Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/06/why-did-this-journal-retract-two-1940s-papers-by-max-planck/

by DR_MING • 24 days ago

211 27 24 days ago

arstechnica.com

mellosouls• 24 days ago

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

jrimbault• 24 days ago

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the title by Ars Technica is much less baity than Nature: "Why have papers by one of history’s most famous physicists been retracted?"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?"

WesolyKubeczek• 24 days ago

It’s almost like Nature doesn’t expect its readers to know who this Max Planck guy is. :-)

squidbeak• 24 days ago

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.

gpvos2• 24 days ago

For starters, Ars shouldn't write "this journal" when it's about another publication than themselves.

talon8635• 23 days ago

Using “this X” in the title is the definition of bait to me. They could, in as many characters, say the journals name. But they don’t specifically in order to bait you into clicking to find out which journal.

aleph_minus_one• 24 days ago

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.

aap_• 24 days ago

Never heard this, but very accurate. thanks :)

adrian_b• 24 days ago

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The second retracted article was even less justifiable, because the modern editors or their automated system had believed that 2 articles were the same, but they were not, they only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.

Vespasian• 24 days ago

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.

Ovah• 24 days ago

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.

adolph• 23 days ago

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

Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?

Related Stories