- Visibility23
- Citations1
- Sentiment56
- Site quality80
- AI readiness29
AI assistants name Elsevier in 13.3% of answers, which is slightly less often than the typical company in its sector. Elsevier has an overall score of 35 out of 100, ranking 827th of 2,047 companies. Its website passes 4 out of 14 technical checks, showing some readiness for AI tools.
We asked 15 unbranded questions about the media market: none named Elsevier. AI assistants named it in 8 of 60 answers (13.3%). The typical media company is named in 15.0% of answers. By how often it is named, Elsevier ranks 51 of 99 in its sector.
Every dot is a company in the study. Hover one to see it; click to open its report.
This companySame sectorEvery other companyNever named
Five parts, each scored out of 100.
How often AI assistants name the company
How often AI uses the company's own website as a source
How positively AI describes the company
How well built the website's own pages are
How easily AI tools can read and use the website
Visibility is calculated from the answers on this page. How the score is built.
99 companies in this sector. The line on each bar is the typical company.
An answer that names the company
“Affordable alternatives to major clinical information databases for hospitals”
Short answer: you can replace or greatly reduce expensive subscriptions (UpToDate/ClinicalKey/DynaMed) by a mix of lower-cost point‑of‑care tools plus free/open clinical resources and smarter purchasing strategies. Below I give (A) affordable commercial alternatives, (B) high‑quality free/open resources to use alongside them, and (C) practical purchasing/implementation tactics for hospitals. I’ve cited sources for the most important claims.
A — Affordable commercial alternatives (point‑of‑care + drug/reference)
BMJ Best Practice — often priced lower than UpToDate and used as a direct point‑ …
The AI’s answer as we received it, shortened and not checked for accuracy.
How the mentions in these answers were split between this company and its rivals
Answers naming it, out of answers received
What this website publishes for an AI agent to read, use and buy from, on a scale of six levels.
- 0
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Level 1: Basic web presence. Two of robots.txt, a sitemap and Link headers are in place.
- Content Signals
Show every check, for your technical teamHide the checks
- study: 92.0%robots.txtPassed
A valid robots.txt with crawl rules at the site root.
- study: 86.8%SitemapPassed
An XML sitemap listing the pages, ideally referenced from robots.txt.
- study: 0.3%Link headersNot met
Send Link headers such as rel="api-catalog" or rel="describedby" on the homepage.
- study: 5.5%DNS for AI DiscoveryNot present
Advertise agent endpoints with SVCB records under _agents.
- study: 1.9%Markdown negotiationPassed
Requests sent with Accept: text/markdown receive a markdown version of the page.
- study: 25.1%llms.txtNot met
Publish an llms.txt with a short summary and the key links.
- study: 93.4%AI bot rulesPartly met
Add explicit robots.txt groups for the main AI crawlers.
- study: 1.4%Content SignalsNot met
Add a Content-Signal line for search, ai-input and ai-train to robots.txt.
- study: 0.2%Web Bot AuthCould not check
Only relevant if you run your own agents or crawlers: publish a signing key directory.
- study: 0.3%API CatalogCould not check
List public APIs in a linkset at /.well-known/api-catalog.
- study: 11.8%OAuth discoveryCould not check
Publish OpenID Connect or OAuth server metadata under /.well-known.
- study: 10.3%OAuth Protected ResourceCould not check
Serve protected resource metadata at /.well-known/oauth-protected-resource.
- study: 0.0%auth.mdNot met
Publish an auth.md describing how agents sign in.
- study: 0.2%MCP Server CardCould not check
Offer an MCP server and publish its server card under /.well-known.
- study: 0.1%A2A Agent CardCould not check
Publish an agent card at /.well-known/agent-card.json.
- study: 0.2%Agent SkillsCould not check
Publish a skills index with the main tasks agents can do.
- study: 33.7%WebMCPCould not check
Register key actions such as search or cart as WebMCP tools.
- study: 0.1%ARD manifestCould not check
Publish an ai-catalog.json listing every agent interface.
Score 52 of 100 · 65% of checks could run · checked on October 5, 2026 · www.elsevier.com · 2,047 companies scanned
4 of 14 passed. This list is for your technical team. The percentage is how many companies in the study pass each check.
These 14 checks ran during the audit and are what the AI readiness part of the overall score counts. The scan above ran later and is stricter on Link headers and Markdown, so a check can pass here and not there.
Show the 14 checksHide them
- Passedrobots.txt publishedstudy: 85.0%
- PassedXML sitemapstudy: 73.2%
- Not metHTTP Link headers (RFC 8288)study: 29.0%
- PassedMarkdown content negotiationstudy: 8.3%
- Not metllms.txt publishedstudy: 21.7%
- PassedToken budget (page weight)study: 95.2%
- Not metExplicit AI bot rulesstudy: 13.0%
- Not metAPI Catalog (.well-known/api-catalog)study: 0.2%
- Not metOAuth Authorization Server discoverystudy: 10.1%
- Not metOAuth Protected Resource discoverystudy: 9.3%
- Not metMCP Server Cardstudy: 0.0%
- Not metA2A Agent Cardstudy: 0.0%
- Not metWebMCP toolsstudy: 4.2%
- Not metAgent Skills declaredstudy: 0.0%
This website sets no rules for any AI crawler by name, like 84% of the websites whose rules we could read. Every AI crawler follows its general rules.
- GPTBotallowed
- ClaudeBotallowed
- Anthropic-AIallowed
- Google-Extendedallowed
- Applebot-Extendedallowed
- Meta-ExternalAgentallowed
- FacebookBotallowed
- Bytespiderallowed
- CCBotallowed
- Diffbotallowed
- Omgilibotallowed
- OAI-SearchBotallowed
- Claude-SearchBotallowed
- PerplexityBotallowed
- Applebotallowed
- Amazonbotallowed
- YouBotallowed
- ChatGPT-Userallowed
- Claude-Userallowed
- Perplexity-Userallowed
- DuckAssistBotallowed
- MistralAI-Userallowed
Read from the website’s own rules file (robots.txt). An asterisk marks a crawler the file names. The rest follow its general rules. “Partly” means only some pages are blocked.
How many times each website was listed as a source in these answers
In the study as Consumer brands.
- Is a paid subscription to a scientific information platform worth it for medical professionals?
- Why can't I access the full text of some healthcare research articles even though my institution has a subscription?
- Affordable alternatives to major clinical information databases for hospitals
- Top information tools for healthcare professionals to stay updated with clinical guidelines
- How do academic journal libraries compare with open-access repositories for scientific researchers?
- What are the best open-access options for academic journal articles in the life sciences?
- Are there discounts available for students on healthcare data resources?
- What are typical subscription costs for scientific information solutions in the US?
- What are the best platforms for accessing advanced scientific research articles online?
- How do I resolve citation export errors when managing scientific references?
- How can decision support tools help nurses improve patient outcomes?
- What are effective ways researchers can use advanced analytics to accelerate their publications?
- Are academic journal collections necessary for graduate students in the sciences?
- Free tools for synthesizing evidence-based guidelines for practitioners
- Medical knowledge databases vs. evidence-based decision support tools: How do they differ for clinicians?
Columns, left to right: OpenAI, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini. The AI assistants often disagree. Across the study, on 40% of the questions where a company is named, only one of the four names it.
A badge of this result that you can show on your own website. Copy the code below.
<a href="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/elsevier.com"><img src="https://aeo-audit.rezolve.com/us/badges/elsevier.com.svg" alt="Overall score 35 of 100, US AI Visibility Study 2026" width="280" height="64"></a>