combined entity with annual revenues exceeding $4 billion by the late and enabling cross-leveraging of content distribution and technology platforms. Post-merger, Elsevier targeted acquisitions to augment tools, workflow solutions, and data analytics, aligning with shifts toward open collaboration and AI-enhanced services. In April 2013, it acquired , a UK-based platform for and social sharing, in a deal estimated at $69–100 million; the integration provided Mendeley users with enhanced access to Elsevier's vast content library while extending Elsevier's reach into user-generated data and citation analytics, building on prior partnerships since 2009. In May 2016, Elsevier purchased the (SSRN), a major server for social sciences, humanities, and law, for an undisclosed sum; the acquisition aimed to merge SSRN's community-driven repository with and Elsevier's tools for improved discoverability, though it drew academic backlash over fears of paywalling or restricting sharing, prompting Elsevier to affirm continuation of SSRN's model without mandatory abstract takedowns. Further bolstering its ecosystem, Elsevier acquired Collexis in June 2010, a and biomedical analytics firm, to embed advanced text-mining capabilities into research discovery tools. In , it completed the purchase of Interfolio, a U.S.-based provider of faculty career management software, enhancing Elsevier's offerings in researcher workflows, hiring, and tenure tracking amid growing demand for integrated platforms. These moves reflect a pattern of over 30 acquisitions since 2006, concentrated in healthcare IT, life sciences technology, and higher education tools, with peaks in 2013 (four deals) and 2020 (three deals), often targeting U.S. and firms to fortify data-driven services without disclosed aggregate values exceeding routine thresholds.

Strategic Partnerships and Collaborations

Elsevier has formed strategic partnerships with academic consortia and universities to facilitate read-and-publish agreements, enabling hybrid models that allow institutions to publish articles without additional fees while maintaining subscription access. For example, in 2023, Elsevier collaborated with the Statewide Electronic Library Consortium (SCELC) to integrate publishing options into , supporting member institutions' transition to transformative agreements. Similarly, on February 27, 2025, Elsevier entered a read-and-publish deal with , permitting unlimited publishing for affiliated authors and enhancing global visibility of WSU research outputs. In the realm of professional societies, Elsevier has pursued collaborations to co-publish flagship journals, leveraging its platforms for wider dissemination while aligning with societal missions. On August 27, 2024, Elsevier announced a partnership with the European Alliance of Associations for (EULAR) to publish Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases starting January 2025, ensuring high-impact rheumatology research reaches broader audiences via . Earlier, in 2023, it partnered with the Korean Society for Molecular and Cellular Biology (KSMCB) to handle publication of Molecules and Cells, its primary journal, amid efforts to strengthen international ties in . Technology-driven alliances focus on integrating AI and data analytics into workflows. In November 2023, Elsevier Health teamed with OpenEvidence to launch ClinicalKey AI, an evidence-based tool drawing from Elsevier's journals, books, and clinical references to deliver AI-powered clinical insights with safeguards against . Additionally, Elsevier maintains content syndication partnerships with other scholarly publishers, embedding over 180,000 articles from external sources into since 2022 to streamline discovery without duplicating proprietary content. University-industry collaborations emphasize metrics for innovation and impact. In April 2024, Elsevier worked with to develop indicators for the "fourth-generation university" model, assessing societal and economic outcomes of research beyond traditional . Such efforts extend to broader initiatives, including deepened ties with for interdisciplinary journal collections aimed at elevating Chinese scholarship globally. These partnerships collectively aim to diversify revenue, address demands, and enhance analytical tools, though critics note they often prioritize Elsevier's platform integration over fully equitable access.

Technological Advancements

Adoption of AI and Analytics

Elsevier has integrated (AI) into its publishing and research platforms to enhance discovery, analysis, and efficiency, with notable advancements beginning in the early 2020s. This adoption includes generative AI tools for content summarization, trend identification, and workflow optimization, often built on proprietary datasets like and . The company's efforts emphasize responsible AI use, including policies requiring disclosure of AI-assisted contributions in manuscripts to maintain research integrity. A key milestone was the rollout of Scopus AI on February 16, 2024, which applies generative AI to the database of over 90 million abstracts and citations, enabling quick research summaries, concept maps, and targeted searches while prioritizing transparency and bias mitigation. This was followed by the launch of AI on March 12, 2025, a generative AI assistant designed to deliver rapid, mission-critical insights from peer-reviewed , accelerating reviews and generation for researchers. In September 2025, Elsevier announced a next-generation AI researcher solution, leveraging millions of peer-reviewed articles to detect emerging research areas, funding opportunities, and knowledge gaps, driven by user feedback and integrated with existing platforms. Complementing AI, Elsevier's analytics adoption focuses on data-driven research evaluation through tools like SciVal, which benchmarks institutional performance, analyzes trends, and visualizes impact metrics from global publication data. Analytical Services provide customized reports and integrations for strategic planning, including predictive insights into reader behavior and R&D outcomes. These capabilities, powered by Scopus indexing and technologies, support over 90 million records for citation analysis and performance tracking. Elsevier's AI and analytics initiatives also extend to specialized applications, such as a June 2025 evaluation framework for generative AI in clinical decision support, assessing risks like hallucinations and ensuring evidence-based outputs. Surveys indicate mixed researcher attitudes, with enthusiasm for efficiency gains tempered by concerns over accuracy and , as detailed in Elsevier's 2024 Insights report on AI perceptions across sectors. Overall, these technologies aim to streamline workflows while relying on Elsevier's vast, curated content to ground AI outputs in verifiable scholarly data.

Recent Innovations (2023–2025)

In 2024, Elsevier launched ClinicalKey AI, a generative AI-powered clinical decision support platform designed to provide clinicians with evidence-based answers through natural language queries drawn from trusted medical content, including journals and drug information. The tool emphasizes transparency by including citations to source materials in responses, aiming to enhance diagnostic accuracy and patient care efficiency. In May 2025, ClinicalKey AI received the Artificial Intelligence Innovation Award from MedTech Breakthrough, recognizing its integration of AI with verified clinical data to support real-time decision-making. Building on this, Elsevier introduced on March 12, 2025, a generative AI assistant integrated into its platform to accelerate research workflows by summarizing full-text articles, book chapters, and generating comparative analyses across millions of documents. Key features include "Ask " for querying and condensing content, and a comparison tool for side-by-side evaluation of studies, with built-in safeguards like source citations and usage limits to promote responsible application. Internal data indicated potential reductions in research time by up to 50% for certain tasks, though independent verification remains limited. The tool earned the Best Generative AI Solution award at the 2025 CODiE Awards, highlighting its role in extracting mission-critical insights from Elsevier's corpus. In September 2025, Elsevier announced a next-generation AI researcher solution, developed in partnership with institutions like JAIST, to identify emerging research trends, funding opportunities, and knowledge gaps through advanced analytics on publication data. This builds on ongoing efforts to embed AI in discovery tools, such as enhancements to for trend prediction. Concurrently, Elsevier outlined priorities for publishing innovations, including streamlined manuscript submission, AI-assisted peer review enhancements for efficiency and integrity checks, and optimized production workflows, with pilots underway by mid-2025. These developments reflect Elsevier's emphasis on AI-driven scalability while maintaining human oversight in validation processes.

Engagement with Academia

Institutional Partnerships and Negotiations

Elsevier has pursued transformative agreements with university consortia worldwide, combining subscription access to its journal portfolio with coverage of article processing charges (APCs) for affiliated authors, often termed "read and publish" deals. These partnerships aim to transition toward broader while maintaining revenue streams amid rising institutional pressures on costs and accessibility. Negotiations frequently involve multi-year terms, usage-based pricing adjustments, and caps on OA outputs to control expenditures. In Germany, after stalled talks in 2018 that led to widespread cancellations, the Projekt DEAL consortium—representing over 700 institutions—secured a five-year agreement with Elsevier on September 1, 2023, effective until December 31, 2028. This opt-in deal provides "publish and read" access, covering APCs for hybrid and fully open access journals while restoring subscription rights previously lost during the boycott. The pact includes provisions for hybrid journals to flip to full OA over time, reflecting DEAL's push for systemic change, though critics note persistent high costs per article. The ' VSNU (now Universities of the Netherlands) and UKB consortium negotiated a deal extending through December 31, 2024, supporting OA publishing in over 2,200 hybrid and full OA journals without additional APCs for corresponding authors from participating institutions. In January 2025, renewed agreements were announced, preserving reading access to Elsevier's content and continuing OA support to align with national goals. Earlier Dutch efforts, including a 2020 national partnership, emphasized monitoring compliance and sustainability. In the , -led negotiations yielded a three-year agreement in 2022, offering unlimited OA publishing in hybrid journals alongside subscription access, with reported cost reductions and enhanced services for UK institutions. However, by 2025, several universities, including the , opted out of Elsevier's OA components amid concerns over stalled progress toward full OA and financial sustainability, prompting to pursue "next generation" deals targeting 5-10% spend reductions for 2026 onward. United States consortia have also finalized major pacts, such as the University of 's April 1, 2021, agreement—the largest of its kind—enabling OA publication across Elsevier's hybrid journals with systemwide APC coverage and access expansions. In , a 2022 deal among 44 institutions achieved per-institution savings through usage analytics that prioritized high-demand titles, covering 80% of access needs. OhioLINK's upgraded contract, from January 2024 to 2027, similarly bundles read access with OA publishing quotas. Swiss universities, via swissuniversities, signed a comprehensive OA agreement on January 1, 2024, extending to 2028, while SCELC's 2024-2027 transformative deal for 37 institutions includes APC discounts and growth caps. Negotiations often face breakdowns, as seen in the SUNY system's failure to renew ScienceDirect licenses post-2023 talks, resulting in access disruptions, and Colorado's 2024 contract yielding a 30% cost cut but altered article access methods. These dynamics underscore Elsevier's reliance on scale for pricing leverage, with institutions leveraging to extract concessions, though agreements rarely eliminate underlying debates over value and monopoly-like market positions.

Country-Specific Dynamics and Resolutions

In , negotiations between Elsevier and the Projekt DEAL , representing over 900 institutions, initially stalled in amid disputes over pricing and the pace of transition to , leading to widespread subscription cancellations and restricted access to journals. After prolonged talks emphasizing transformative agreements that bundle reading access with funded open access publishing, a resolution was reached on September 1, 2023, enabling unlimited open access publications in over 2,500 Elsevier journals for affiliated authors through 2028, with article processing charges offset by the and perpetual read access included. This deal marked a shift from prior hybrid models, though critics noted that hybrid journals still comprised the majority, potentially slowing full adoption. Norway's dynamics mirrored Germany's, with the national consortium (now SIKT) canceling Elsevier subscriptions in March 2019 due to failed talks on sustainable pricing and mandates. A breakthrough came via a two-year pilot "publish and read" agreement signed April 26, 2019, allowing unlimited publishing for corresponding authors from participating institutions while maintaining read access; this was extended and improved in 2022 for three years, covering hybrid and gold journals without caps on outputs. The arrangement prioritized national funding for article processing charges, reducing financial barriers for researchers, though it required ongoing monitoring to ensure cost controls amid rising publication volumes. In the , Jisc-led negotiations for the higher education sector culminated in a transformative agreement on March 23, 2022, providing read access to Elsevier's portfolio and funding for corresponding authors in most subscription journals, with hybrid outputs prioritized over pure ones. However, by early 2025, several institutions opted out or ended participation, citing stalled progress toward and unsustainable costs that failed to align with national goals, prompting a sector-wide review of transitional deals. This reflected broader tensions, as the agreement's emphasis on drew criticism for not accelerating the shift away from subscriptions. France's Couperin consortium preserved a multi-year "big deal" in April 2019 after contentious talks, securing a 13.3% discount on subscriptions over four years without immediate mandates, prioritizing continued access over transformation. Building on this, a national read-and-publish agreement for 2024–2027 was finalized, covering open access fees for affiliated authors in hybrid and gold journals across Couperin members, with centralized funding to streamline compliance with policies. Hungary's EISZ consortium resolved access disputes through a three-year pilot national license agreed in October 2019, granting read access to 16 million articles and supporting open access publishing in select journals for consortium members. This evolved into ongoing annual transformative deals, such as the 2024 agreement, which offsets article processing charges for hybrid outputs, aiding smaller research ecosystems while tying costs to publication volumes. Switzerland's swissuniversities signed a comprehensive agreement with Elsevier on June 10, 2024, following prior breakdowns with other publishers; it enables unlimited in hybrid journals and covers gold fees, with read access bundled, aligning with national strategies. In Sweden, the Bibsam 's 2018 cancellation of the Elsevier big deal over insufficient commitments led to lost access for many researchers, with studies showing minimal long-term disruption via alternative routes but highlighting persistent pricing concerns; no nationwide resolution has been publicly confirmed as of 2025, with institutions relying on individual or ad-hoc arrangements.

Contributions to Research Ecosystem

Elsevier facilitates the of scientific through its extensive portfolio of over 2,900 peer-reviewed journals, which published approximately 751,000 new articles in 2024. This output supports researchers by providing a centralized platform for sharing empirical findings across disciplines, including rigorous processes that maintain quality standards in indexed content. Platforms like and enhance discoverability and evaluation within the research ecosystem. serves as a primary repository for full-text access to journals and books, incorporating AI-driven tools launched in 2025 to summarize and compare insights from millions of articles, thereby accelerating literature reviews and generation. , an abstract and citation database, indexes high-quality journals to enable citation tracking, expert identification, and impact metrics, aiding institutions in assessing research productivity and funding allocation. Elsevier advances accessibility via initiatives, publishing over 250,000 articles in 2024 across nearly all of its journals, with more than 800 fully titles. These efforts, including geographical pricing adjustments for low- and middle-income countries implemented by 2025, reduce barriers to publication and broaden global participation in knowledge production. Additionally, the Elsevier Foundation allocates over $1 million annually to non-profit organizations focused on and support.

Controversies and Criticisms

Peer Review Integrity and Retraction Practices

Elsevier has faced multiple instances of compromised peer review processes, including fake reviews, manipulated citations, and substandard evaluations, leading to significant retractions. In October 2022, the publisher announced the retraction of approximately 500 papers from Materials Today: Proceedings after determining that the peer-review process "fell beneath the high standards expected," with evidence of fake conferences, off-topic submissions, and inadequate scrutiny. Similar issues prompted the retraction of 47 papers from Science of the Total Environment in 2024, where fictitious reviews were submitted using stolen identities and fabricated email addresses suggested by authors. Further cases highlight systemic vulnerabilities, such as manipulated and rigged citations. In June 2024, Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements issued expressions of concern for 73 papers linked to activity, involving unethical conduct by authors and a former member who resigned. Elsevier also retracted around 60 papers starting in March 2024 across journals including and International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, citing unverifiable fake company affiliations and suspicious post-submission authorship additions that authors could not justify. In 2019, the company launched investigations into hundreds of ers suspected of citation manipulation to promote their own work during the review process. Elsevier has retracted 131 papers over the three years prior to 2023 specifically for and coercive citation practices, where reviewers or editors pressured authors to cite journal articles to inflate metrics. Regarding retraction practices, Elsevier maintains a policy emphasizing the integrity of the scholarly record, retracting articles for issues like unreliable , , or peer-review flaws, with notices intended to detail reasons and impacts. However, criticisms have emerged over inconsistencies and opacity in retraction notices from its journals, often omitting key details on misconduct that could inform future prevention. Delays in processing have also drawn scrutiny; in 2024, the (COPE) threatened sanctions against an Elsevier journal for a "clear breakdown" in handling retractions of fabricated papers, which took over three years despite earlier commitments. Elsevier has responded by adhering to COPE guidelines in ongoing investigations and pledging procedural reforms, such as enhanced scrutiny for special issues and .

Pricing, Access, and Open Access Debates

Elsevier's subscription-based model for journal access has faced persistent criticism for high costs, with institutions reporting annual expenditures in the tens of millions for comprehensive packages. For instance, the system paid approximately $10 million annually to Elsevier prior to 2019 negotiations, during which the publisher sought an 80% price increase, prompting a of subscriptions. Similar disputes arose in and other regions, where library budgets strained under price hikes exceeding inflation rates, leading to threats of widespread cancellations. These tensions reflect broader concerns over Elsevier's market dominance, as the company's Scientific, Technical & Medical segment—primarily Elsevier—generated €3.26 billion in revenue and €1.2 billion in profit in recent years, yielding a 37.8% . Critics, including academic librarians and consortia, argue that such pricing extracts undue rents from publicly funded research, given that relies on unpaid volunteer labor while Elsevier invests minimally in production relative to revenues. Elsevier counters that elevated prices fund advancements in platforms like , editorial , and data analytics, justifying premiums over open-access alternatives. Nonetheless, specific cancellations persisted into 2024, such as Montana Tech's discontinuation of the Freedom Package due to prohibitive costs. The rise of open access (OA) mandates intensified debates, particularly around Elsevier's hybrid journals, which offer optional OA for individual articles via article processing charges (APCs) while maintaining subscription paywalls for non-OA content. This model has been accused of "double-dipping," as institutions pay both subscriptions and APCs—often exceeding $2,700 per article—without transitioning to full OA. cOAlition S, implementing Plan S for immediate OA from 2021, explicitly rejected financial support for hybrids post-2024, citing insufficient progress toward transformative change despite agreements like the 2021 University of California-Elsevier deal, which bundled read access with discounted OA publishing for UC authors. Transformative agreements aimed to offset subscriptions with OA fees have yielded mixed outcomes; while some, like those in for 2024–2028, grant perpetual access and OA publishing rights, others faced early termination by 2025 due to escalating costs and opaque APC allocations amid stagnant OA uptake in hybrids. Plan S's push for zero-embargo OA has accelerated negotiations but also highlighted unintended effects, such as slowed publication rates in compliant journals, underscoring tensions between accessibility goals and Elsevier's reliant on bundled access. Elsevier has responded by expanding fully OA titles and hybrid options under agreements, yet uptake remains low without subsidies, fueling arguments that commercial publishers prioritize profits over systemic OA reform.

Allegations of Market Practices and Lobbying

In September 2024, a class-action antitrust lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Elsevier and five other major academic publishers (Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, Sage Publications, Wiley, and Wolters Kluwer), alleging an unlawful scheme to exploit unpaid peer review labor and suppress competition in the academic publishing market. The plaintiffs, including neuroscientist Lucina Uddin, claim the publishers collude through policies such as non-compensation for reviewers, exclusive submission requirements (prohibiting simultaneous submission to other journals), and bans on disseminating manuscripts under review, which collectively lock in researchers' free labor while generating billions in revenue—Elsevier alone reported $3.07 billion from peer-reviewed journals in 2023. These practices are said to violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act by restraining trade and maintaining oligopolistic control, with the suit seeking damages and injunctive relief to reform peer review norms. Earlier allegations of anti-competitive behavior surfaced in 2018 when two advocates filed a competition complaint with the against (Elsevier's parent) and Elsevier, accusing them of abusing a dominant market position through practices like bundled journal pricing that stifles price competition and innovation in . The complaint highlighted systemic issues in the academic sector, including Elsevier's 40% in certain STEM fields, enabling tactics such as "big deals" that force institutions to subscribe to low-value content alongside high-demand journals, thereby entrenching high profit margins—estimated at 37-40% for Elsevier—without corresponding investments in dissemination or accessibility. No formal EU investigation has been publicly confirmed as resulting from this filing, though it amplified calls for regulatory of publisher dominance. Regarding lobbying, Elsevier has faced criticism for activities aimed at preserving its proprietary model amid rising open access pressures. In 2018, a coalition including OpenAIRE accused Elsevier of undermining EU open access policies through aggressive business tactics and advocacy, such as opposing mandates for immediate public access to research funded by public money. Reports have detailed Elsevier's engagement in U.S. lobbying against bills like the Federal Research Public Access Act, contributing funds to influence legislation favoring delayed embargoes on publicly funded research, with expenditures tracked in the millions via platforms like OpenSecrets. Additionally, in 2018, Elsevier secured a contract to monitor open science developments for the European Commission, prompting allegations of conflicts of interest that could bias policy toward hybrid models sustaining subscription revenues over full open access. Elsevier maintains these efforts promote sustainable publishing ecosystems, but critics argue they prioritize commercial interests over taxpayer-funded research dissemination.

Other Disputes (e.g., Text Mining, Bibliometrics)

Elsevier has faced criticism for its restrictive policies on text and data mining (TDM), which involve automated analysis of published content to extract patterns, such as links between genes and diseases. In 2012, researchers highlighted how publishers like Elsevier imposed default bans on computational scanning of large paper sets, arguing that such prohibitions hindered innovative research despite text mining being akin to manual reading. Chemist Peter Murray-Rust documented years of negotiations with Elsevier starting around 2011, during which the publisher granted limited permissions for non-commercial text mining but prohibited bulk downloading or mining over paywalled content without case-by-case approval, leading to accusations of erecting unnecessary barriers to scholarly progress. By 2014, Elsevier introduced a TDM policy and API allowing licensed access for non-commercial research, yet library associations like LIBER critiqued it for still requiring user registration and limiting outputs, insufficiently addressing the need for frictionless access in an era of big data. In 2015, Elsevier blocked a scientist from bulk-downloading papers for text mining, prompting online backlash and underscoring ongoing tensions between publisher controls and researcher demands for open computational access. More recently, in 2024, Elsevier updated copyright notices to explicitly reserve rights to TDM and AI training uses, aligning with industry trends but drawing fire from open access advocates who view it as an attempt to monetize or restrict derivative research from licensed content. In bibliometrics, Elsevier's ownership of Scopus—a database central to citation tracking and journal rankings—has drawn scrutiny amid allegations of citation manipulation within its journals. In 2019, Elsevier launched an internal investigation into hundreds of peer reviewers accused of coercing authors to add superfluous citations to boost journal metrics, a practice known as "citation stacking" that inflates impact factors. A 2023 incident involved an Elsevier journal rejecting a submission partly for insufficient citations to prior works in the same outlet, fueling debates over whether such demands prioritize proprietary metrics over scientific merit and potentially distort bibliometric evaluations used in tenure and funding decisions. Broader concerns emerged in 2024 when Clarivate suppressed impact factors for 17 journals, some linked to Elsevier ecosystems, due to anomalous citation patterns suggestive of manipulation, highlighting vulnerabilities in bibliometric tools like Scopus that rely on publisher-supplied data. Critics argue these issues reflect systemic incentives in proprietary bibliometrics, where high citation counts enhance journal prestige and revenue, though Elsevier maintains rigorous oversight and that isolated cases do not undermine overall integrity.

Antitrust and Competition Cases

In September 2024, Elsevier and five other major academic publishers—Springer Nature, Taylor & Francis, Sage Publications, John Wiley & Sons, and Wolters Kluwer—faced a federal antitrust lawsuit filed by UCLA professor Lucina Uddin in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-06409). The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a horizontal conspiracy to suppress compensation for peer review services, violating Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by coordinating through industry associations and norms to enforce an "Unpaid Peer Review Rule" that prohibits paying reviewers, despite the labor's estimated value exceeding $1 billion annually in free services to publishers. Plaintiffs claim this scheme harms competition in the market for peer review, where publishers collectively dominate over 50% of global scholarly output, enabling them to externalize costs onto unpaid academics while generating billions in revenue—Elsevier alone reported €2.9 billion from scientific publishing in 2023. The suit seeks class-action status for U.S.-based researchers who reviewed unpaid since 2014, demanding treble damages and injunctive relief to dismantle the alleged cartel; as of October 2025, the case remains in early stages with no rulings on motions to dismiss. The lawsuit highlights broader structural issues in scholarly , where is treated as a non-compensable professional obligation rather than a market service, potentially insulating publishers from competitive pressures to innovate or remunerate labor. Critics, including the plaintiffs' from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, argue this practice distorts incentives, as reviewers forgo payment opportunities elsewhere (e.g., freelance ) while publishers profit from taxpayer-funded without reciprocal in the review ecosystem. Elsevier has denied the allegations, asserting that is a voluntary academic coordinated voluntarily, not through antitrust-illegal agreement, and that the suit mischaracterizes industry standards as . Legal experts note challenges in proving concerted action absent direct evidence like emails, though circumstantial coordination via associations like the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (named as a co-defendant) could support claims under precedents like . In 2018, two academics, including Robert Harington, lodged a formal complaint with the against Elsevier, alleging abuse of dominant position under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the (TFEU). The complaint focused on Elsevier's bundling practices, non-disclosure agreements restricting text and , and policies hindering in open-access markets, which purportedly lock institutions into high-cost "big deals" covering thousands of journals while limiting alternatives. Elsevier holds an estimated 16-20% in peer-reviewed journals, with critics arguing its scale enables pricing above competitive levels—average article processing charges exceeding €2,000 and subscription bundles costing universities millions annually. The Commission did not formally open an investigation, and no enforcement action followed, though the referral underscored ongoing EU scrutiny of publishing concentrations amid calls for greater transparency in mergers like RELX's (Elsevier's parent) acquisitions. No antitrust convictions have been secured against Elsevier in to date, distinguishing it from resolved merger remedies, such as the 1998 EU approval of Wolters Kluwer's acquisition of Reed Elsevier assets (Case M.1040), which imposed divestitures to preserve competition in legal and tax databases but spared scientific journals. Similarly, a 2008 U.S. addressed anticompetitive overlaps in Reed Elsevier's proposed ChoicePoint acquisition for public records markets, unrelated to scholarly content. These cases reflect regulatory tolerance for Elsevier's dominance, provided no explicit foreclosure of rivals, though the 2024 U.S. suit tests whether implicit labor suppression constitutes per se illegality.

Intellectual Property and Contract Disputes

Elsevier has pursued numerous enforcement actions, primarily centered on related to unauthorized distribution of its published articles. In June 2015, Elsevier filed a against and its operator in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging systematic infringement through the site's provision of free access to paywalled content. The court issued a preliminary and, following a in 2017, awarded Elsevier approximately $15 million in damages for willful infringement of thousands of copyrights. Similar actions continued, with Elsevier securing further injunctions and damages awards against in subsequent years, though enforcement has been complicated by the site's operators' non-appearance in court and international hosting. In parallel, Elsevier joined other publishers in copyright disputes with academic sharing platforms. In 2017, Elsevier and the initiated legal proceedings against for hosting full-text articles without permission, claiming violations of exclusive publishing rights. The case culminated in a 2023 settlement, under which implemented automated copyright checks and removal processes for infringing content, while a prior German court ruling affirmed platform liability for hosted materials. These efforts reflect Elsevier's standard author agreements, which typically transfer exclusive or grant broad licensing rights to the publisher, limiting without embargo periods. On the contract front, disputes have arisen with academic institutions over licensing agreements and access provisions. In February 2017, (LSU) sued Elsevier in state court for after the publisher denied access to subscribed journals for LSU's veterinary school, despite a campus-wide license purportedly covering all affiliates. LSU alleged Elsevier violated terms by interpreting the agreement narrowly and failing to honor multi-site access, leading to temporary disruptions; the suit sought restoration of access and damages for reneged commitments on new titles. The case highlighted tensions in site license definitions, with Elsevier countering that veterinary school access required separate negotiation. Elsevier's contracts have also faced challenges in broader negotiations, such as the 2019 breakdown with the University of California system, where disagreements over open access fees, perpetual rights, and pricing led to lapsed access for UC libraries. UC demanded full open access integration and cost controls, while Elsevier proposed partial measures, resulting in faculty actions like editorial board resignations from Cell Press titles. Similar issues prompted MIT to terminate its Elsevier contract in 2020, citing incompatible terms with institutional open access policies. These disputes underscore ongoing frictions between publisher-controlled perpetual licenses and institutional pushes for flexible, transformative agreements.

Recognition and Impact

Awards and Industry Honors

Elsevier has been recognized for innovations in digital health solutions, receiving multiple honors at the 2018 Digital Health Awards, including two Gold awards for ClinicalKey and Nursing Solutions, three Silver awards, one Bronze, and a merit award. In scholarly publishing, Elsevier earned the R.R. Hawkins Award, the top honor for the outstanding professional and scholarly book of 2013, at the 2014 Association of American Publishers PROSE Awards, selected by a panel of librarians, academics, and publishers. The company was also named the "Most Influential Publisher of the Last 100 Years in Biomedicine and the Life Sciences" by the Special Libraries Association in 2013, acknowledging its historical impact on scientific dissemination. Recent product-specific recognitions include the 2025 CODiE Award for Best Generative AI Solution awarded to AI, a peer-recognized honor from the Software & Information Industry Association for excellence in technology innovation. Similarly, ClinicalKey AI received the AI Innovation Award in the 2025 MedTech Breakthrough Awards for advancing clinical decision support. In collaborative efforts, Elsevier and won the 2025 TLTF Thought Leadership Industry Catalyst Award for developing a blueprint to enhance research evaluation practices. On workplace recognition, Elsevier has topped multiple Comparably categories based on anonymous employee surveys, including #1 globally for Best Company Leadership and Best Career Growth in 2025, Best Company Work-Life Balance in 2025, and #2 for Best Company Culture in 2024.

Philanthropic Initiatives and Broader Contributions

The Elsevier Foundation, established in and funded by Elsevier, has provided over $18 million in grants to more than 100 non-profit partners across 70 countries, focusing on advancing , , , global development, and women's opportunities. Annual contributions exceed $1 million, supporting initiatives that build research capacity, promote equity in health outcomes, and foster tech-enabled innovations for underserved communities. Key programs include grants for inclusive health partnerships, such as collaborations with organizations addressing maternal and child health in low-resource settings, and support for early-stage interventions in data science and complex algorithm applications for public good. The Foundation aligns its efforts with United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), emphasizing action in areas like quality education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), and reduced inequalities (SDG 10), through partnerships that incubate local innovations and highlight impact-driven projects. At the parent company level, —under which Elsevier operates—integrates philanthropic elements into its corporate responsibility framework via RELX Cares, a global program facilitating employee volunteerism and corporate giving to causes, with a focus on social impact through knowledge resources and skills. RELX's initiatives, such as the annual RELX Environmental Challenge offering grants up to $60,000 for and innovations in developing regions, complement Elsevier's science-oriented by leveraging analytics and data for societal benefits, though these are company-wide rather than Elsevier-exclusive. Overall, these efforts represent targeted giving rather than core business operations, with reported outcomes including enhanced equity and health access in regions like and .

Imprints and Subsidiaries

Elsevier operates a portfolio of specialized imprints, many originating from acquired independent publishers, which produce , journals, and works across scientific, technical, , and domains. These imprints maintain distinct focuses while leveraging Elsevier's global distribution and digital platforms. In 2023, Elsevier published over 2,500 new book titles under these imprints, alongside thousands of journal issues. Key book imprints include Academic Press, which has issued high-quality scientific monographs and textbooks for more than 70 years, covering life sciences, health sciences, physical sciences and , and social sciences and humanities. Butterworth-Heinemann, tracing its origins to the , emphasizes , chemistry, , and publications. Chandos Publishing leads in alongside social sciences content. Morgan Kaufmann, founded in 1984, specializes in , computing, IT, , and software-related titles. Newnes provides professional references in and . Syngress focuses on books for digital security and data professionals. Prominent journal imprints encompass Cell Press, known for high-impact biomedical research titles such as Cell and The Lancet, and Pergamon Press, a legacy imprint for multidisciplinary scientific journals acquired by Elsevier in 1991. Other notable imprints include Mosby and Churchill Livingstone for health sciences and nursing texts, integrated following Elsevier's acquisition of Harcourt in 2001. Regarding subsidiaries, Elsevier functions as the scientific, technical, and medical division of RELX plc (formerly Reed Elsevier), a multinational information and analytics company. Elsevier itself maintains operational subsidiaries such as Elsevier B.V. in the Netherlands and Elsevier Inc. in the United States for regional publishing and distribution. Recent acquisitions include SciBite, a UK-based semantic AI firm purchased in 2023 to enhance data extraction from scientific literature. No comprehensive public list of all minor subsidiaries exists, as many support internal functions like technology and content management rather than standalone publishing.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.