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

121–130 of 207 posts

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#121

Post by fl0id »

xp84 wrote: post #102
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 […] the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.”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

I was going to post that snippet as well. How much longer are scientists going to continue respecting and embracing the useless parasites that are journal publishers, with their right-out-in-the-open, obvious, intentional grifting. You don't need these jackasses. What you rely on them for technically, the dissemination of papers, could be done with an $80/mo Kubernetes cluster and like three part-time volunteers. Now…

When their jobs don't depend on it. (as in it is evaluated for hiring and promotion) Ofc it differs depending on discipline.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#122

Post by fl0id »

lxe wrote: post #82
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 Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.”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.

There are not if you are working in it. Some grants for example include provisions that you publish in tier so and so journals. If that is the case, there might be one of those that is open-access / independent, but more likely there is not.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#123

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#124

Post by genxy »

fl0id wrote: post #122
lxe wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are not if you are working in it. Some grants for example include provisions that you publish in tier so and so journals. If that is the case, there might be one of those that is open-access / independent, but more likely there is not.

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.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#125

Post by 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.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#126

Post by nijave »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #120

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.

Privatizing gains, socializing loses

Bots and automation aren't inherently bad, but often times the motivation is pure cost savings for the company and users pay the price.

A more rational design could have a periodic human auditing process, appeal/reversal process, and a public audit/action log for clarity. However, that's going to eat into the savings of automating the whole thing so why bother

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#127

Post by genxy »

Henchman21 wrote: post #69
kingleopold wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The purpose of a system is what it does" it's designed that way.

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.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#128

Post by nijave »

shevy-java wrote: post #111

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 stat…

I don't know much about academia but it seems journals should be cooperatively edited and managed by universities rather than fully privitized. Ideally with an off ramp into public archives after a period of time.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#129

Post by kergonath »

kurthr wrote: post #72
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

I am still suspicious that this has something to do with the relationship between Springer-Verlag and the Max Plank Digital Library (MPDL) which supports open access. In 2014 MPDL purchase 110k out-of-print and historically significant titles. In 2015 Springer acquired open-access journals from Max Plank Society. In 2022 There was an open-access book deal allowing Plank Institute members to more easily publish books.…

> I am still suspicious that this has something to do with the relationship between Springer-Verlag and the Max Plank Digital Library (MPDL) which supports open access.

Why? Max Plank (the dead Physicist) has nothing to do with whatever the Institute is doing these days. Or the library. Or anything that was named after him.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#130

Post by anigbrowl »

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

The greed of scientific publishers is beyond parody at this point, these companies need to be destroyed.
Post reply on HN