retract two – A journal retracted two Max Planck papers from the 1940s, sparking a dispute over whether modern rules on duplicate publication and self-plagiarism should be applied to historical work. The publisher said it cannot share detailed retraction information, while
Something is being quietly pulled out of view from a digital archive—two papers by Max Planck from the 1940s. The controversy now isn’t about whether Planck wrote them. It’s about how far today’s publishing rules should reach back in time.
At the center of the dispute is a basic question: should journals retroactively apply contemporary standards about duplicate publication or self-plagiarism to work produced under very different norms?. In the early 20th century. publishers were operating in an environment where the scientific community was fragmented—separated by language and geography—and where getting findings to the widest possible audience often meant printing similar material across many outlets. The boundaries between formats were also looser: lectures. conference proceedings. booklets. collected essays. and published journal articles could overlap in ways that would look like problems under modern assumptions.
The modern system runs on a different set of incentives. Today. the scientific publishing landscape is dominated by large commercial groups that are far more focused on protecting copyrights and turning a profit. Duplication and self-plagiarism have also become more consequential as career tools: publications are central to hiring and promotion and to securing research funding. But critics argue that taking today’s standards and applying them to historical texts can go wrong—especially for the “digital circulation of historical texts.”.
The friction widened when Springer Nature killed an editorial Scarlata had planned to run that was meant to address the issue. Springer Nature also declined to comment on the retractions in the piece that prompted the reporting. saying that “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors. ” relayed through a representative to Kean.
For Planck himself, the timing is brutal. He died in 1947, which means there’s no direct answer from the scientist whose work is now being reconsidered. Both papers are now in the public domain in most countries. and that means copyright violation is not the core issue it would be in other contexts. Even so. the papers remain accessible through the Internet archive. so the change is less about total deletion and more about what should be treated as scholarly record.
Gingras and Khelfaoui argue in a preprint that removing the two papers distorts the historical record. When Gingras told Science, “Whoever did it, I don’t care. Just put them [back] in the database. Intellectually, it’s not acceptable.”
Max Planck retraction duplicate publication self-plagiarism Springer Nature historical record scientific publishing
So they retracted the papers but you can still find them online? seems pointless.
Idk why anyone cares about “duplicate publication” from the 1940s. Like back then people didn’t even have the internet, so modern rules shouldn’t apply. This feels like one of those copyright profit things.
Wait, they didn’t even say details bc it’s confidential? That just makes it sound guilty. Also why is “self-plagiarism” even a thing for Max Planck, he’s like a whole historical icon.
This is gonna be a mess. They’re basically arguing about how the scientific community used to publish, but then Springer’s acting all mysterious about the retractions. If it’s in the public domain then what’s the real point of pulling it from the archive? Sounds like somebody wanted it gone for optics and then wrapped it in academic jargon. Also I’m guessing the “editorial” thing got killed because it would’ve exposed how often this happens, not because of any actual rules.