pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.17534 · v2 · pith:CECSW5NNnew · submitted 2026-05-17 · 💻 cs.DL · physics.hist-ph· physics.soc-ph

The Curious Case of Max Planck retracted papers. When past scientific practices meet contemporary publishing norms

Yves Gingras , Mahdi Khelfaoui This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 09:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DL physics.hist-phphysics.soc-ph
keywords Max Planckpaper retractionscientific publishing historyduplicate publicationself-plagiarismdigitizationacademic normshistorical context
0
0 comments X

The pith

Contemporary notions of duplicate publication cannot be applied retrospectively to Max Planck's essays without distorting the historical record.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines two philosophical essays by Max Planck published in 1940 and 1942 that were later marked as retracted on a commercial digital platform. Investigation of their circulation history shows that reprinting such essays in multiple formats was a standard and accepted practice in early 20th-century science. A sympathetic reader would care because the case reveals how today's rules on self-plagiarism and proprietary articles are products of recent changes in evaluation systems and commercial publishing. The retractions appear driven by anachronistic digitization and copyright procedures rather than any original misconduct. This matters for how we preserve and interpret the scientific past in digital archives.

Core 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 concludes that ideas of duplicate publication and self-plagiarism are historically situated categories that distort the record when used retrospectively. It notes the irony that the essays remain more accessible today through the nonprofit Internet Archive than through the original commercial publisher.

What carries the argument

Investigation of the circulation history of the essays, which demonstrates that multiple-format republication was standard practice in early 20th-century scientific publishing.

If this is right

  • Past scientific publishing must be judged by the norms of its own time rather than current standards.
  • Commercial digital platforms can limit or distort access to the full historical scientific record.
  • The shift toward treating articles as countable proprietary units created new conflicts around republication.
  • Nonprofit archives sometimes provide better ongoing access to older materials than the original publishers.
  • Ethical categories in publishing evolve and should not be imposed backward on earlier eras.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Other retractions of pre-1950 papers may stem from similar mismatches between old circulation habits and new digital rules.
  • This case connects to wider questions about who controls and preserves the digital version of scientific history.
  • Publishers could add context labels to historical retractions to prevent readers from assuming misconduct.
  • A direct check of circulation patterns in other scientists' works from the same decades would test how widespread the practice was.

Load-bearing 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.

What would settle it

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.

read the original abstract

This article examines the case of two papers published in Naturwissenschaften by the physicist Max Planck that were retrospectively marked as retracted on Springer digital platform. Rather than originating in scientific fraud, these withdrawals appear to result from contemporary digitization and copyright-management procedures applied anachronistically to historical publications. Through an investigation of the circulation history of Planck 1940 and 1942 philosophical essays, the article shows that republication across multiple formats was a common and legitimate practice within the scientific publishing culture of the early 20th century. Such practices only became problematic with the later transformation of the scientific article into a countable and proprietary unit within systems of bibliometric evaluation and commercial academic publishing. This article argues that contemporary notions such as duplicate publication and self-plagiarism are historically situated categories that cannot be applied retrospectively without distorting the historical record. More broadly, the Planck case reveals how digital scholarly infrastructures controlled by large commercial publishers can limit the accessibility of the scientific past. Ironically, the original papers remain accessible today through the nonprofit digital platform Internet Archive rather than through the publisher that originally issued the journal.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This manuscript examines the retrospective retraction of two philosophical essays by Max Planck (1940 and 1942) originally published in Naturwissenschaften and now marked as retracted on the Springer digital platform. The central argument is that these retractions arise from anachronistic digitization and copyright-management procedures rather than from scientific fraud, ethical lapses, or defects in the original works. Drawing on the circulation history of the essays, the paper shows that multi-format republication was routine and uncontroversial in early-20th-century German scientific publishing. It concludes that modern categories such as duplicate publication and self-plagiarism are historically situated constructs that distort the record when applied retrospectively, and that commercial digital infrastructures can inadvertently restrict access to the scientific past, with the originals remaining more accessible via the Internet Archive.

Significance. If the central historical claim holds, the paper makes a useful contribution to scholarship on the evolution of scientific publishing norms and the unintended consequences of commercial digital platforms for historical literature. It provides a concrete case study illustrating how contemporary bibliometric and copyright regimes can misalign with earlier practices, with potential relevance for digital-library policy, retraction guidelines for pre-digital materials, and debates over open access to historical scientific records. The emphasis on primary circulation evidence and the contrast with nonprofit archives strengthens the argument's empirical grounding.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and circulation-history section] The manuscript's core claim that the 1940 and 1942 retractions result solely from anachronistic procedures (rather than any original issues) rests on the circulation-history analysis, but the provided abstract and summary do not specify the primary sources or archival documents consulted; without explicit citation chains or reproduction of key republication records in the main text or appendix, the evidentiary basis for the 'common and legitimate' characterization remains difficult to verify independently.
  2. [Discussion of historical publishing culture] The argument that contemporary notions of duplicate publication cannot be applied retrospectively is load-bearing for the conclusion, yet the manuscript does not address potential counter-examples from the same period (e.g., other retractions or contemporary complaints about republication) that might qualify the claim that such practices were entirely uncontroversial.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the papers 'remain accessible today through the nonprofit digital platform Internet Archive rather than through the publisher,' but this contrast would benefit from a brief footnote or reference to the specific Internet Archive identifiers or URLs for the 1940 and 1942 essays.
  2. [Introduction] The manuscript uses the term 'self-plagiarism' in scare quotes when discussing modern categories; a short clarification in the introduction or conclusion on whether the authors treat this as a distinct concept from duplicate publication would improve terminological precision.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation and recommendation of minor revision. The comments usefully identify opportunities to improve the transparency of our sources and the nuance of our historical claims. We respond to each point below and have incorporated revisions accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and circulation-history section] The manuscript's core claim that the 1940 and 1942 retractions result solely from anachronistic procedures (rather than any original issues) rests on the circulation-history analysis, but the provided abstract and summary do not specify the primary sources or archival documents consulted; without explicit citation chains or reproduction of key republication records in the main text or appendix, the evidentiary basis for the 'common and legitimate' characterization remains difficult to verify independently.

    Authors: We agree that greater explicitness regarding primary sources would strengthen verifiability. Although the submitted manuscript draws on the original 1940 and 1942 issues of Naturwissenschaften, records of subsequent republications in other German scientific periodicals, and bibliographic documentation of circulation patterns, these were not presented with sufficient citation chains or reproduced excerpts. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated subsection to the circulation-history analysis that lists the specific primary documents and archives consulted, supplies full bibliographic citations, and includes an appendix reproducing key republication metadata and excerpts. These changes directly address the concern and allow independent checking of the 'common and legitimate' characterization. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion of historical publishing culture] The argument that contemporary notions of duplicate publication cannot be applied retrospectively is load-bearing for the conclusion, yet the manuscript does not address potential counter-examples from the same period (e.g., other retractions or contemporary complaints about republication) that might qualify the claim that such practices were entirely uncontroversial.

    Authors: We accept that a more explicit treatment of possible counter-examples would add nuance. Our core evidence concerns the documented circulation of the Planck essays themselves and the routine multi-format republication practices observable in early-20th-century German scientific publishing. In preparing the original manuscript we found no contemporary complaints or retractions tied specifically to such routine republications. In the revision we have added a short paragraph in the discussion section that acknowledges the absence of such counter-evidence in the sources examined, clarifies that our claim is scoped to the norms illustrated by this case rather than universal uncontroversiality, and notes that a comprehensive survey of exceptions would exceed the paper's focused scope. This provides the requested qualification while preserving the central argument. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper advances its central claim through an empirical investigation of the circulation history of Planck's 1940 and 1942 essays, documenting routine multi-format republication practices in early-20th-century German scientific publishing. This historical evidence is drawn from external archival and publishing records rather than any self-referential definitions, fitted parameters, or reductions to prior self-citations by the authors. The argument that notions such as duplicate publication are historically situated categories follows directly from the documented transformation of the scientific article into a proprietary bibliometric unit, without any load-bearing step that collapses back into the paper's own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on a domain assumption about historical publishing culture rather than free parameters, mathematical axioms, or invented entities. No quantitative models or new physical concepts appear.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Republication across multiple formats was a common and legitimate practice within the scientific publishing culture of the early 20th century.
    This premise is used to reinterpret the retractions as non-fraudulent and to support the claim that modern duplicate-publication rules cannot be applied retrospectively.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5728 in / 1394 out tokens · 49959 ms · 2026-05-22T09:24:28.578138+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    retracted

    1 1 The Curious Case of Max Planck’s “retracted” papers. When past scientific practices meet contemporary publishing norms Yves Gingras (gingras.yves@uqam.ca), Université du Québec à Montréal Mahdi Khelfaoui (mahdi.khelfaoui@uqtr.ca), Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières Abstract This article examines the case of two papers published in Naturwissenschaft...

    work page 1940

  2. [2]

    upright man

    The fact that no clear explanation was provided and that the corresponding pages had been left blank, was intriguing. As the historian John Heilbron wrote in his major biography of the German physicist, Planck was an “upright man”, founder of quantum theory in 1900 and recipient of the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics (Heilbron 1986). At the time these two now...

    work page 1900

  3. [4]

    The text circulated in several forms between 1941 and

    work page 1941

  4. [5]

    retraction

    Originally delivered as a lecture at the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft in Berlin in November 1941, it was published the following year as a booklet in Leipzig by the editor Johann Ambrosius Barth (Planck 1942c), but also as an article in the intellectual journal Europäische Revue (Planck 1942b), as well as in Naturwissenschaften. In 1943, the text was also ...

    work page 1941

  5. [6]

    copyright

    whose original mission was based on a communal understanding of scientific knowledge and its circulation has thus led to a reinterpretation of the status of older publications through the lens of the capitalist notion of private property under “copyright”. Not only were Planck’s papers never retracted before the digitalization of Naturwissenschaften, but ...

    work page 1940

  6. [7]

    Self-Plagiarism in Academic Publishing: The Anatomy of a Misnomer

    “Self-Plagiarism in Academic Publishing: The Anatomy of a Misnomer.” Science and Engineering Ethics 19, no. 3: 775-797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9416-1 Autrum, H

    work page doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9416-1

  7. [8]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00367432 Barbour, B., and B.M

    Jahrgang.” Naturwissenschaften 75: 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00367432 Barbour, B., and B.M. Stell

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00367432

  8. [9]

    PubPeer: Scientific Assessment without Metrics

    “PubPeer: Scientific Assessment without Metrics.” In Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research, edited by M. Biagioli and A. Lippman, 149-155. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0015 Cronin, B

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0015

  9. [10]

    Self‐plagiarism: An Odious Oxymoron

    “Self‐plagiarism: An Odious Oxymoron.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64, no. 5: 873–873. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22966 Csiszar, A

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.22966

  10. [11]

    General Relativity,

    The Scientific Journal: Authorship and the Politics of Knowledge in the Nineteenth Century. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226553375.001.0001 Fyfe, A., N. Moxham, J. McDougall-Waters, and C. M. Røstvik

    work page doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226553375.001.0001

  11. [12]

    UCL Press

    A History of Scientific Journals: Publishing at the Royal Society, 1665-2015. UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781800082328 Giacomini, H

    work page doi:10.14324/111.9781800082328 2015

  12. [13]

    Henri Poincare Saint Louis Lecture of 1904: Early Publication and International Dissemination

    “Henri Poincaré Saint Louis Lecture of 1904: Early Publication and International Dissemination.” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.23410 Gingras, Y

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.23410 1904

  13. [14]

    The Transformation of the Scientific Paper: From Knowledge to Accounting Unit

    “The Transformation of the Scientific Paper: From Knowledge to Accounting Unit.” In Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research, edited by M. Biagioli and A. Lippman, 43-55. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0004 Gingras, Y

    work page doi:10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0004

  14. [15]

    https://doi.org/10.3917/pls.545.0022 Heilbron, J. L

    work page doi:10.3917/pls.545.0022

  15. [16]

    The Extent and Causes of Academic Text Recycling or ‘Self-Plagiarism’

    “The Extent and Causes of Academic Text Recycling or ‘Self-Plagiarism’.” Research Policy 48, no. 2: 492–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004 Internet Archive. (n.d.-a). Die Naturwissenschaften, 28(50), 1940, p

    work page doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.004 2017

  16. [17]

    (n.d.-b)

    Retrieved 16 May 2026, from https://archive.org/details/sim_naturwissenschaften_1940-12-13_28_50/page/778/mode/2up Internet Archive. (n.d.-b). Die Naturwissenschaften, 30(9/10), 1942, p

    work page 2026

  17. [18]

    Retrieved 16 May 2026, from https://archive.org/details/sim_naturwissenschaften_1942-02-27_30_9-10/mode/2up Khelfaoui, M., and Y . Gingras

    work page 2026

  18. [19]

    Physical Review: From the Periphery to the Center of Physics

    “Physical Review: From the Periphery to the Center of Physics.” Physics in Perspective 21, no. 1: 23-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-019-00235-y 11 11 Khelfaoui, M., and Gingras, Y . (2020). “Branding Spin-off Scholarly Journals: Transmuting Symbolic Capital into Economic Capital.” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 52, no. 1: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.313...

    work page doi:10.1007/s00016-019-00235-y 2020

  19. [20]

    What’s in a Name? Scholarly Journal Title Changes and the Quest for International Visibility (1965-2020)

    “What’s in a Name? Scholarly Journal Title Changes and the Quest for International Visibility (1965-2020).” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 78, no. 8: 1052-1064. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24989 Lamla, E

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.24989 1965

  20. [21]

    Die Naturwissenschaften: Zum fünfzigjährigen Bestehen der Zeitschrift

    “Die Naturwissenschaften: Zum fünfzigjährigen Bestehen der Zeitschrift.” Naturwissenschaften 50: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00836585 Larivière, V ., Haustein, S., and P. Mongeon

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00836585

  21. [22]

    The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era

    “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era.” PLOS ONE 10, no. 6: e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 Müller, A

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

  22. [23]

    Naturwissenschaft und reale Außenwelt

    “Naturwissenschaft und reale Außenwelt.” Naturwissenschaften 28: 705-709. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01468510 Oransky, I

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01468510

  23. [24]

    Naturwissenschaft und reale Außenwelt

    “Naturwissenschaft und reale Außenwelt.” Naturwissenschaften 28: 778-779. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01488952 Planck, M. 1942a. “Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaft.” Naturwissenschaften 30: 125-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01475382 Planck, M. 1942b. “Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaft.” Europäische Revue 18: 75-88. Planck, M. 1942c. Sinn un...

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01488952

  24. [25]

    Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaft

    “Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaft.” In Vorträge, Reden, Erinnerungen, edited by H. Roos and A. Hermann, 173–191. Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-56594-6_15 Price, A. R

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-56594-6_15

  25. [26]

    Research Misconduct and Its Federal Regulation: The Origin of the Office of Research Integrity

    “Research Misconduct and Its Federal Regulation: The Origin of the Office of Research Integrity.” Accountability in Research 20, no. 5-6: 291-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2013.822238 PubPeer

    work page doi:10.1080/08989621.2013.822238 2013

  26. [27]

    Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaft

    Comments on Max Planck’s “Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaft”. Retrieved 16 May 2026, from https://pubpeer.com/publications/6C656484AFEE5C3C700E63A066C219#0 Retraction Watch. (n.d.). Retractions by Nobel Prize winners. Retrieved 17 May 2026, from https://retractionwatch.com/retractions-by-nobel-prize-winners/ 12 12 Rieppel, O., D. Williams, and M. Ebach

    work page 2026

  27. [28]

    Adolf Naef (1883-1949): On Foundational Concepts and Principles of Systematic Morphology

    “Adolf Naef (1883-1949): On Foundational Concepts and Principles of Systematic Morphology.” Journal of the History of Biology 46: 445-510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-012-9338-4 Thatje, S

    work page doi:10.1007/s10739-012-9338-4 1949

  28. [29]

    Dr Arnold Berliner (1862-1942), Physicist and Founding Editor of Naturwissenschaften

    “Dr Arnold Berliner (1862-1942), Physicist and Founding Editor of Naturwissenschaften.” Naturwissenschaften 100: 1043-1046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-013-1124-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s00114-013-1124-4 1942