Top
Best
New

Posted by adharmad 1 day ago

Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck(www.science.org)
383 points | 184 commentspage 2
segmondy 1 day ago|
Well, I can't be mad if I ever get accused if Plank has no chance.
bluGill 1 day ago|
Plank is dead and so cannot defend himself. You are at least alive and have a potential to do something (what or if it will work is an open question).

Plank is very famous. If this happens to you, but 50 years after you die: odds are you are not famous and nobody will notice.

vanattab 1 day ago||
"Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95." LOL, what a world we are building.
thayne 1 day ago||
> Repackaging the same work multiple times is considered “self-plagiarism” and frowned upon today

In other words, publishers want a monopoly on what they publish and take the copy rights away from the actual authors.

pfdietz 1 day ago||
Maybe they should stop curating this old content that is no longer under copyright. And maybe Google should make scans of all those old journals available.
jszymborski 1 day ago||
The acronym for the University of Quebec at Montreal is UQàM not UQ :P
dcrazy 1 day ago||
One researcher was at UQAM, the other was at UQTR. Are both not considered part of UQ?
dmbche 1 day ago||
No, both are separate universities, although some universities also have satelite campuses (UDeM (montreal) has multiple).

Edit0: Although UQ is a group of 10 universities that are public, they are not a single entity.

dcrazy 1 day ago||
That sounds like the UC or SUNY systems. UCSB, UCLA, etc are all separate institutions with separate missions, but it’s totally normal to say “UC Berkeley” or “UC Santa Cruz.”
adrian_b 1 day ago|||
The "à" between Québec and Montréal should have "accent grave", not "accent aigu".
jszymborski 1 day ago||
As a Montréaler I am ashamed, fixed it.
bigbuppo 1 day ago||
I'm beginning to think letting one company control access to the vast majority of scientific knowledge may not be a good thing.
mijoharas 1 day ago||
> Representatives from Springer Nature declined to comment, beyond saying that “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.”

Was it a bot commenting as well? That's a hilariously tone-deaf response. Guess we'd better bust out the ouija board to ask max plank himself.

the_af 1 day ago|
I'm sorry, communicating with ghosts is against Springer Nature policy. This isn't a disreputable publication like Séance Monthly!
nyeah 1 day ago||
lol "self plagiarism". Max Planck got an "extra publication."

Counting papers is death. Everything connected with it is death. This is Max fucking Planck, who gave us the photon. We're judging him according to today's "standards." He's "failing."

Ok. So be it. We'll get what we incentivize.

boscillator 1 day ago||
> detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.

Good luck sharing that information with Max Planck. It's amazing how robotically humans can act sometimes. I suppose this could be an AI or automated response, but it's just as likely it's someone following the letter of the law without using any critical thought.

fhdkweig 1 day ago||
I think this is a good example of Kafkaesque.
poizan42 1 day ago||
I really wish they would have asked the representative to confirm that they can only share detailed information with the skeletal remains of an author who died 78 years ago. Not that I think it would make any difference, but it would force the representative to acknowledge the absurdity of the situation.
arrowsmith 1 day ago|
Max Planck published the same paper in multiple journals in the 1940s, which was common practice at the time. He also published a second unrelated paper that happened to have the same title as the paper it was a response to. In 2011 both papers were retracted from their journals' archives, most likely because a bot incorrectly flagged them for plagiarism.

Saved you a click.

chrismorgan 1 day ago|
You missed the two absurdities:

1. Springer Nature are happily selling an empty PDF for $39.95.

2. Springer Nature responded that they’re not going to tell you why they retracted it, because retraction details are normally only shared with the author (who in this case died almost 80 years ago).

More comments...