| > I feel like you're being deceptive here Giving precise quote with full source link for everyone interested is deceptive? How so? > RELX, the parent company of Elsevier, hasn't been involved in this for over a decade Yes, the article is dated 2005. It was clearly a major issue for the journal's reputation at the time, that went through the trouble to write it. The guardian article is from 2008, so 3 years after. Does 2008 being 10 years ago erase that part of the history? This very subject was brought in this tweet:
https://twitter.com/paul_abrahams/status/1062402097172414464 > If anyone doubts the value provided by academic publishers, they should read this story of the inner workings of @TheLancet, one of @ElsevierConnect 's leading journals http://bit.ly/relx-lancet, the link celebrating 200 years of history of the journal! Either Elsevier takes credit for 200 years of The Lancet, including the last 20 years, or we need to erase all the history up until 10 years ago? :) Wasn't that tweet perhaps deceptive? > There are perfectly good reasons to criticize Elsevier - you may feel like they should have a way for patients and caregivers to access research about their condition, for example - so there's really no need to be disingenuous. It was a quote, no added critics on my part.
If you note "suggestions for publishers" under the following link, that can hardly be intepreted as criticising :)
https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/100#s... |