Springer Nature retracts two Max Planck papers

Why did Springer Nature retract two papers by Max Planck, ~70 years after they were published? Any why were they selling blank PDFs for $40? The answer seems to involve a misbehaving unsupervised algorithm. Because of course it does. 🧪⚛️🔭 www.science.org/content/arti...

A good thread about the SciAm staff who were let go this week. I wish I could say that I was shocked that anyone would let Meghan and the rest of these great writers and editors go, but sadly this is becoming pretty common. This kind of union busting should be illegal. Shame on Springer Nature.

Why have papers by one of history’s most famous physicists been retracted? Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck. A bot may be to blame. www.science.org/content/arti... ⚛️🧪

Springer Nature selling off Scientific American "as scrap to stop the staff from unionizing". Brutal.

On Tuesday, Scientific American was sold by international publisher Springer Nature. Large numbers of staff were immediately laid off, and salaries of remaining workers were cut by as much as 30% SciAm staff had just voted to unionize. We should call this action what it is – blatant union-busting.

Springer retracting (and hiding) decades-old articles by Planck due to hallucinated copyright violations is quite the choice. www.science.org/content/arti...

... being published under the same title (but not author) as the thing being rebutted. But the funniest line in the article is: “Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95.” www.science.org/content/arti...

Now this is wild for so many reasons: - SpringerNature retracts 2x70 year-old articles by Max Planck for "copyright violation". - Dead people can't violate copyright. - Editor was not notified. - "Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95".

Why have papers by one of history's most famous physicists been retracted? https://www.science.org/content/article/why-have-papers-one-history-s-most-famous-physicists-been-retracted [comments] [164 points]

Overzeallous integrity bots & charging for blank PDFs? Lets keep humans in the loop before things really turn into a fever dream. www.science.org/content/arti...

Science reports that Springer has retracted two papers by Max Planck (one for copyright violation of public domain material). Sounds like automation (or a publisher) that needs babysitting. www.science.org/content/arti... link.springer.com/article/10.1... link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Just Springer Nature things: selling an empty PDF for $39.95 when it's supposed to be a public domain article in the first place

A perfect miniature of the problem: an algorithm may have mistaken historical republication practices for misconduct, then erased the paper rather than preserving it. Research integrity without historical intelligence becomes its own kind of distortion. www.science.org/content/arti...

Looking like some Springer Nature algorithm has erroneously retracted two papers by Max Planck from the 1940s - tip of an iceberg of other problems? www.science.org/content/arti...

There's some really sketchy stuff going on at Springer Nature right now. Editors defending junk science, ombudsman reports ignored, purely performative concern for integrity and rigour, etc. One example of what happens when you try to get them to correct even blatantly, lethally stupid work. 🧵: