Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?
arstechnica.com
Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?
#2Discussed a couple days ago:
Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck (science.org) 389 points, 196 comments
Re: Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?
#3> The specific reason for the retractions was copyright violation, so there was nothing wrong with the actual papers from a scientific standpoint.
There is a reason why the German portmanteau word "Zensurheberrecht" ("Zensur": censorship; "Urheberrecht": the related concept to copyright in German law) exists.
Re: Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?
#4Discussed a couple days ago: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck (science.org) 389 points, 196 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48686834
I notice how the title by Ars Technica is much less baity than Nature: "Why have papers by one of history’s most famous physicists been retracted?" vs "Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?"
Re: Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?
#5> The specific reason for the retractions was copyright violation, so there was nothing wrong with the actual papers from a scientific standpoint. There is a reason why the German portmanteau word "Zensurheberrecht" ("Zensur": censorship; "Urheberrecht": the related concept to copyright in German law) exists.
Never heard this, but very accurate. thanks :)
Re: Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?
#6Discussed a couple days ago: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck (science.org) 389 points, 196 comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48686834
I notice how the title by Ars Technica is much less baity than Nature: "Why have papers by one of history’s most famous physicists been retracted?" vs "Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?"
It’s almost like Nature doesn’t expect its readers to know who this Max Planck guy is. :-)
Re: Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?
#7> The specific reason for the retractions was copyright violation, so there was nothing wrong with the actual papers from a scientific standpoint. There is a reason why the German portmanteau word "Zensurheberrecht" ("Zensur": censorship; "Urheberrecht": the related concept to copyright in German law) exists.
The so-called copyright violation was that Max Planck had published the same article in 2 journals, which was not unusual at that time, because different journals had different readerships, so publishing in more journals was necessary if you wanted to reach more people.
So supposedly he plagiarized himself.
The second retracted article was even less justifiable, because the modern editors or their automated system had believed that 2 articles were the same, but they were not, they only happened to have the same title.
Re: Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?
#8> The specific reason for the retractions was copyright violation, so there was nothing wrong with the actual papers from a scientific standpoint. There is a reason why the German portmanteau word "Zensurheberrecht" ("Zensur": censorship; "Urheberrecht": the related concept to copyright in German law) exists.
The so-called copyright violation was that Max Planck had published the same article in 2 journals, which was not unusual at that time, because different journals had different readerships, so publishing in more journals was necessary if you wanted to reach more people. So supposedly he plagiarized himself. The second retracted article was even less justifiable, because the modern editors or their automated system ha…
Also that can't be the whole story because Planck died in 1947 and in Germany (then and now) Copyright ends 70 years after the death of the author.
Re: Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?
#9> The specific reason for the retractions was copyright violation, so there was nothing wrong with the actual papers from a scientific standpoint. There is a reason why the German portmanteau word "Zensurheberrecht" ("Zensur": censorship; "Urheberrecht": the related concept to copyright in German law) exists.
The so-called copyright violation was that Max Planck had published the same article in 2 journals, which was not unusual at that time, because different journals had different readerships, so publishing in more journals was necessary if you wanted to reach more people. So supposedly he plagiarized himself. The second retracted article was even less justifiable, because the modern editors or their automated system ha…
While commonly taught in academic settings, I disagree with the notion that it's possible to self plagiarize. It's your own words and not stealing from somebody else.
Re: Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The so-called copyright violation was that Max Planck had published the same article in 2 journals, which was not unusual at that time, because different journals had different readerships, so publishing in more journals was necessary if you wanted to reach more people. So supposedly he plagiarized himself. The second retracted article was even less justifiable, because the modern editors or their automated system ha…
While commonly taught in academic settings, I disagree with the notion that it's possible to self plagiarize. It's your own words and not stealing from somebody else.
Agreed. The concept of “don’t reuse your old work when you’re supposed to be creating new work” may be valid, especially in training environments, but it shouldn’t be called self-plagiarism or treated like plagiarism.