Talk:Elsevier

message: While I wanted to add this source (https://retractionwatch.com/2021/03/09/elsevier-journals-ask-retraction-watch-to-review-covid-19-papers/#more-121684) to Elsevier's Wiki page, I realize that there is no controversies section. The section Academic practices seems to be more of a controversies section. My question is whether we can change it to "Controversies", including the section on resignation of editorial board members, and add some subsections such as controversial articles, and editorial/review malpractices? What you think about this plan? Kenji1987 (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting a reorganization (rather than a completely new section with new information), and I think there's a strong case for doing that. The purely factual part could come first, and after that a section on "controversies" could have subsections that deal with the different controversies and criticisms of the company's practices that have been documented in reliable sources. A reader who's just interested in facts about the company would know that this is in the early sections, whereas a reader who's interested in controversies would also know where to look. I agree that such a reorganization would be an improvement. NightHeron (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Controversy sections are discouraged, but not valid criticism where due.  Notable controversies could potentially be integrated in a section about history or reception, etc.  Currently there's some in various relevant sections, as is recommended in the style guide.  —PaleoNeonate – 15:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - incorporated throughout is the best practice. Also, this looks to be a WP:POINTy WP:OTHERSTUFF suggestion, based off disagreements Kenji1987 has had over MDPI#Controversies. SmartSE (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  Why are controversies sections discouraged? As now on the Elsevier page there are multiple sections describing controversies. For example, where do we put controversial articles or review/editorial malpractices? I agree with NightHeron below. Kenji1987 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that speculation about the OP's motives or mentions of discussions at other articles' talk-pages are relevant. Looking carefully at the content of the article, we see that sections 1 and 2 are factual and unconcerned with controversy (except for the paragraphs about the Mendeley acquisition and about the gender pay gap); section 3 is about half devoted to controversies (although you wouldn't guess this from the table of contents), and sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 are almost entirely about criticism and controversy. Neither the table of contents nor the lead gives the reader a good idea of the content. Only half a sentence of the lead mentions controversies. At the very least the lead should be expanded, per WP:MOSLEAD. In addition, as I suggested above, it would be nice if the section and subsection titles informed the reader where they will find factual information and where they will find summaries of the various controversies that have arisen in connection with the company's practices. NightHeron (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: the onething we now do tend to avoid, is having a section labelled "controversies" set off. from the rest of the article. It can almost alway be integrated. (I note there are tens of thousands of articles that still have such sections, but they're strongly discouraged.)  DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you agree to expanding the lead by mentioning several of the controversies that are covered in the main body? NightHeron (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Sure, MDPI's "controversies" section should probably also be split into more specific sections. This is best discussed on Talk:MDPI. Nemo 08:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion of adding a controversies section 

message: Since I'm doing some copyediting here,:As a librarian,  like any librarian concerned primarily with purchasing electronic resources,  I had many business and professional dealings with the firm and some of its executives, ending when I retired about 12 years ago.  Some of them were quite extensive beyond ordinary negotiations, involving sometimes a degree of cooperation, sometimes  extremely critical published or posted comments, sometimes favorable or unfavorable reviews of their products. I never was offered (and would not have taken) money from them, but I did accept hospitality.  This never influenced what I said or wrote, and they were quite aware that it would not, and I did not accept everything I was offered;    if anything, my contacts  tended to strengthen my basic and continuing objection to the entire business model of commercial scientific publishing which they epitomize. (For that matter, I had similar but less extensive, relationship with most science publishers)   DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. This reminds me that I probably received goods from Elsevier as well. I think I got an Elsevier-branded note pad at a librarian conference around 2010. Nemo 08:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: my own (unpaid)  coi

message: This article is being scrubbed by undisclosed paid editors linked to the Yoodaba sockfarm, which is operated by a marketing agency. This activity is ongoing since, at least, August 2020. This company uses anonymous edits and a very distinctive kind of proxy for sensitive edits.
Here's a list of edits I was able to verify. In reverse chronological order:
* 13:06, 20 April 2021  (already reverted)
* 14:21, 9 April 2021  (already reverted)
* 16:46, 23 March 2021  (already reverted)
* 16:17, 10 March 2021 
* 14:32, 10 March 2021 
* 13:53, 9 February 2021  (already reverted)
* 16:05, 2 February 2021 
* 14:56, 28 December 2020 
* 14:53, 21 December 2020 
* 18:11, 2 December 2020  (already reverted)
* 18:47, 24 November 2020  (already reverted)
* 15:21, 20 October 2020  (already reverted)
* 17:39, 7 October 2020 
* 13:26, 2 October 2020 
* 12:53, 26 August 2020  (registered and blocked sock)
There are some old edits which I cannot retroactively check for the proxy. So the article should be reviewed beyond the above edits. Note that spotting problematic content is not as trivial as with common spammers, since it's often about omitting information or changing references to avoid linking to criticism, rather than adding promotional content. MarioGom (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an extensive list, considering that it's from less than a year. Have you thought of bringing this matter to WP:COI/N, which is frequented by many more editors than this talk-page (which gets hardly any pageviews). COI/N is presumably watched by editors who have a lot of experience dealing with conflict of interest editing. This case merits their attention, since Elsevier is an important company. NightHeron (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I'll open a thread at COIN once I gather more information about other affected articles. MarioGom (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Opened a thread at COIN.  as you can imagine, the edit you reverted yesterday (diff) comes from the same proxy network. I didn't think they would be bold enough to continue after being exposed. MarioGom (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow this is pretty bad. Kenji1987 (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is outrageous! Would you be willing to write up a LTA report so we know what to keep our eyes out for? BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with ) 06:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: @BrxBrx: I'm not sure a LTA report will be helpful. A lot of information about this sockfarm can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yoodaba. Their logged out editing usually falls outside the scope of sockpuppet investigation though. Also excessive public documentation of their current behavior is undesirable per WP:BEANS. I can say, however, that while they stopped in this article, they continue running at full steam. But I believe the frequent blocks hinder their effectiveness. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undisclosed paid edits 

message: I tried to add some information to the history about war, but  rightly noticed the Elsevier's source can be biased. Nevertheless, I think the war period should be described because it is an important milestone for Elsevier. But I found just articles on it's web, any idea for others?
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/in-the-shadow-of-the-nazis-this-young-executive-dared-to-publish-the-work-of-jewish-scientists
--Karlaz1 (talk) 13:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not familiar with reliable secondary sources on the history of Elsevier. I think many readers would be interested in how Elsevier functioned during the War, when the Netherlands was occupied by the Germans. The sentence I reverted could be interpreted as saying either that (1) they began focusing on exiled scientists in 1937 and continued throughout the War even after the Germans invaded in 1940, or else (2) they only began in 1937 and soon after had to stop and start obeying Nazi policies because of the German occupation of their country. The history of Elsevier during this period is unclear to me. NightHeron (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

text: That sounds interesting and worth including, provided there's a reliable secondary source to back it up. I believe that Elsevier is not a reliable source about itself except for straightforward factual data. NightHeron (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "Klautz"? The link is obsolete! Nayano2 (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Showing how unwise it would be to use Elsevier marketing material as source... It's probably this "J.P. Klautz (1904–1990)" mentioned in an IOS Press employee booklet (). I've not checked whether this author has a conflict of interest, but the reliance on private Elsevier archives suggests a degree of dependence from Elsevier. Nemo 13:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  War period 

message: The redirect Acta Tropica has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Acta Tropica]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Biological Control (journal) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Biological Control (journal)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.   Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]