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

141–150 of 207 posts

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#141

Post by CamperBob2 »

tcp_handshaker wrote: post #23
bstsb wrote: post #6

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 […] the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.”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

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.

As it introduces the (very) reduced Planck constant, it's obviously worth $39.95 for historical value alone. A bargain at any price!

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#142

Post by MengerSponge »

xp84 wrote: post #106
MengerSponge wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

I think it depends. The popular exposure to this idea, where you can be accused of self-plagiarism for a paper you write for a class, does seem stupid, because obviously your prof hasn't read your paper you wrote in another class and you're not 'wasting' anyone's time. I can also appreciate that in a "publishing papers as research" context you're completely right.

Course credit is not the same as professional certifications. You can apply past expertise/work to as many different certifications as you can manage.

Submitting previously graded work for a new course wastes your own time. It also wastes the professor's time, because they assigned that writing for you to develop a specific skill, and you're trying to not practice whatever they're trying to teach you.

If you have a perfectly matched essay to the assignment, you should talk to the professor about how the assignment can be adapted.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#143

Post by robotresearcher »

yreg wrote: post #95
ACCount37 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What I dont understand is why cant we get free open journals with high curation standards that would eventually get to the reputation level of Nature. Hosting pdfs + paying out reviewers could be covered by donations.

> paying out reviewers

Reviewers are not usually paid.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#144

Post by jrflo »

bstsb wrote: post #6

> […] 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

Good thing sci-hub exists…

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#145

Post by robotresearcher »

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)

If I sell a novel to Simon & Shuster, and assign the copyright to them as part of the deal, I can't sell the same novel to HarperCollins under the same terms. I can't sell my movie to Disney AND Sony.

This is the same, but the price is zero. You can take or leave the deal at that price, and you'll probably take it for sufficient academic prestige points ('impact factor', visibility, etc).

By the way, some publishers such as IEEE explicitly allow you to post preprints for free download, eg. at arXiv and on your own web site.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#147

Post by genxy »

anigbrowl wrote: post #133
genxy wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they are saying is that this is nearly a 100% self-own. The department and the academic structure sets the KPIs, like where to publish and how much. This is very much a monkey caught with their hand in a jar moment.

'Scientists' and 'administrators of scientific departments' are two groups with minimal overlap.

Department heads come from the scientific faculty, normally on a tour-of-duty rotation.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#148

Post by JadeNB »

12_throw_away wrote: post #108
HPsquared wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have no competition on any given paper that they hold the rights to.

Well, maybe no competition when we're talking about institutional access rights on dry land. However, for everyone else, there's quite a bit of competition out there in the high seas.

That's only for individual usage, which, I assume, is small potatoes compared to institutional usage. No major research institution is going to use piracy as an institutional policy, and neither is it going to boycott Springer, since at least some researchers would put up a fuss—because you don't just need access to lots of papers, sometimes you need access to that specific paper.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#149

Post by Henchman21 »

genxy wrote: post #127
Henchman21 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Downvoting this comment doesn’t make it less true. Most everyone and everything has been captured by the ultimate cynicism of Capitalism: if I don’t do it someone else will, so might as well put the money in my pocket right?? I agree with @kingleopod — this system is designed to do what it is doing: keep knowledge private and keep profits high. Full stop.

Again, the system is working as intended. Capitalism is a wonderful hack on so many levels.

Yes, making life all about money and everything else is meaningless? What a hack!

What a joy to live in such a world!

For those that need it: */S*

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#150

Post by galleywest200 »

robotresearcher wrote: post #145
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)

If I sell a novel to Simon & Shuster, and assign the copyright to them as part of the deal, I can't sell the same novel to HarperCollins under the same terms. I can't sell my movie to Disney AND Sony. This is the same, but the price is zero. You can take or leave the deal at that price, and you'll probably take it for sufficient academic prestige points ('impact factor', visibility, etc). By the way, some publishers…

Nobody gets royalties for published papers.
Post reply on HN