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

151–160 of 207 posts

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#151

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

awjlogan wrote: post #138
yreg wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Donations likely won't work, but a combination of realistic publishing fees that do not enrich a publishing house plus government sponsorship (which would sort of happen implicitly when those fees are paid from grant money) likely would.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#154

Post by bborud »

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'.

I am flabbergasted. How self-absorbed does one have to be to be offended by someone re-using sections of a paper one has done earlier in a later paper?

No, seriously. If I write 5.000 words on a topic and then re-use 500 words I myself have written earlier without attribution because they are appropriate to the current article, how do you make that «bad manners».

I meant what I said about people who can’t see this without help earlier.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#155

Post by macbend »

leephillips wrote: post #117
vitally3643 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, yes. There are several ways to get papers: https://lee-phillips.org/articleAccess/

Great resource. Thanks Lee. (Loved your book about Noether, BTW)

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#156

Post by leephillips »

macbend wrote: post #155
leephillips wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes. There are several ways to get papers: https://lee-phillips.org/articleAccess/

Great resource. Thanks Lee. (Loved your book about Noether, BTW)

You’re welcome. I hope it’s useful. And I’m glad you loved my book!

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#157

Post by criddell »

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.

I think the downvotes come from the comment not really saying much.

If my use of Tor makes me look suspicious in the eyes of the police is that the purpose of Tor?

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#158

Post by mattkrause »

breezybottom wrote: post #135
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…

You're mixing metaphors. Academic prestige is like the complete opposite of "street cred".

It's also misses the point. People don't want "glam" papers for ego boosts and bragging rights. They want them to keep the current jobs and perhaps get better ones.

Any replacement system needs to somehow serve as a token for people who can't/won't actually read your papers.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#160

Post by burgerone »

shevy-java wrote: post #112
0xAstro wrote: post #110

> 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. If someone else did this, it would'v…

Agreed. The simplest explanation, though, is probably that they used a low quality software tool here. Shame on those software developers who have written it in the first place - they also supported censorship here.

You can't shame the execution, you can shame the order
Post reply on HN