5 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. Both Scarlata and Gingras are concerned that papers by less prominent scientists have disappeared as well without anyone realizing. At a minimum, Gingras wants Planck’s papers restored. “Whoever did it, I don’t care,” he says, “just put them [back] in the database. Intellectually, it’s not acceptable.”

      Retroactively editing / deleting the scientific record through automation is highly problematic The epistemological centipede from [[Talk The Expanding Dark Forest and Generative AI]] is also eating the past here.

    2. 1942 titled “Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaft” (“Meaning and Limits of Exact Science”), about how to achieve certainty in scientific knowledge, had also appeared in two other journals and been reprinted twice in books. Repackaging the same work multiple times is considered “self-plagiarism” and frowned upon today—the practice produces copyright conflicts and inflates scholars’ publication records. The Naturwissenschaften site gives “copyright violation” as the reason for the retraction.

      1942 paper "Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaft" retracted apparently bc it was published in multiple places. This is currently not done due to copyright issues (caused by publishers due to clash w their bizz model I must add, not by authors) but was common at the time (fragmented communications / reach, so mutiple channels makes lots of sense, still does btw bc you never know when some assanine publisher kills one of your channels...)

    3. The papers, both quietly retracted in 2011, originally appeared in the early 1940s in Naturwissenschaften, a German journal now owned by publishing giant Springer Nature

      Papers retracted in 2011, so not part of the AI-all-da-thangs craze of late. Both early 1940s from Naturwissenschaften (now owned by Springer)