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

171–180 of 207 posts

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#171

Post by yreg »

jubilanti wrote: post #165
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)

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…

This comment is also very aggressive.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#172

Post by Jblx2 »

kingleopold wrote: post #35
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 Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.”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 purpose of a system is what it does" it's designed that way.

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#173

Post by robotresearcher »

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.

Correct. Hence "the price is zero".

Author still normally transfers copyright to the publisher. That's what gives the publisher the right to distribute copies and charge for them. By default they do not.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#174

Post by dotancohen »

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.…

Apparently the studies were removed in 2011, it just took 15 years for somebody interested to notice.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#175

Post by dotancohen »

yreg wrote: post #171
jubilanti wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This comment is also very aggressive.

The first paragraph was fine. It would be a valuable viewpoint if the rest were removed.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#176

Post by whack »

yreg wrote: post #171
jubilanti wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This comment is also very aggressive.

This is a curious phenomenon that I've started to notice. People often post extremely aggressive comments... but it is still socially acceptable as long as their aggression is directed towards an abstract figure, or a specific person who "isn't in the room".

Whereas if someone replies to that aggressive comment with an equally aggressive comment, that is far less socially acceptable.

Once I noticed it, it's blindingly obvious. It's like going to a dinner party and complaining about your boss being a moron vs calling another guest at the party a moron. But for the longest time, I viewed internet forums as a place where everyone is "equally abstract" - and where the focus is on the exchange of ideas, not your personal relationship with the people behind the ideas. Hence why it took me an embarrassing amount of time to figure out this most basic of concepts

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#177

Post by soraminazuki »

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…

s/If some else did this/If ordinary citizens did this/

Wealthy companies getting away with fraud is unfortunately business as usual.

https://consumerrights.wiki/w/Main_Page

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#178

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

yreg wrote: post #169
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Even just the basic admin costs associated with paper review - handling that for a medium sized journal is at least one full time job - are going to add up to more than I think donations will ever generate for such a task.

My mental model is a non-print journal, so there are very few "publishing" costs, but the overall administration of things, from the tech side to the typical scientific paper processing workflow, is not a long term task for volunteers (I suspect).

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#179

Post by Henchman21 »

criddell wrote: post #157
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.

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?

And I think it comes from bots who attempt to police allowed thoughts on HN. To each their own, I suppose

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#180

Post by KennyBlanken »

12_throw_away wrote: post #114
morelandjs wrote: post #43

Earlier 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…

It could be incompetence, or it could be reviewers and others intentionally trying to sabotage other people's work.
Post reply on HN