Talk:Elsevier/Archives/2016

Can Elsevier help update this page?

I would like to help improve the quality and accuracy of this page by helping editors update basic content including financial information, product offerings and organizational structure. For example, we’re now part of the RELX Group (Reed Elsevier changed its name), we publish 360,000 articles per year (not 250,000) in 2000 active Journals (not 2,200) within a database of over 12 million articles (not 7 million) and total yearly downloads are currently 750 million (not 240 million). Our most recent reported annual profit margin is approximately 37% (not 36%) (http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2014/relxgroup_ar_2014.pdf). We also no longer have two operating divisions and there other details about the company I would be happy to provide.

Look forward to engaging with the editors.

Thank you, Tom Reller (Head of Corporate Relations for Elsevier) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElsevierCorporate (talk • contribs) 20:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please proceed with corrections for factual well-sourced information. For more contentious aspects, folks might revert, then please discuss here in the talk page. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Made the initial updates as requested. Can I delete this sentence as well, "Its free researcher collaboration tool, 2collab, launched in 2007, was discontinued in 2011"? 2collab does not merit mention in this intro, its just one of hundreds of products we've launched through the years, many of which we either closed or merged. Tom at Elsevier (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems fine by me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

While mentioning it in the lead section might be overemphasizing it, there is no reason to delete each and every mention of it. The article about 2collab still exists, and Wikipedia articles about companies record historical facts too instead of just promoting current products. I have moved it to the (still extremely short) "History" section instead.

In general, I recommended to Tom at Elsevier to follow best practices and avoid editing Elsevier-related articles directly. (The above wasn't the only problematic edit - the removal of a citation of the New York Times article titled "Mathematicians Organize Boycott of a Publisher", replacing it with one of the company's own documets, has already been reverted by another editor, who pointed out the value of independent coverage.)

I absolutely agree that Elsevier can help with keeping this page updated, but that's better done by suggesting improvements here on the talk page.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Elsevier-affiliated editor could help with providing currency conversions (Euros/dollars would be helpful to many - also UK pounds?) and so enabling removal of {{cleanup|reason=inconsistent currencies; conversions not provided|date=May 2013}}? -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Note these currency conversions are time specific - exchange rates change - so an automated tool, if one existed for currencies (?), wouldn't work unless one knew date of reported number (not mere date of publication): perhaps @Tom at Elsevier: could list here citable references of Elsevier already reported in Euros/dollars/pounds? (Might read and respond to helpful messages on your Tom at Elsevier Talk page, too, and follow guidelines there to fill in your Tom at Elsevier User page intro with a simple identification and COI declaration) -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance. I’ve updated my profile, and will use the Talk page to suggest edits for this entry.

An audited financial report is – by definition – a verifiable statement from a third-party reliable source. It is the best source for a public company’s financial results, the source which any newspaper will in any event use, and a source which I believe meets Wikipedia’s criteria. Furthermore, in this instance, the context is providing a source for a specific set of financial numbers. I would suggest therefore that here, audited results (detailing the company’s finances) are a far better than the suggested article about boycotts (describing the company’s alleged policies). The financial report, audited by Deloitte, can be found here - http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2014/relxgroup_ar_2014.pdf.

The paragraph on Mendeley (“In 2013, Elsevier acquired Mendeley…”) does not have a neutral point of view. It also cites an explicitly biased article (the opening paragraph compares Elsevier to the “Galactic Empire”). I would suggest the paragraph is refined to be neutral and simply read: In 2013, Elsevier acquired Mendeley, a UK company making software for managing and sharing research papers”. If further detail is required, I suggest the following source, from Fast Company, is used - it is balanced, with both the pros and cons that have come from the merger, and far more informative: http://www.fastcompany.com/3042443/mendeley-elsevier-and-the-future-of-scholarly-publishing .

I added this ref and two sentences. I wanted to get into it something about the funding allowing Mendeley to expand, which was somewhat hinted at in that article, but I couldn't come up with a way to word it from this source. I was hoping that there would be news reports that I could use for searches, but the Mendeley web page is one of those horrid new web pages that have huge pictures and virtually no way to find content! Yuk! Anyway, if there is a good source for that info, let me know and I'll put in a single sentence to that effect. LaMona (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

For currency conversions, RELX Group doesn’t report in dollars, but it does provide the exchange translation rates for the date of reporting. These are on page 29 of the following document: www.relx.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2015/Documents/reed-elsevier-results-2014-pressrelease.pdf. As stated, RELX uses 1.33 dollars to Euro. That equates to $3.378 billion in 2014 revenue. Tom at Elsevier (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the Mendeley paragraph. We could certainly use other sources as well, but the New Yorker isn't something we should avoid. As for the other components of your request: using audited reports is okay, though we should be mindful of WP:PRIMARY. In this instance simply conveying the information from the audited report is fine. What figure should be included here, and where should it go? I see the profit rate in the lead has been updated to 37%; is there another proposed change stemming from the financial report? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested updates

Hi - I'm a company employee, and have spent the past year helping out with suggested edits for the RELX Group Wikipedia page. I'm hoping I can now also help to make some improvements to the Elsevier page as well?

Would it please be possible to update the financial figures so that they reflect those in the latest 2015 Annual Report, published last month: http://www.relx.com/investorcentre/reports%202007/Documents/2015/relxgroup_ar_2015.pdf - instead of the old 2014 version?

Introduction section:

1. Elsevier annually publishes approximately 400,000 articles in 2,500 journals

2. Its archives contain over 13 million documents and 30,000 e-books.

3. Total yearly downloads amount to 900 million.

4. In 2015, Elsevier reported a profit margin of approximately 37% on revenues of £2.070 billion.

Info panel:

1. Revenue £2.070 billion (2015)

Company figures:

1. In the primary research market during 2015, over 1.3m research papers were submitted to Elsevier.

2. Over 17,000 editors....resulting in the publication of more than 400,000 articles in over 2,500 journals.

3. North America-37%/Europe-30%/RoW-33% revenue should now be North America-41%/Europe-27%/RoW-32%

4. Approximately 76% of revenue by format came from Electronic, 23% came from Print and 1% came from face-to-face.

5. Elsevier employs more than 7,200 people.

6. The company publishes 2,500 journals and 30,000 e-books.

7. In 2015, Elsevier accounted for 35.5% of the revenues of RELX Group (£2.070 billion of £5,971 billion). In operating profits, it represented 42% (£760 million of £1,822 million). Adjusted operating profits (with constant currency) rose by 2% from 2014 to 2015.

Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I received no comments or objection here, so I've made these updates now. Hopefully that's ok? Ryoba (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggested update 11 May 2016

Can we please change the line: "Based in Amsterdam, the company has operations in the UK, US, Mexico, Brazil, Spain, Germany, and elsewhere." to "Based in Amsterdam, the company serves customers in over 170 countries." - this is mentioned in the latest Annual Report. The current list of countries seems a bit random.

I'd also suggest updating the first sentence:

"Elsevier B.V. (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈɛlzəviːr]) is an academic publishing company that publishes medical and scientific literature."

to

"Elsevier (Dutch pronunciation: [ˈɛlzəviːr]) began in 1880 as a publisher of scientific and medical information in print journals and books. Today, the company has evolved into one of the world’s leading providers of scientific, technical, and medical information, and a technology company serving over 30 million scientists, health professionals, and students worldwide.” (source: https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/marketing-cloud/campaign-management/pdfs/adobe-campaign-customer-story-elsevier.pdf)

Also, can the line "books such as Gray's Anatomy," be removed? - this is a well known title, but not really a 'Leading product' in the same way as the others listed.

Many thanks Ryoba (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Suggested updates 15 July 2016

Hi, for consistency with the parent company page, would it be possible to add the content below?

1. Add a new section for corporate affairs (maybe below Operating Divisions?)