← paper · claim graph · dependency edges only
The Curious Case of Max Planck retracted papers. When past scientific practices meet contemporary publishing norms
arXiv:2605.17534 · kill-test 2 OPEN (no contradiction edges)
- claim By tracing how Planck's 1940 and 1942 essays moved through different publication formats, the authors show that such republication followed common and legitimate practices of the period. The retractions on the Springer platform stem from modern digitization and copyright-management routines applied to historical materials, not from scientific or ethical problems in the originals. The paper conclud
- falsifier Contemporary documents from the 1940s criticizing Planck's republications as improper or revealing scientific flaws in the essays would undermine the claim that the retractions are purely anachronistic.
- machinery Investigation of the circulation history of the essays, which demonstrates that multiple-format republication was standard practice in early 20th-century scientific publishing.
- premise The retractions result solely from contemporary digitization and copyright-management procedures applied anachronistically to the historical publications rather than from any scientific or ethical issues in the originals.