Top
Best
New

Posted by adharmad 1 day ago

Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck(www.science.org)
383 points | 185 commentspage 4
shevy-java 1 day ago|
Gingras is correct - Springer here tries to censor. I believe the only way to respond to this is by removing Springer completely. Science can not survive when private companies such as Springer begin to censor science, in particular old science.

> Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95.

And this is also outrageous. Not only do they censor but they charge people for that. I believe states need to build up a basic scientific work, in particular for older papers. It can not be that private entities control access to information here.

> Scarlata suspects Springer Nature’s internal policing software removed the paper

That's even worse. So an internal tool decides what to censor. Imagine if all access to old articles were controlled by private greedy companies that run auto-tools, AI, to censor stuff. We need to retaliate here in a way to ensure open access to science perpetually.

> 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.”

Max is dead, so this is a cop out. But even aside from this, it is incorrect.

Springer has a responsibility to everyone else here. If they censor something they abused our trust. Such articles should not be held in private hands. The whole idea of taxpayers paying for something and then Springer, Elsevier etc.. siphoning that money by their paywall, is outrageous. Now that they also censor information, it is time to take all their privileges completely away.

Either way the Streisand effect will now kick in. Springer has become famous for trying to cancel Planck. That injustice can not stand, no matter if automatic tools used it or not (which also shows that these tools are buggy - shame on Springer for employing buggy tools leading to vile censorship methods).

nijave 1 day ago|
I don't know much about academia but it seems journals should be cooperatively edited and managed by universities rather than fully privitized. Ideally with an off ramp into public archives after a period of time.
xorgun 1 day ago||
[dead]
janerosas 1 day ago||
[dead]
BadBadJellyBean 1 day ago||
Well I didn't see any counter evidence by Planck so Springer Nature must be right. Otherwise he should defend himself! \s
Lapsa 1 day ago||
[dead]
alansaber 1 day ago||
Article was probably flagged as AI written /s
ck2 1 day ago||
ha if Max Planck was proven wrong it would be as bad as proving Einstein wrong

it would break quantum physics

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#History

mbreese 1 day ago||
To me, this seems like Science dunking on Nature (the journals). It’s interesting, but only a story because Nature is involved.
majidfekri 1 day ago|
I wrote a whole chapter about Max Planck and his challenges and his legacy in my book "What is light? Wave theory of light and origins of ether in science" check it out if you are interested
mmooss 1 day ago|
I (and I'm sure others) would be interested in your thoughts on Planck and publishing. Otherwise, the comment is just an advertisement.
majidfekri 1 day ago||
Everything is an advertisement and nothing is just an advertisement.