Article was probably flagged as AI written /s
Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck
131–140 of 207 posts
Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck
#132Do 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?
Generally, yes. Journals expect that the research is new. With most research labs (at least in CS) making their work freely available on the internet, the major value of publication is peer review. In my area, double-blind review is the norm, meaning the reviewers and authors don't know who the other is. Thus it's not clear to the reviewers if the prior research is even yours.
The expectation is you cite the previous work to clearly indicate it is not new, and that your submission for review is mostly about new research. In some situations overlap is okay, e.g. there's a conference version and then a journal version with additional results. In that case you disclose in writing what the delta is to the editor (who knows your identity while the reviewers do not). This also means in the paper you have to treat the prior work as if it is by a different group to maintain double-blind review.
The point is to make it clear what is new research. Trying to get credit for the same research multiple times, and boost citation count, is dishonest to the expectations of the community. It's also a waste of time for reviewers (who volunteer) to review same research over and over again after deciding it's acceptable. Think of it like a OSS maintainer getting pull requests for trivial changes to the code just to boost the green squares on someone's GitHub profile. It's a drain on everyone else and doesn't benefit the project.
Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
'Scientists' and 'administrators of scientific departments' are two groups with minimal overlap.
Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[deleted]
Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck
#135Earlier 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…
You're mixing metaphors. Academic prestige is like the complete opposite of "street cred".
Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck
#136Journals 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.
Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
its always seemed like a prank to me; and I'm impressed that he never broke during the performance to ask "are you people really falling for this???"
Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck
#138Earlier 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.
Donations hasn’t been a successful path for the wider internet, no reason to expect any difference here. Ads embedded in the images, or perhaps listen to a message from our sponsor while we prepare your PDF?
Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
I published in Nature Physics and the copy-editing process was quite embarrassing, to the point where we had to repeatedly nag them to stop them from making the manuscript presentation worse. To be clear, I’m not talking about subjective style issues, I mean conforming to their own spec and avoiding careless bugs. All remaining work fell on the backs of the physics referees. I’m not sure what value Springer provided…
Right? A lot of journals make a big deal about submitting your manuscript in the proper format (sometimes even LaTeX if you're lucky) and then you get the galley proofs back and half the equations and citations now have typos in them. The entire publishing process often feels like a chain of "you had ONE job"-type errors from the journals (presumably because they're wildly underpaying and overworking the people whose…
On top of that, the whole thing is done in fits and starts. You send in the final revision, it vanishes into the void for some unspecified time, and then they offer[*] you 48 hours--sometimes not even lined up with two working days!--to figure out what they "fixed" and repair it yourself.
[*] Nothing usually happens if you push back on this fake deadline, though I suppose your paper might end up in a different issue of a printed journal. It's just annoyingly rushed--give me a week!
Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck
#140Earlier 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…
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 (clos…
PLOS Biology and PLOS Computational Biology are pretty well-regarded (the others are outside of my field).
PLOS One does publish pretty much anything, but that was always meant to be the point: "here's some data, make of it what you will. "