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

81–90 of 207 posts

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#81

Post by MengerSponge »

bborud wrote: post #75
Artoooooor wrote: post #56

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?

The same morons who think that re-using something you have written before in academic work without quoting yourself is (self-)plagiarism for which you should be sanctioned? (Yes, they are morons because no reasonable person would think this is fair. You need convoluted nonsense arguments to justify this)

It's bad manners and a waste of people's time and attention to present previously published work as novel.

Repeating a phrase or two in a document's introduction isn't going to raise flags from any serious people, but copying data, analysis, or large swaths of text? That's a paddlin'.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#82

Post by lxe »

ashenke wrote: post #4

> 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 Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.”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

The system is fine. The culture is broken. Scientific publishing isn't forced on the community by regulation or necessity. You can publish papers in infinite number of ways online. Unlike something like healthcare or housing, where there are no alternatives, there are plenty of alternatives when it comes to media publishing.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#85

Post by [deleted] »

MengerSponge wrote: post #81
bborud wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same morons who think that re-using something you have written before in academic work without quoting yourself is (self-)plagiarism for which you should be sanctioned? (Yes, they are morons because no reasonable person would think this is fair. You need convoluted nonsense arguments to justify this)

It's bad manners and a waste of people's time and attention to present previously published work as novel. Repeating a phrase or two in a document's introduction isn't going to raise flags from any serious people, but copying data, analysis, or large swaths of text? That's a paddlin'.

[deleted]

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#86

Post by dmbche »

dcrazy wrote: post #59
jszymborski wrote: post #26

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

One researcher was at UQAM, the other was at UQTR. Are both not considered part of UQ?

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.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#87

Post by mmooss »

_exvi wrote: post #68

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

I (and I'm sure others) would be interested in your thoughts on Planck and publishing. Otherwise, the comment is just an advertisement.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#88

Post by chrismorgan »

arrowsmith wrote: post #10

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.

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).

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#89

Post by rowanG077 »

MengerSponge wrote: post #81
bborud wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same morons who think that re-using something you have written before in academic work without quoting yourself is (self-)plagiarism for which you should be sanctioned? (Yes, they are morons because no reasonable person would think this is fair. You need convoluted nonsense arguments to justify this)

It's bad manners and a waste of people's time and attention to present previously published work as novel. Repeating a phrase or two in a document's introduction isn't going to raise flags from any serious people, but copying data, analysis, or large swaths of text? That's a paddlin'.

That makes no sense, either people don't know about the previous work and thus it has clear value. Or they do and they can easily skip it. Beside for a lot of work it be great if you could just literally copy and paste fragments if your previous work to deepen out some reasoning.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#90

Post by tanseydavid »

dotancohen wrote: post #55
fhdkweig wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

IMHO they are both arrogant scoundrels for doing this.
Post reply on HN