"Next Elliott reviews the early works which placed the writing of Revelation during Nero's reign or earlier. He finds these works to be of questionable value.
"Nor can it be wondered at: seeing that as to any contrary statement on the point in question, there appears to have been none whatsoever until the time of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, in the latter half of the fourth century: ...whose chief work, On Heresies, is decried ... as 'full of blots and errors, through the levity and ignorance of the author:' ...For he speaks of St. John having prophesied when in the isle of Patmos, in the days of the Emperor Claudius: --a time when... it does not appear from history that there was any imperial persecution of the Christian body whatsoever..." (vol. I, p. 37)
" ...another testimony to the early date of the Apocalypse. The subscription to a Syriac version of the book, written about the beginning of the sixth century, is thus worded; 'The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos, whither he was banished by the Emperor Nero.' But of what value is this opinion, then first broached, as it would appear?" ( vol. I, p. 38-39)
"Elliott adds this footnote which explains that Domitian was sometimes given the title of Nero.
"May not the mistake have arisen from Domitian having sometimes the title of Nero given him; and in fact the original writer of the Syriac subscription have meant Domitian, not Nero?" He includes in this footnote further proofs given in Latin of this title applying to Domitian. (vol. I pg. 39, footnote 1)"
I went and looked at the website. While Elliot may make the claim, "Domitian was sometimes given the title of Nero", I can find no supporting evidence of this. Furthermore, there is nothing in any historical documents that I can find that give Domitian the title of Nero and every indication that Domitian would loath Nero. Why would he want that name? I'm not sure where Elliot got his information but it is, at best, suspect. I can't find any specific reference from Elliot. All I can find is general statements and Elliot is not unbias in his views.
I haven't read every ancient scroll-far from it. But for Elliot to say, "and in fact the original writer of the Syriac subscription have meant Domitian, not Nero" is an unsubstantiated supposition that has no supporting documentation.