Quotations are cherry-picked to represent the points I found most interesting – please follow the links to each post to see each in its original context.
“Mendeley is an innovative company with great culture, talent and collaborative spirit, and we will keep it that way,” said Olivier Dumon, Managing Director of Academic and Government Research Markets at Elsevier. “Not only that, but together we intend to scale and evolve Mendeley in ways that benefit the entire research community. We will provide greater access to content, data, and analytics tools to Mendeley’s users and its flourishing third-party app ecosystem, all of which will enable us to increase both Elsevier’s and Mendeley’s engagement with researchers.”
Of course, we are aware that – especially in the past year – the academic community has criticized Elsevier for some of its policies and positions. Our own relationship with Elsevier has been conflicted at times. Elsevier is a multi-faceted company with over 7000 employees, so it is impossible to put them into a single box. We were being challenged by some parts of the organization over whether we intended to undermine journal publishers (which was never the case), while other parts of the organization were building successful working relationships with us and even helped to promote Mendeley.
See also this follow-up post: Mendeley and Elsevier – here’s more info
Mendeley’s future at Elsevier seems to be a mix of “remain a standalone platform, building on what people know and like” and “integrated more deeply with Elsevier’s sales and technology strategies.” There seem to be some obvious paths for Mendeley at Elsevier, as a discovery tool for readers in Science Direct or as an almetrics tool built into Scopus. In a blog post published last night, Mendeley has this cryptic description of its role at Elsevier:
“Mendeley will become Elsevier’s central workflow, collaboration, and networking platform, while we continue on our mission of making science more open and collaborative.”
So perhaps Scopus and Science Direct are about to be subsumed by Mendeley.
Comment on this post by Rick Anderson:
Personally, I’d like to see our community stop using the word “sharing” when what we actually mean is “copying.” The word “sharing” invokes a halo effect (just as the word “piracy” does the opposite), whereas “copying” has the twin virtues of accuracy and political neutrality. It seems to me that the more we call this behavior what it is, the more likely it is that we’ll be able to have rational conversations about it.
The truth is that no one really knows what impact this will have on the open access and altmetrics movements just yet. In addition how it may impact digital copyright, as many saw Mendeley as not only the iTunes of Reference Management, but also the Napster.
A fiery response to the news: why I’m quitting Mendeley (and why my employer has nothing to do with it)
Elsevier’s practices make me deeply deeply angry. While academic publishing as a whole is pretty flawed, Elsevier takes the most insidious practices further at each and every turn, always at the expense of those of us who are trying to produce, publish, and distribute research. Their prices are astronomical, bankrupting libraries and siloing knowledge for private profit off of free labor.
Read the comments too!
On Twitter, some users signalled their intention to delete their Mendeley accounts using the hashtag #mendelete. Jason B. Colditz sums it up nicely: Word of the day: “mendelete”.
All in all, yet another a tale about a small independent being bought out by a big multinational – but with so many additional layers about data, privacy, piracy, access, Open Access, subscriptions, licences… It will be interesting to see whether the initial angry response from many Mendeley fans has any effect in the longer term.