> 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The second retracted article was even less justifiable, because the modern editors or their automated system had believed that 2 articles were the same, but they were not, they only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.
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.
It's not just academic. If I've been paid for writing something original for a magazine or newspaper and I give them a piece that wholly or largely is just a copy of something I've written in the past (and has been published elsewhere), that's actually not kosher and they'll call you on it if they find out. Personally, I will reuse sentences and paragraphs from time to time but not entire pieces without an explanatory note.
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.
It seems like a rule designed by journal editors to protect their turf, or PhD committees to make it easier to count original works towards degree requirements. What could possibly be the justification?
It also protects readers who may encounter the second years latter and not realize it is the same data and thus they think it is a second study reenforcing something. If they are experts in the field they likely know, but if this is a case where a different field overlaps they will want to have citations without as much knowledge of what is important.
it's really a bit of a different concept in scientific publishing, not actually plagiarism. The problematic part is publishing the same results twice, because it increases the burden on reviewers and inflates your publication count. It's also just messier if the results are in multiple places since it makes it harder to follow where those results were used and cited.
> German portmanteau word "Zensurheberrecht" ("Zensur": censorship; "Urheberrecht": the related concept to copyright in German law)
The recent podcast about Machiavelli by Dwarkesh had an interesting part about how the Catholic Inquisition, printmakers and authors collaborated in censorship to establish an early version of copyright. Link to the specific section:
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 still clickbait and a good example of how infantile these publications are today. Ars and Nature really should be above all these bullshit headline games, but the fact they aren't explains a large part of their general degradation.
> 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.
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.
It's not just academic. If I've been paid for writing something original for a magazine or newspaper and I give them a piece that wholly or largely is just a copy of something I've written in the past (and has been published elsewhere), that's actually not kosher and they'll call you on it if they find out. Personally, I will reuse sentences and paragraphs from time to time but not entire pieces without an explanatory note.
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.
It's not really a great term but, at the same time, calling it fraud--which it sort of is in some contexts--feels kinda strong.
It seems like a rule designed by journal editors to protect their turf, or PhD committees to make it easier to count original works towards degree requirements. What could possibly be the justification?
It also protects readers who may encounter the second years latter and not realize it is the same data and thus they think it is a second study reenforcing something. If they are experts in the field they likely know, but if this is a case where a different field overlaps they will want to have citations without as much knowledge of what is important.
Indeed. When publishing in a scientific journal, you usually (have to) give them an exclusive licence on your article.
it's really a bit of a different concept in scientific publishing, not actually plagiarism. The problematic part is publishing the same results twice, because it increases the burden on reviewers and inflates your publication count. It's also just messier if the results are in multiple places since it makes it harder to follow where those results were used and cited.
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.
> German portmanteau word "Zensurheberrecht" ("Zensur": censorship; "Urheberrecht": the related concept to copyright in German law)
The recent podcast about Machiavelli by Dwarkesh had an interesting part about how the Catholic Inquisition, printmakers and authors collaborated in censorship to establish an early version of copyright. Link to the specific section:
https://youtu.be/U1FrhkLQnCI?t=6644
Never heard this, but very accurate. thanks :)
Discussed 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?"
For starters, Ars shouldn't write "this journal" when it's about another publication than themselves.
It's still clickbait and a good example of how infantile these publications are today. Ars and Nature really should be above all these bullshit headline games, but the fact they aren't explains a large part of their general degradation.
It’s almost like Nature doesn’t expect its readers to know who this Max Planck guy is. :-)
Exactly, it seems that HN can assume a certain level of scientific knowledge among its readers that Nature can't.
Nah. It’s all part of the clickbait. You want to know which physicist, so you click
If Ars can, then HN definitely can.