In an amusing twist in the ongoing Elsevier saga, Elsevier are attempting to shut down the twitter account @FakeElsevier for trademark violation.

It’s always fun when a big bad organisation forgets the Streisand Effect. The fact that the above tweet has over fifty retweets and plenty of ensuing hilarity affirms this:






..and as many people have pointed out, the account clearly has a water tight case – the clue is in the title:





Fake Elsevier Elsevier unleashes the hounds on @FakeElsevier twitter account for trademark violation

@FakeElsevier's profile picture elegantly parodies Elsevier's own logo

@FakeElsevier has done a tremendous job drawing attention to the issue at hand through an entertaining stream of satirical tweets, an amusing tumblr, a thoughtful blog and a great little humorous video that sums up everything that is wrong with Elsevier’s business model in two minutes:

As of this morning it seems Elsevier have realised they have opened a huge can of worms (or a huge can of lols?) and are now furiously backpedaling:



To sign the petition in protest against Elsevier’s practices head over to In other news the APA recently shut down a blogger critical of DSM-5 for exactly the same reason.


Elsevier has now denied issuing the takedown order.


However @fakeelsevier has stated that:


I’ll post an update if and when more information becomes available.

Update: Elsevier have now officially admitted responsibility for the take-down order (but are no longer going ahgead with it):

Follow Simon on TwitterFacebookGoogle+RSS, or join the mailing list.
  • Peter Jones

    Why all the attention on just Elsevier?  Are they really the only ones doing what you say? Are you sure you know their business model? Is is any worse than other public corporations?

  • Anonymous

    It’s not clear from recent postings on Twitter that Elsevier was involved in the “takedown notice”. The takedown notice itself appears to be a fraud. Please have your facts correct or issue a correction.

    • Neurobonkers

      Dubious. Have posted a clarification.

      • Neurobonkers

        and it’s official.

    • Anonymous


      The facts were correct and have been confirmed by Elsevier. Please make your apology.


Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...