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

201–207 of 207 posts

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#201

Post by oliculipolicula »

PaulHoule wrote: post #196
oliculipolicula wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much to worry about then: Ginsparg* doesn't seem like he would have triggered Ghislaine's matcher, plus these guys don't like to step into the same river twice (out of superstition, mainly) (delete this conspiracism if PP makes highlights?) As it is Garry still isn't distancing himself [further] from PLTR (I think), and I wonder if _you'd_ apply to Dialog for a snark? *Ginsparg comes off as having some of the sam…

Some people aren't cut out for celebrity. We were sitting around Ginsparg's office talking about how cringe it was that Steve Wolfman had nominated him for a McArthur Genius award. It was a running gag that Ginsparg would get a speaking invitation and he'd nominate me to go in his stead because I had a reputation of being somebody who could go anywhere and not get in trouble. The library would never pay for my travel…

Thiel is not really involved, don't know about minions:

https://xcancel.com/ezraklein/status/2068479476309151771

You (or PaulG) could get invited* & "illegible Paul" go with intent to stir fully funded but transferable trouble. It could be harder then-- or easier now-- than you think

>I met some real eccentrics and weirdos. I appreciated that about it.

I think you'd do better than Ezra bc one of you is primed to participate as a Martian (eg). tag teaming for the reportage could also work

Later in the comments makes me think you might have already anticipated this:

>... you were put in a low-tier breakout room

(Presumably wo firepits)

*either the emails went direct to the spam bin or minions weren't competent enough to have PaulG on the radar (grade D perhaps?)

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#202

Post by ColinWright »

Quoting from the article:

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.”

So the only person with whom Springer can discuss why the papers have been withdrawn is ... Plank.

Well ... good luck with that.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#204

Post by MengerSponge »

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…

If it's a new article it should say something new.

You can save your reader's time and your own effort by quoting some of those words, or by citing all of them. That trims almost 500 superfluous words from your paper, and what's left will be better, which respects your reader.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#205

Post by MengerSponge »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #104
rowanG077 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense, either people don't know about the previous work and thus it has clear value. Or they do and they can easily skip it. Beside for a lot of work it be great if you could just literally copy and paste fragments if your previous work to deepen out some reasoning.

If they don't know about the previous work, they won't know to go there for more. If they do, it doesn't mean they instantly recognize it and know to skip. Just mark it, it'll take seconds.

The reasons for not marking it are ignorance and fraud. Both are terrible looks for an academic.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#206

Post by ahazred8ta »

badprose wrote: post #137
tanseydavid wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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???"

In the original performance, he had a page turner.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#207

Post by lxe »

anigbrowl wrote: post #133
genxy wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Scientists are the ones with real agency and leverage. The change has to come from the grassroots.
Post reply on HN