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

31–40 of 207 posts

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#31

Post by dmoy »

bluGill wrote: post #19
raverbashing wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah this seems like a fundamentally anecdotal evidence, if bugs are splatting less on his car windshield

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.

Same roads doesn't even control. If you lived in a town that e.g. changed the very local environment (say drained one specific swamp), the nearby roads my have less bugs for a very uninteresting reason

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#32

Post by MostlyStable »

vitally3643 wrote: post #29
jrumbut wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's most bothersome is there is work for them to do. How about assigning a real copy editor with subject matter expertise? How about publishing open source libraries that automatically validate and output visualizations for their formats? How about hosting multimedia supplements? It would not be difficult at all to earn the money they charge. There is so much room for creativity and innovation and adding value in…

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?

20 years ago, that argument would make sense. They had no competition and could do what they wanted. As an earlier comment stated: that is starting to change, and if they wait until open competitors are fully established, then it will be too late. Now is the time for them to realize that their parasitic business model is coming to an end and they need to change if they want to survive long term.

They can of course choose short term profits over long term viability, which wouldn't be all that surprising, but that changes the explanation from "more profits" to "short-sightedness/incompetence"

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#33

Post by dpoloncsak »

dieselgate wrote: post #15
bstsb wrote: post #6

> […] 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. completely unsurprised, given the state of online papers publishing. if you don’t have an subscription or aren’t an organisation member, the fees are insane

The fees to publish in journals for authors/labs are insane too.

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 every comment, but thank you all, helps paint the picture a bit better for me!

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#34

Post by nyeah »

lol "self plagiarism". Max Planck got an "extra publication."

Counting papers is death. Everything connected with it is death. This is Max fucking Planck, who gave us the photon. We're judging him according to today's "standards." He's "failing."

Ok. So be it. We'll get what we incentivize.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#35

Post by kingleopold »

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.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#36

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

robertlagrant wrote: post #30
seanhunter wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't. It is public domain. You pay that if you want to get it from them. This is the same as I can get a free pdf of "Linear algebra done right" from Sheldon Axler's website but if I want to get it from Springer I pay $50 or whatever it is.

That is a very confusing state of affairs!

Repackaging and selling free data is a very old business model.

In many cases, it's value-added, because the bundler may also do some curation and interpretation.

Not sure that's what's happening, here, though...

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#37

Post by mdp2021 »

baxtr wrote: post #11
josefritzishere wrote: post #2

The world has gone mad.

Has it ever been sane?

The world is "sane" when the lucid are treated as beacons and the fools are treated as the unfortunate that must stay away from the engines. Insane when the fools are empowered and the bright have to flee for shelter.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#39

Post by bruckie »

dpoloncsak wrote: post #33
dieselgate wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fees to publish in journals for authors/labs are insane too.

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…

A lot of academic reputation, as well as performance evaluation (for example toward tenure) is based on being published in "prestigious" journals. If you could fix that problem, I suspect the parasitic journals would evaporate overnight.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#40

Post by esterna »

robertlagrant wrote: post #30
seanhunter wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't. It is public domain. You pay that if you want to get it from them. This is the same as I can get a free pdf of "Linear algebra done right" from Sheldon Axler's website but if I want to get it from Springer I pay $50 or whatever it is.

That is a very confusing state of affairs!

You can also buy licenses to use AV1, a royalty-free codec.
Post reply on HN