# \[Elsevier\] Metadata errors: 18 articles (wrongly?) marked retracted **URL:** \ **Category:** Metadata quality improvements\ **Tags:** rest-api, metadata-retrieval, retractions\ **Created:** [24 November 2025 13:00 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/elsevier-metadata-errors-18-articles-wrongly-marked-retracted/14827 "2025-11-24T13:00:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![gcabanac](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/gcabanac/32/2217_2.png) [@gcabanac](https://community.crossref.org/u/gcabanac)\ **Post date:** [24 November 2025 13:00 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/elsevier-metadata-errors-18-articles-wrongly-marked-retracted/14827/1 "2025-11-24T13:00:09Z")
18 DOIs are marked as retracted in the Crossref metadata but Elsevier’s website does not reflect this. See my report: [PubPeer - Recent advances in the field of cement hydration and microst...](https://pubpeer.com/publications/ACA645C930B9E23B8A6FA6D4FC0822#3) ---
**Author:** ![arleysoto](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/arleysoto/32/1988_2.png) [@arleysoto](https://community.crossref.org/u/arleysoto)\ **Post date:** [25 November 2025 19:49 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/elsevier-metadata-errors-18-articles-wrongly-marked-retracted/14827/2 "2025-11-25T19:49:47Z")
Hello Guillaume, Thanks for your message! All DOI metadata is provided to us by our publisher members. Crossref does not update, edit, or correct publisher-provided metadata directly. I have reached out to our contacts at Elsevier and asked them to update the metadata or/and the website accordingly. Thank you for contacting the publisher directly as well, for the fastest possible response. My best, ---
**Author:** ![gcabanac](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/gcabanac/32/2217_2.png) [@gcabanac](https://community.crossref.org/u/gcabanac)\ **Post date:** [19 May 2026 07:29 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/elsevier-metadata-errors-18-articles-wrongly-marked-retracted/14827/3 "2026-05-19T07:29:29Z")
Thanks for paging them. Six months have elapsed and the metadata have not been fixed. Can anyone ping them again, please? ---
**Author:** ![ifarley](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/ifarley/32/44_2.png) [@ifarley](https://community.crossref.org/u/ifarley)\ **Post date:** [1 June 2026 22:46 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/elsevier-metadata-errors-18-articles-wrongly-marked-retracted/14827/5 "2026-06-01T22:46:44Z")
Hello @gcabanac , Thank you for the reminder and for documenting this so clearly. I’ll get the attention of our contacts at Elsevier. I’ll let you know what I learn. -Isaac ---
**Author:** ![ifarley](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.crossref.org/ifarley/32/44_2.png) [@ifarley](https://community.crossref.org/u/ifarley)\ **Post date:** [5 June 2026 18:31 UTC](https://community.crossref.org/t/elsevier-metadata-errors-18-articles-wrongly-marked-retracted/14827/6 "2026-06-05T18:31:17Z")
Hello again @gcabanac . I have received confirmation from our official contact at Elsevier that they are investigating. Our official contact there does have some holiday planned so they are trying to get back to us in the coming weeks, but they did warn me that this turnaround time could be a bit slower than they would like. I’ve got a remind to follow up with them at the end of the month if I have not heard back. More soon, Isaac