Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 207 posts

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#51

Post by bluGill »

jgraham wrote: post #49
bluGill wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse than anecdotal - even if there is real measured data: aerodynamics of windshields will have changed and have an effect and so we still cannot draw conclusions from this. Only if the experiment is more controlled (that is the same car driving on the same roads at the same speeds at the same time) could we draw a conclusion.

We can't draw conclusions from that study because it's been retracted on the basis that data has been faked. On the other hand there are other similar studies that reach similar conclusions, and specifically try to control for aerodynamics e.g. [1] which says > The weak positive relationship between vehicle registration year and splat rate suggests that newer vehicles are more efficient at sampling insects than older…

I didn't mean we shouldn't engage with data at all. However there are so many possible confounding factors in this type of measurement that we should "take it with a lot of salt."

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#52

Post by GTP »

vitally3643 wrote: post #29
jrumbut wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's most bothersome is there is work for them to do. How about assigning a real copy editor with subject matter expertise? How about publishing open source libraries that automatically validate and output visualizations for their formats? How about hosting multimedia supplements? It would not be difficult at all to earn the money they charge. There is so much room for creativity and innovation and adding value in…

That sounds an awful lot like "costs" which seriously compromises the "free profit" model. Why pay money to make a better product when you can pay zero money for a worse product and no change in subscriptions? What are your customers gonna do, go get the paper somewhere else?

Yes, many students and researchers resort to piracy.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#53

Post by LPisGood »

NopIdoN wrote: post #50
khurs wrote: post #13

Link to site: https://retractionwatch.com One 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."

What's a "tenfold decrease"?

x -> x/10

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#54

Post by dcrazy »

NopIdoN wrote: post #50
khurs wrote: post #13

Link to site: https://retractionwatch.com One 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."

What's a "tenfold decrease"?

Inverse of a tenfold increase, so 1/10 aka 0.1x previous number?

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#55

Post by dotancohen »

fhdkweig wrote: post #44
tcp_handshaker wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the Springer empty PDF paper for $39.95, has zero errors, and zero plagiarism, so it is above the bar of their other paywalled proceedings papers.

Even emptiness can be plagiarized. See Cage's 4'33" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3#Plagiari...

4'33 is not empty! That is a common misperception. 4'33 is the sound of the ambient space around the listener. Each performance is unique.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#60

Post by otherme123 »

ACCount37 wrote: post #41
dpoloncsak wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not familiar here, but if both the publishers and readers are unhappy, why do these services still exist? Is it the 'prestige' of being published with some of these guys? Or do you need to be published for xyz reasons? Seems like, in 2026, we can have direct publishing without the need of these services? Is it the infra, like query tools and such, that prevent a migration away? edit: I'm not going to reply to eve…

Publishing is how scientists get their street cred. Thus, the scientists themselves want to publish in big name journals to up their rep - hitting something like Nature is major coup. And then they can convert their standing in the big science gang to things like research grants, commercial projects, academic tenures, etc. If you don't care about how science street cred works, nothing stops you from just throwing you…

Arxiv is not p2p, is a preview of what will be published hopefully.

Then you had promising projects like Plos, but they sold themselves. They turned into a joke: open access and good IF, but high fees for the author, thus becoming a quick way to get a sub-par paper published "for the points" if your lab can pay the fee. Pay to win, using a gaming term. If you know you have a good paper, you publish on any other (closed) journal with similar IF but cheaper.

Post reply on HN