#scientificpublishing — Public Fediverse posts

RE: https://post.lurk.org/@loriemerson/116935764227731524

The token [1] chasers creating more work for everybody. *You don’t say*

[1] Career progression tokens. Even this word has been usurped.

#academia #ScientificPublishing

RE: https://post.lurk.org/@loriemerson/116935764227731524

The token [1] chasers creating more work for everybody. *You don’t say*

[1] Career progression tokens. Even this word has been usurped.

#academia #ScientificPublishing

RE: https://post.lurk.org/@loriemerson/116935764227731524

The token [1] chasers creating more work for everybody. *You don’t say*

[1] Career progression tokens. Even this word has been usurped.

#academia #ScientificPublishing

RE: https://post.lurk.org/@loriemerson/116935764227731524

The token [1] chasers creating more work for everybody. *You don’t say*

[1] Career progression tokens. Even this word has been usurped.

#academia #ScientificPublishing

RE: https://post.lurk.org/@loriemerson/116935764227731524

The token [1] chasers creating more work for everybody. *You don’t say*

[1] Career progression tokens. Even this word has been usurped.

#academia #ScientificPublishing

My coauthors keep sending me huge Inkscape figure files, and despite me telling them about the `File -> Clean Up Document` function they still ignore it.
So, public announcement: when you work on a figure for a long time, some graphical elements that you think you deleted are still in the file, just hidden. The `Clean Up Document` function in the `File` menu removes them and can sometimes cut the figure weight by a factor 2 or more. This helps opening the figure in Inkscape but also in other viewers on older computers, and keeping the file size low.

#Inkscape #ScientificPublishing

My coauthors keep sending me huge Inkscape figure files, and despite me telling them about the `File -> Clean Up Document` function they still ignore it.
So, public announcement: when you work on a figure for a long time, some graphical elements that you think you deleted are still in the file, just hidden. The `Clean Up Document` function in the `File` menu removes them and can sometimes cut the figure weight by a factor 2 or more. This helps opening the figure in Inkscape but also in other viewers on older computers, and keeping the file size low.

#Inkscape #ScientificPublishing

My coauthors keep sending me huge Inkscape figure files, and despite me telling them about the `File -> Clean Up Document` function they still ignore it.
So, public announcement: when you work on a figure for a long time, some graphical elements that you think you deleted are still in the file, just hidden. The `Clean Up Document` function in the `File` menu removes them and can sometimes cut the figure weight by a factor 2 or more. This helps opening the figure in Inkscape but also in other viewers on older computers, and keeping the file size low.

#Inkscape #ScientificPublishing

My coauthors keep sending me huge Inkscape figure files, and despite me telling them about the `File -> Clean Up Document` function they still ignore it.
So, public announcement: when you work on a figure for a long time, some graphical elements that you think you deleted are still in the file, just hidden. The `Clean Up Document` function in the `File` menu removes them and can sometimes cut the figure weight by a factor 2 or more. This helps opening the figure in Inkscape but also in other viewers on older computers, and keeping the file size low.

#Inkscape #ScientificPublishing

My coauthors keep sending me huge Inkscape figure files, and despite me telling them about the `File -> Clean Up Document` function they still ignore it.
So, public announcement: when you work on a figure for a long time, some graphical elements that you think you deleted are still in the file, just hidden. The `Clean Up Document` function in the `File` menu removes them and can sometimes cut the figure weight by a factor 2 or more. This helps opening the figure in Inkscape but also in other viewers on older computers, and keeping the file size low.

#Inkscape #ScientificPublishing

AI Made Up a Science Term — Now It’s in Dozens of Papers https://www.byteseu.com/2203410/ #AIHallucinations #AIInScience #AITrainingData #Claude35 #DigitalFossils #GPT4o #KnowledgeIntegrity #OCRErrors #PaperRetractions #RetractionWatch #Science #ScientificPublishing

Congratulations to the team behind the journal Innovations in Graph Theory, hosted on the Centre Mersenne platform, whose application to the DOAJ has just been accepted!

https://doaj.org/toc/3050-743X

Innovations in Graph Theory is a mathematical journal publishing high-quality research in graph theory including its interactions with other areas. The journal is diamond open access, meaning there are no charges for authors and no charges for readers.

#openaccess #DOAJ #scientificpublishing

Congratulations to the team behind the journal Innovations in Graph Theory, hosted on the Centre Mersenne platform, whose application to the DOAJ has just been accepted!

https://doaj.org/toc/3050-743X

Innovations in Graph Theory is a mathematical journal publishing high-quality research in graph theory including its interactions with other areas. The journal is diamond open access, meaning there are no charges for authors and no charges for readers.

#openaccess #DOAJ #scientificpublishing

Congratulations to the team behind the journal Innovations in Graph Theory, hosted on the Centre Mersenne platform, whose application to the DOAJ has just been accepted!

https://doaj.org/toc/3050-743X

Innovations in Graph Theory is a mathematical journal publishing high-quality research in graph theory including its interactions with other areas. The journal is diamond open access, meaning there are no charges for authors and no charges for readers.

#openaccess #DOAJ #scientificpublishing

Congratulations to the team behind the journal Innovations in Graph Theory, hosted on the Centre Mersenne platform, whose application to the DOAJ has just been accepted!

https://doaj.org/toc/3050-743X

Innovations in Graph Theory is a mathematical journal publishing high-quality research in graph theory including its interactions with other areas. The journal is diamond open access, meaning there are no charges for authors and no charges for readers.

#openaccess #DOAJ #scientificpublishing

Congratulations to the team behind the journal Innovations in Graph Theory, hosted on the Centre Mersenne platform, whose application to the DOAJ has just been accepted!

https://doaj.org/toc/3050-743X

Innovations in Graph Theory is a mathematical journal publishing high-quality research in graph theory including its interactions with other areas. The journal is diamond open access, meaning there are no charges for authors and no charges for readers.

#openaccess #DOAJ #scientificpublishing

Making scientific knowledge free for all https://theconversation.com/making-scientific-knowledge-free-for-all-286857

The three main approaches are Green OA, Gold OA and Diamond OA:

- Green OA : publishing in a traditional journal and then depositing an accepted but unformatted version of the manuscript in an Open Access archive or an institutional repository

- Gold OA: final article immediately accessible to everyone, but involves publication fees amounting (i.e. Article Processing Charge, APC) to several thousand euros, paid by the authors or their institutions

- Diamond OA: allows authors to publish content for free and gives readers free access, thanks to journals that are backed by scientific communities, university libraries or non-profit organisations.

#science #scientificPublishing

Making scientific knowledge free for all https://theconversation.com/making-scientific-knowledge-free-for-all-286857

The three main approaches are Green OA, Gold OA and Diamond OA:

- Green OA : publishing in a traditional journal and then depositing an accepted but unformatted version of the manuscript in an Open Access archive or an institutional repository

- Gold OA: final article immediately accessible to everyone, but involves publication fees amounting (i.e. Article Processing Charge, APC) to several thousand euros, paid by the authors or their institutions

- Diamond OA: allows authors to publish content for free and gives readers free access, thanks to journals that are backed by scientific communities, university libraries or non-profit organisations.

#science #scientificPublishing

Making scientific knowledge free for all https://theconversation.com/making-scientific-knowledge-free-for-all-286857

The three main approaches are Green OA, Gold OA and Diamond OA:

- Green OA : publishing in a traditional journal and then depositing an accepted but unformatted version of the manuscript in an Open Access archive or an institutional repository

- Gold OA: final article immediately accessible to everyone, but involves publication fees amounting (i.e. Article Processing Charge, APC) to several thousand euros, paid by the authors or their institutions

- Diamond OA: allows authors to publish content for free and gives readers free access, thanks to journals that are backed by scientific communities, university libraries or non-profit organisations.

#science #scientificPublishing

Making scientific knowledge free for all https://theconversation.com/making-scientific-knowledge-free-for-all-286857

The three main approaches are Green OA, Gold OA and Diamond OA:

- Green OA : publishing in a traditional journal and then depositing an accepted but unformatted version of the manuscript in an Open Access archive or an institutional repository

- Gold OA: final article immediately accessible to everyone, but involves publication fees amounting (i.e. Article Processing Charge, APC) to several thousand euros, paid by the authors or their institutions

- Diamond OA: allows authors to publish content for free and gives readers free access, thanks to journals that are backed by scientific communities, university libraries or non-profit organisations.

#science #scientificPublishing

Making scientific knowledge free for all https://theconversation.com/making-scientific-knowledge-free-for-all-286857

The three main approaches are Green OA, Gold OA and Diamond OA:

- Green OA : publishing in a traditional journal and then depositing an accepted but unformatted version of the manuscript in an Open Access archive or an institutional repository

- Gold OA: final article immediately accessible to everyone, but involves publication fees amounting (i.e. Article Processing Charge, APC) to several thousand euros, paid by the authors or their institutions

- Diamond OA: allows authors to publish content for free and gives readers free access, thanks to journals that are backed by scientific communities, university libraries or non-profit organisations.

#science #scientificPublishing

📢 Call for Papers: Journal of Solid Waste Valorization and Chemical Management

💡 The journal is rooted in the greendevelopment philosophy of "solid waste resource recovery and chemical risk control". Aiming to establish a professional academic platform.

📖 Join us — submit your work!

Journal Website: https://www.icjn.net/jswvcm

#SolidWaste #GreenChemistry #ZeroWaste #WasteToEnergy #CallForPapers #AcademicPublishing #ScientificPublishing #OpenAcess #OA

📢 Call for Papers: Journal of Solid Waste Valorization and Chemical Management

💡 The journal is rooted in the greendevelopment philosophy of "solid waste resource recovery and chemical risk control". Aiming to establish a professional academic platform.

📖 Join us — submit your work!

Journal Website: https://www.icjn.net/jswvcm

#SolidWaste #GreenChemistry #ZeroWaste #WasteToEnergy #CallForPapers #AcademicPublishing #ScientificPublishing #OpenAcess #OA

📢 Call for Papers: Journal of Solid Waste Valorization and Chemical Management

💡 The journal is rooted in the greendevelopment philosophy of "solid waste resource recovery and chemical risk control". Aiming to establish a professional academic platform.

📖 Join us — submit your work!

Journal Website: https://www.icjn.net/jswvcm

#SolidWaste #GreenChemistry #ZeroWaste #WasteToEnergy #CallForPapers #AcademicPublishing #ScientificPublishing #OpenAcess #OA

📢 Call for Papers: Journal of Solid Waste Valorization and Chemical Management

💡 The journal is rooted in the greendevelopment philosophy of "solid waste resource recovery and chemical risk control". Aiming to establish a professional academic platform.

📖 Join us — submit your work!

Journal Website: https://www.icjn.net/jswvcm

#SolidWaste #GreenChemistry #ZeroWaste #WasteToEnergy #CallForPapers #AcademicPublishing #ScientificPublishing #OpenAcess #OA

📢 Call for Papers: Journal of Solid Waste Valorization and Chemical Management

💡 The journal is rooted in the greendevelopment philosophy of "solid waste resource recovery and chemical risk control". Aiming to establish a professional academic platform.

📖 Join us — submit your work!

Journal Website: https://www.icjn.net/jswvcm

#SolidWaste #GreenChemistry #ZeroWaste #WasteToEnergy #CallForPapers #AcademicPublishing #ScientificPublishing #OpenAcess #OA

Due to my role as editor in a journal, I have just received a rather disturbing email from what I guess I would describe it as a scientific publication agency. Here is an excerpt:

"For manuscripts that successfully complete the journal's peer-review and editorial procedures, we are willing to pay an additional fee of up to 500 USD for accelerated review service. This fee would be separate from and additional to the journal's regular APC or publication charges."

Likely it is spam/scam, but it is hard to discount entirely, and it would reflect on a broken and further crumbling publishing system.

#scientificpublishing #scientificintegrity

Interesting wrinkle to my never quite finished stance on where to review and publish today.

I got a review request from the Journal of Human Geography. I look them up, they are published by SAGE, so I send my usual "I do not review for Big Publishing" response https://marioangst.com/en/blog/posts/dear-editors/

Then they actually get back with a note that they are a radical outfit (their page says they engage in "institutional socialism"), which does not make a profit and re-distributes all the money they get back from SAGE. I mean, that is quite cool and shows that it's not always so clear-cut.

I reconsidered, but in the end still decided not to review for them.

In effect, they are cool outfit who purchases publishing services from one of the big publishers. I do not have a problem in principle with companies providing scientific publishing services, as long as they don't extract excessive value from our work. SAGE might not do that for Human Geography, but definitely does as a whole.

So, after these considerations, I still do not think this aligns with my principles on where I contribute my reviewing labour. Especially as there are many other initiatives who actually have taken back the means of communications themselves. With Open Journal Systems software and recent initiatives like Open Research Europe, I just think we are at a different point in time now, where there are just not that many excuses to go with Big Publishing left.

#scientificpublishing #academia #publishing #OpenScience

Interesting wrinkle to my never quite finished stance on where to review and publish today.

I got a review request from the Journal of Human Geography. I look them up, they are published by SAGE, so I send my usual "I do not review for Big Publishing" response https://marioangst.com/en/blog/posts/dear-editors/

Then they actually get back with a note that they are a radical outfit (their page says they engage in "institutional socialism"), which does not make a profit and re-distributes all the money they get back from SAGE. I mean, that is quite cool and shows that it's not always so clear-cut.

I reconsidered, but in the end still decided not to review for them.

In effect, they are cool outfit who purchases publishing services from one of the big publishers. I do not have a problem in principle with companies providing scientific publishing services, as long as they don't extract excessive value from our work. SAGE might not do that for Human Geography, but definitely does as a whole.

So, after these considerations, I still do not think this aligns with my principles on where I contribute my reviewing labour. Especially as there are many other initiatives who actually have taken back the means of communications themselves. With Open Journal Systems software and recent initiatives like Open Research Europe, I just think we are at a different point in time now, where there are just not that many excuses to go with Big Publishing left.

#scientificpublishing #academia #publishing #OpenScience

Interesting wrinkle to my never quite finished stance on where to review and publish today.

I got a review request from the Journal of Human Geography. I look them up, they are published by SAGE, so I send my usual "I do not review for Big Publishing" response https://marioangst.com/en/blog/posts/dear-editors/

Then they actually get back with a note that they are a radical outfit (their page says they engage in "institutional socialism"), which does not make a profit and re-distributes all the money they get back from SAGE. I mean, that is quite cool and shows that it's not always so clear-cut.

I reconsidered, but in the end still decided not to review for them.

In effect, they are cool outfit who purchases publishing services from one of the big publishers. I do not have a problem in principle with companies providing scientific publishing services, as long as they don't extract excessive value from our work. SAGE might not do that for Human Geography, but definitely does as a whole.

So, after these considerations, I still do not think this aligns with my principles on where I contribute my reviewing labour. Especially as there are many other initiatives who actually have taken back the means of communications themselves. With Open Journal Systems software and recent initiatives like Open Research Europe, I just think we are at a different point in time now, where there are just not that many excuses to go with Big Publishing left.

#scientificpublishing #academia #publishing #OpenScience

Interesting wrinkle to my never quite finished stance on where to review and publish today.

I got a review request from the Journal of Human Geography. I look them up, they are published by SAGE, so I send my usual "I do not review for Big Publishing" response https://marioangst.com/en/blog/posts/dear-editors/

Then they actually get back with a note that they are a radical outfit (their page says they engage in "institutional socialism"), which does not make a profit and re-distributes all the money they get back from SAGE. I mean, that is quite cool and shows that it's not always so clear-cut.

I reconsidered, but in the end still decided not to review for them.

In effect, they are cool outfit who purchases publishing services from one of the big publishers. I do not have a problem in principle with companies providing scientific publishing services, as long as they don't extract excessive value from our work. SAGE might not do that for Human Geography, but definitely does as a whole.

So, after these considerations, I still do not think this aligns with my principles on where I contribute my reviewing labour. Especially as there are many other initiatives who actually have taken back the means of communications themselves. With Open Journal Systems software and recent initiatives like Open Research Europe, I just think we are at a different point in time now, where there are just not that many excuses to go with Big Publishing left.

#scientificpublishing #academia #publishing #OpenScience

Interesting wrinkle to my never quite finished stance on where to review and publish today.

I got a review request from the Journal of Human Geography. I look them up, they are published by SAGE, so I send my usual "I do not review for Big Publishing" response https://marioangst.com/en/blog/posts/dear-editors/

Then they actually get back with a note that they are a radical outfit (their page says they engage in "institutional socialism"), which does not make a profit and re-distributes all the money they get back from SAGE. I mean, that is quite cool and shows that it's not always so clear-cut.

I reconsidered, but in the end still decided not to review for them.

In effect, they are cool outfit who purchases publishing services from one of the big publishers. I do not have a problem in principle with companies providing scientific publishing services, as long as they don't extract excessive value from our work. SAGE might not do that for Human Geography, but definitely does as a whole.

So, after these considerations, I still do not think this aligns with my principles on where I contribute my reviewing labour. Especially as there are many other initiatives who actually have taken back the means of communications themselves. With Open Journal Systems software and recent initiatives like Open Research Europe, I just think we are at a different point in time now, where there are just not that many excuses to go with Big Publishing left.

#scientificpublishing #academia #publishing #OpenScience

Before submitting a paper, checking a journal’s publishing behavior may now be as important as reading its aims.

New tools use open databases to highlight suspicious shifts in output and authorship.

🔗 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01707-1

#OpenScience #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificPublishing #DataScience #AcademicPublishing

Before submitting a paper, checking a journal’s publishing behavior may now be as important as reading its aims.

New tools use open databases to highlight suspicious shifts in output and authorship.

🔗 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01707-1

#OpenScience #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificPublishing #DataScience #AcademicPublishing

Before submitting a paper, checking a journal’s publishing behavior may now be as important as reading its aims.

New tools use open databases to highlight suspicious shifts in output and authorship.

🔗 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01707-1

#OpenScience #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificPublishing #DataScience #AcademicPublishing

Before submitting a paper, checking a journal’s publishing behavior may now be as important as reading its aims.

New tools use open databases to highlight suspicious shifts in output and authorship.

🔗 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01707-1

#OpenScience #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificPublishing #DataScience #AcademicPublishing

Before submitting a paper, checking a journal’s publishing behavior may now be as important as reading its aims.

New tools use open databases to highlight suspicious shifts in output and authorship.

🔗 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01707-1

#OpenScience #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificPublishing #DataScience #AcademicPublishing

When I recently did a literature review of English-language scientific articles, I thought things were bad.

But now I review articles in German and things are much, much worse: No DOIs, no online access, articles available only in print at a small university a day trip away … articles published in a journal discontinued in 1984, and articles only available on an obscure CD-ROM that needs Windows 98 to display its content. 😶

#ScientificPublishing

When I recently did a literature review of English-language scientific articles, I thought things were bad.

But now I review articles in German and things are much, much worse: No DOIs, no online access, articles available only in print at a small university a day trip away … articles published in a journal discontinued in 1984, and articles only available on an obscure CD-ROM that needs Windows 98 to display its content. 😶

#ScientificPublishing

When I recently did a literature review of English-language scientific articles, I thought things were bad.

But now I review articles in German and things are much, much worse: No DOIs, no online access, articles available only in print at a small university a day trip away … articles published in a journal discontinued in 1984, and articles only available on an obscure CD-ROM that needs Windows 98 to display its content. 😶

#ScientificPublishing

When I recently did a literature review of English-language scientific articles, I thought things were bad.

But now I review articles in German and things are much, much worse: No DOIs, no online access, articles available only in print at a small university a day trip away … articles published in a journal discontinued in 1984, and articles only available on an obscure CD-ROM that needs Windows 98 to display its content. 😶

#ScientificPublishing

When I recently did a literature review of English-language scientific articles, I thought things were bad.

But now I review articles in German and things are much, much worse: No DOIs, no online access, articles available only in print at a small university a day trip away … articles published in a journal discontinued in 1984, and articles only available on an obscure CD-ROM that needs Windows 98 to display its content. 😶

#ScientificPublishing

"Why have papers by one of history's most famous physicists been retracted?" <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zwsaifa>

> In early May, Yves Gingras, a historian of physics at the University of Quebec (UQ) at Montreal, was browsing Retraction Watch, a website that catalogs fraud, data manipulation, and other scientific sins. He noticed a link that read, “Retractions by Nobel Prize winners.” Were there really Nobel laureates whose papers had been withdrawn from the scientific literature? [...]
>
> The fourth name on the list, with two retracted papers, was Max Planck—a legendary pioneer of quantum mechanics and the 1918 Nobel laureate in physics. Gingras had never heard a whiff of scandal about Planck, who was almost as widely revered for his character as his physics. [...]
>
> Gingras was especially incensed that Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95. [...]
>
> Representatives from Springer Nature declined to comment, beyond saying that “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.” The company also nixed an editorial that Scarlata planned to write about the retractions.
>
> The retraction of the second Planck paper, published in 1940, left Gingras and Khelfaoui even more baffled. It also cited copyright violation—yet the piece had never appeared elsewhere. Then Khelfaoui noticed something that added to suspicions that an algorithm was at work.

Here's one of the retracted papers on Springer: <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01475382>. Luckily still on Archive: <https://archive.org/details/sim_naturwissenschaften_1942-02-27_30_9-10>

#science #scientificpublishing #academia #springer

"Why have papers by one of history's most famous physicists been retracted?" <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zwsaifa>

> In early May, Yves Gingras, a historian of physics at the University of Quebec (UQ) at Montreal, was browsing Retraction Watch, a website that catalogs fraud, data manipulation, and other scientific sins. He noticed a link that read, “Retractions by Nobel Prize winners.” Were there really Nobel laureates whose papers had been withdrawn from the scientific literature? [...]
>
> The fourth name on the list, with two retracted papers, was Max Planck—a legendary pioneer of quantum mechanics and the 1918 Nobel laureate in physics. Gingras had never heard a whiff of scandal about Planck, who was almost as widely revered for his character as his physics. [...]
>
> Gingras was especially incensed that Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95. [...]
>
> Representatives from Springer Nature declined to comment, beyond saying that “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.” The company also nixed an editorial that Scarlata planned to write about the retractions.
>
> The retraction of the second Planck paper, published in 1940, left Gingras and Khelfaoui even more baffled. It also cited copyright violation—yet the piece had never appeared elsewhere. Then Khelfaoui noticed something that added to suspicions that an algorithm was at work.

Here's one of the retracted papers on Springer: <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01475382>. Luckily still on Archive: <https://archive.org/details/sim_naturwissenschaften_1942-02-27_30_9-10>

#science #scientificpublishing #academia #springer

"Why have papers by one of history's most famous physicists been retracted?" <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zwsaifa>

> In early May, Yves Gingras, a historian of physics at the University of Quebec (UQ) at Montreal, was browsing Retraction Watch, a website that catalogs fraud, data manipulation, and other scientific sins. He noticed a link that read, “Retractions by Nobel Prize winners.” Were there really Nobel laureates whose papers had been withdrawn from the scientific literature? [...]
>
> The fourth name on the list, with two retracted papers, was Max Planck—a legendary pioneer of quantum mechanics and the 1918 Nobel laureate in physics. Gingras had never heard a whiff of scandal about Planck, who was almost as widely revered for his character as his physics. [...]
>
> Gingras was especially incensed that Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95. [...]
>
> Representatives from Springer Nature declined to comment, beyond saying that “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.” The company also nixed an editorial that Scarlata planned to write about the retractions.
>
> The retraction of the second Planck paper, published in 1940, left Gingras and Khelfaoui even more baffled. It also cited copyright violation—yet the piece had never appeared elsewhere. Then Khelfaoui noticed something that added to suspicions that an algorithm was at work.

Here's one of the retracted papers on Springer: <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01475382>. Luckily still on Archive: <https://archive.org/details/sim_naturwissenschaften_1942-02-27_30_9-10>

#science #scientificpublishing #academia #springer

"Why have papers by one of history's most famous physicists been retracted?" <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zwsaifa>

> In early May, Yves Gingras, a historian of physics at the University of Quebec (UQ) at Montreal, was browsing Retraction Watch, a website that catalogs fraud, data manipulation, and other scientific sins. He noticed a link that read, “Retractions by Nobel Prize winners.” Were there really Nobel laureates whose papers had been withdrawn from the scientific literature? [...]
>
> The fourth name on the list, with two retracted papers, was Max Planck—a legendary pioneer of quantum mechanics and the 1918 Nobel laureate in physics. Gingras had never heard a whiff of scandal about Planck, who was almost as widely revered for his character as his physics. [...]
>
> Gingras was especially incensed that Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95. [...]
>
> Representatives from Springer Nature declined to comment, beyond saying that “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.” The company also nixed an editorial that Scarlata planned to write about the retractions.
>
> The retraction of the second Planck paper, published in 1940, left Gingras and Khelfaoui even more baffled. It also cited copyright violation—yet the piece had never appeared elsewhere. Then Khelfaoui noticed something that added to suspicions that an algorithm was at work.

Here's one of the retracted papers on Springer: <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01475382>. Luckily still on Archive: <https://archive.org/details/sim_naturwissenschaften_1942-02-27_30_9-10>

#science #scientificpublishing #academia #springer

"Why have papers by one of history's most famous physicists been retracted?" <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zwsaifa>

> In early May, Yves Gingras, a historian of physics at the University of Quebec (UQ) at Montreal, was browsing Retraction Watch, a website that catalogs fraud, data manipulation, and other scientific sins. He noticed a link that read, “Retractions by Nobel Prize winners.” Were there really Nobel laureates whose papers had been withdrawn from the scientific literature? [...]
>
> The fourth name on the list, with two retracted papers, was Max Planck—a legendary pioneer of quantum mechanics and the 1918 Nobel laureate in physics. Gingras had never heard a whiff of scandal about Planck, who was almost as widely revered for his character as his physics. [...]
>
> Gingras was especially incensed that Springer Nature deviated from the normal practice of merely slapping the word RETRACTED across the digital version of the paper while still allowing scholars to read the text. Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.” Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95. [...]
>
> Representatives from Springer Nature declined to comment, beyond saying that “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.” The company also nixed an editorial that Scarlata planned to write about the retractions.
>
> The retraction of the second Planck paper, published in 1940, left Gingras and Khelfaoui even more baffled. It also cited copyright violation—yet the piece had never appeared elsewhere. Then Khelfaoui noticed something that added to suspicions that an algorithm was at work.

Here's one of the retracted papers on Springer: <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01475382>. Luckily still on Archive: <https://archive.org/details/sim_naturwissenschaften_1942-02-27_30_9-10>

#science #scientificpublishing #academia #springer

Die @dfg_public hat ein Video zum wissenschaftsgeleiteten Publizieren veröffentlicht.

#ScientificPublishing

https://youtu.be/vjckj9Hp1RY

Die @dfg_public hat ein Video zum wissenschaftsgeleiteten Publizieren veröffentlicht.

#ScientificPublishing

https://youtu.be/vjckj9Hp1RY

Die @dfg_public hat ein Video zum wissenschaftsgeleiteten Publizieren veröffentlicht.

#ScientificPublishing

https://youtu.be/vjckj9Hp1RY