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

161–170 of 207 posts

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#161

Post by bawolff »

bborud wrote: post #154
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 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 wi…

I mean, i dont know how things work in academia, but if i was reading a fiction novel, and it turns out half of it was copied from some other novel i already read, i would feel a bit cheated. So i could imagine the same thing applying to academic works.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#162

Post by xp84 »

bluGill wrote: post #51
jgraham wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can't draw conclusions from that study because it's been retracted on the basis that data has been faked. On the other hand there are other similar studies that reach similar conclusions, and specifically try to control for aerodynamics e.g. [1] which says > The weak positive relationship between vehicle registration year and splat rate suggests that newer vehicles are more efficient at sampling insects than older…

I didn't mean we shouldn't engage with data at all. However there are so many possible confounding factors in this type of measurement that we should "take it with a lot of salt."

In northern states, there's a plenty of that getting on windshields too

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#163

Post by genxy »

Henchman21 wrote: post #149
genxy wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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*

It is a web of self reinforcing feedback structures that even if you know how they operate, it requires too much coordination to control. It is a sticky web, the more you move, the more it binds.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#164

Post by dlcarrier »

jgraham wrote: post #49
bluGill wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse than anecdotal - even if there is real measured data: aerodynamics of windshields will have changed and have an effect and so we still cannot draw conclusions from this. Only if the experiment is more controlled (that is the same car driving on the same roads at the same speeds at the same time) could we draw a conclusion.

We can't draw conclusions from that study because it's been retracted on the basis that data has been faked. On the other hand there are other similar studies that reach similar conclusions, and specifically try to control for aerodynamics e.g. [1] which says > The weak positive relationship between vehicle registration year and splat rate suggests that newer vehicles are more efficient at sampling insects than older…

Good, now if we could get a few hundred more, every year, with registered reports, we might be able to conclude something.

How does one even peer review a single datum, published as a paper? I guess in this case, there was actually something to catch, and it still almost made it through.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#165

Post by jubilanti »

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)

Because if not, people will game the system and submit the same paper to dozens of journals at the same time, and journals are for publishing new, original work. And because in a class, you are being evaluated based on your ability to produce new, original work.

Do you also get angry at a track and field meet, when you show up with a motorbike and get kicked out for violating the rules?

But I don't expect someone who writes that much of an aggressively pompous yet uninformed statement to understand. Chesterton's Fence much?

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#166

Post by jubilanti »

galleywest200 wrote: post #150
robotresearcher wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Publications are the coin of the realm in academia.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#167

Post by jubilanti »

bborud wrote: post #154
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 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 wi…

How about you take that stick out of your ass and stop assuming that norms which have existed for generations are, what, just some kind of mass mental illness?

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#168

Post by yreg »

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?

Works pretty well for Wikimedia which has gotten incredibly rich while providing an essential service for the internet public. (Off the back of volunteers, of course.)

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#169

Post by yreg »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #151
awjlogan wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why? What is so costly about running a journal?

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#170

Post by xp84 »

MengerSponge wrote: post #142
xp84 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

I see where you're coming from, and perhaps because I'm absolutely not cut out to be in academia, that's where my bias comes from -- I'm inclined always to view education as a means to an end, and that's certainly far from accurate.

The interesting thing is that in coursework context, plagiarism of any type is merely a massive self-own, since you are (probably) paying money and then purposely cheating yourself of the learning that you paid for. To me, I feel like it needs a different name than plagiarism in the academia or professional world, where you're taking ideas from others and slapping your own name on them for clout or for money. In this case, a real victim exists and you also stand to gain from it if not caught.

Post reply on HN