6 ms·
Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?
- mellosouls 3mo agoDiscussed a couple days ago: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck (science.org) 389 points, 196 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48686834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48686834
- jrimbault 3mo agoI notice how the title by Ars Technica is much less baity than Nature: "Why have papers by one of history’s most famous physicists been retracted?" vs "Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?"
- WesolyKubeczek 3mo agoIt’s almost like Nature doesn’t expect its readers to know who this Max Planck guy is. :-)
- zugi 3mo agoExactly, it seems that HN can assume a certain level of scientific knowledge among its readers that Nature can't.
- gpvos 3mo agoIf Ars can, then HN definitely can.
- phalangion 3mo agoNah. It’s all part of the clickbait. You want to know which physicist, so you click
- mhurron 3mo agoWell it would seem that the AAAS shouldn't assume that about HN readers. The previous posted article was posted on science.org, managed by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) not Nature, which is a British publication. The organization that did the removal was Springer Nature, parent of the publisher of Nature. It was reported in several places, the one linked here was on a site affiliated by a completely different organization. Also, science.org is open to everyone, their articles are written and titled for any level of knowledge and any background. Ars and HN are very specific in their target audience and write to that. Even then the comments will be filled with complaints if things aren't written in a manner approachable to anyone.
- squidbeak 3mo agoIt's still clickbait and a good example of how infantile these publications are today. Ars and Nature really should be above all these bullshit headline games, but the fact they aren't explains a large part of their general degradation.
- gpvos 3mo agoFor starters, Ars shouldn't write "this journal" when it's about another publication than themselves.
- talon8635 3mo agoUsing “this X” in the title is the definition of bait to me. They could, in as many characters, say the journals name. But they don’t specifically in order to bait you into clicking to find out which journal.
- aleph_minus_one 3mo ago> The specific reason for the retractions was copyright violation, so there was nothing wrong with the actual papers from a scientific standpoint. There is a reason why the German portmanteau word "Zensurheberrecht" ("Zensur": censorship; "Urheberrecht": the related concept to copyright in German law) exists.
- aap_ 3mo agoNever heard this, but very accurate. thanks :)
- adrian_b 3mo agoThe so-called copyright violation was that Max Planck had published the same article in 2 journals, which was not unusual at that time, because different journals had different readerships, so publishing in more journals was necessary if you wanted to reach more people. So supposedly he plagiarized himself. The second retracted article was even less justifiable, because the modern editors or their automated system had believed that 2 articles were the same, but they were not, they only happened to have the same title.
- arlcode 3mo agoAlso that can't be the whole story because Planck died in 1947 and in Germany (then and now) Copyright ends 70 years after the death of the author.
- Ovah 3mo agoWhile commonly taught in academic settings, I disagree with the notion that it's possible to self plagiarize. It's your own words and not stealing from somebody else.
- CrazyStat 3mo agoAgreed. The concept of “don’t reuse your old work when you’re supposed to be creating new work” may be valid, especially in training environments, but it shouldn’t be called self-plagiarism or treated like plagiarism.