> 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The second retracted article was even less justifiable, because the modern editors or their automated system had believed that 2 articles were the same, but they were not, they only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.
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.
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the title by Ars Technica is much less baity than Nature: "Why have papers by one of history’s most famous physicists been retracted?"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?"
There is a reason why the German portmanteau word "Zensurheberrecht" ("Zensur": censorship; "Urheberrecht": the related concept to copyright in German law) exists.
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The second retracted article was even less justifiable, because the modern editors or their automated system had believed that 2 articles were the same, but they were not, they only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.
Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck (science.org) 389 points, 196 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48686834