Talk:Elsevier

I also like Elsevier's upsell, where they send you an email trying to sell posters of journal covers or framed certificates saying you had a paper published in one of their journals. 03:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Cardio-Islamic bit
I'm moving it here:
 * An Elsevier journal the International Journal of Cardiology has a load of rubbish about Islamic foreknowledge somewhat reminiscent of the Biblical foreknowledge touted by Christian funamentalists and creationists. Descriptions of the human anatomy derived from religious texts are often omitted from the medical literature. The present review aims to discuss the comments and commentaries made regarding the heart and cardiovascular system as found in the Qur'an and Hadeeth. Based on this review, it is clear that these early sources both had a good comprehension of these parts of the body.

First, it's bad English. :) Second, religiously-motivated papers do find their way to the pages of journals from time to time. This is not on par with the El Naschie fuck up or the fake journals. While complaining to the journal's editor is reasonable, holding it against Elsevier is not.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bad English?
 * Elsevier published it: Elsevier's cock up!
 * 16:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * 1. Yes. It's more a bad use of English than a problem with spelling or grammar, though there is some bad punctuation. :) The text is not a clear summary of the situation as described by the source blog. At the very least, the word "paper" is not mentioned even once.
 * 2. Er, no. Elsevier do not vet every paper before publication. Editorial control is the job of the journal's editor. If the editor cocks up often, it's the publisher's job to have the editor resign or drop the journal. (Again, compare with the El Naschie scandal.) This passage belongs to some Islam article or some kind of "Religious attempts to co-opt science" article.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What punctuation? The quote was taken verbatim from the journal. If you mean my bit, then alter it.
 * It's symptomatic of Elsevier that journals published under their banner (see the pdf) are capable of condoning crap.
 * 17:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Elsevier are just a commercial publishing house, the responsibility for content falls to the editor. It would have to be something major for them to dismiss the editor. Silly twit (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we hate this player, or the game?
Intellectual property rights are at the root of this evil. Men&#39;s Rights EXTREMIST (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)