HN

Comments (146)

• Menu

  bstsb
  > […] the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95.completely unsurprised, given the state of online papers publishing. if you don’t have an subscription or aren’t an organisation member, the fees are insane
• hn_throwaway_99
  While it seems pretty obvious to me that this was an algorithm run amok, I think it's absolutely ghastly that they would retract papers algorithmically without human intervention in the first place.Retraction is a major deal, and would/could do significant harm to an author (obviously in this particular case I think Max's reputation will be fine). The article states:> 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.”but I'm pretty sure they didn't contact Max Planck, nor his estate, before retracting the articles. I would be absolutely incensed if I were a living author and had one of my papers retracted without the chance to defend myself.I think this article encapsulates an ever growing frustration that is only exploding with the rise of AI - we're turning more and more decisions over to black boxes that have no accountability and no easy path for rectification when things go wrong.
• Menu

  ashenke
  > Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95.The system is broken
• Menu

  Artoooooor
  Do I understand correctly that publishing the same paper in multiple journals is considered self-plagiarism? Who in the name of the great monopoly invented such name for that?
• Sweepi
  > In November 1940, philosopher Aloys Müller criticized Planck’s views in a Naturwissenschaften piece titled “Naturwissenschaft und reale Außenwelt” (“Natural Science and the Real External World”). A month later, Planck responded in print—and used the exact same title. This, Gingras and Khelfaoui suspect, caused Springer Nature’s copyright bot to retract the paper as plagiarism decades later, even though the contents of the two essays differ markedly.> The debate over the Copenhagen interpretation remains active today, which explains why Gingras and Khelfaoui find the retractions so troubling: A key scientist’s views on an important controversy have been memory holed.> Both Scarlata and Gingras are concerned that papers by less prominent scientists have disappeared as well without anyone realizing. At a minimum, Gingras wants Planck’s papers restored. “Whoever did it, I don’t care,” he says, “just put them [back] in the database. Intellectually, it’s not acceptable.”Thanks, copyright bots.
• Menu

  khurs
  Link to site: https://retractionwatch.comOne of the recent posts:"A study claiming a tenfold decrease in bugs splattered on evolutionary biologist Anders Møller’s windshield over two decades has been retracted."
• Menu

  0xAstro
  > Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95.If someone else did this, it would've been called scam.
• p_j_w
  > Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95.I wish I could say such behavior was shocking. Everything Springer touches turns to shit.
• jdw64
  I always feel that people want one central place to prove their abilities, but when that central place becomes corrupted, it's hard to break away from it. Because the authority of that place feels as if it's tied to your own authority
• Menu

  robertlagrant
  Why would you need to pay $40 for a PDF of a paper published almost a hundred years ago? What makes the paper not public domain?
• Menu

  segmondy
  Well, I can't be mad if I ever get accused if Plank has no chance.
• bigbuppo
  I'm beginning to think letting one company control access to the vast majority of scientific knowledge may not be a good thing.
• vanattab
  "Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95." LOL, what a world we are building.
• pfdietz
  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.
• thayne
  > Repackaging the same work multiple times is considered “self-plagiarism” and frowned upon todayIn other words, publishers want a monopoly on what they publish and take the copy rights away from the actual authors.
• Menu

  arrowsmith
  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.
• Menu

  jszymborski
  The acronym for the University of Quebec at Montreal is UQàM not UQ :P
• Menu

  mijoharas
  > 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.
• nyeah
  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.
• linkregister
  An algorithm did it? Or was the author of apparent sloppily-written machine instructions the actor?
• Menu

  boscillator
  > 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.
• wolfi1
  the Germans have a word for that: "vertrottelt" (in English it is just translated as "stupid", but it conveys much more meaning than stupid)
• anon
  undefined
• zephen
  > “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.”Time for a séance.
• Menu

  dreamcompiler
  This is what invariably happens when you give bots control of important day-to-day business operations: The bot makes some horrendous mistake and then there's no human being around who has the authority, the access, and the knowledge to both revert the bot's decision and make sure that the bot doesn't just replay the error at a later date.
• BrandoElFollito
  Journals are scams, sustained by scientists. All this paid by our taxes.Scientists decided that other scientists will be ranked by coolness (where they publish). And that this is a strict process. Except when the scientist is a celebrity, such as Benaventiste and his water memory. Too cool to reject.Hopefully this will change as information gets more and more decentralized.
• psychoslave
  So, greed that devoured scientific publication, that's why.Unfortunately, that's nothing new.
• Menu

  josefritzishere
  The world has gone mad.
• Menu

  akudha
  Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95lol, getting paid for nothing. Highest levels of capitalism
• Menu

  shevy-java
  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 paperThat'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).
• janerosas
  [dead]
• xorgun
  [dead]
• BadBadJellyBean
  Well I didn't see any counter evidence by Planck so Springer Nature must be right. Otherwise he should defend himself! \s
• alansaber
  Article was probably flagged as AI written /s
• Lapsa
  [dead]
• ck2
  ha if Max Planck was proven wrong it would be as bad as proving Einstein wrongit would break quantum physics* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#History
• mbreese
  To me, this seems like Science dunking on Nature (the journals). It’s interesting, but only a story because Nature is involved.
• Menu

  majidfekri
  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