Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashenke | Hacker News Reader

> 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 Instead, the publisher posted a blank white page with the cryptic phrase, “This article has been withdrawn due to article violation.”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.

The system is broken

View on HN

I am still suspicious that this has something to do with the relationship between Springer-Verlag and the Max Plank Digital Library (MPDL) which supports open access.

In 2014 MPDL purchase 110k out-of-print and historically significant titles. In 2015 Springer acquired open-access journals from Max Plank Society. In 2022 There was an open-access book deal allowing Plank Institute members to more easily publish books.

Things were more not always so intertwined and in 2007 the Society canceled a licensing agreement with Springer due to subscription prices and usage restrictions.

Planck's papers contained multiple em-dashes -- so, clearly he used ChatGPT to write these papers.

He should have known better. </sarc>

> I am still suspicious that this has something to do with the relationship between Springer-Verlag and the Max Plank Digital Library (MPDL) which supports open access.

Why? Max Plank (the dead Physicist) has nothing to do with whatever the Institute is doing these days. Or the library. Or anything that was named after him.

Apparently the studies were removed in 2011, it just took 15 years for somebody interested to notice.

and, as the articles points out, it is literally out of copyright.

For profit journals need to die.

You know what is even worse? A lot of what is paid come from public grants and not-for-profit grants. Reviewers are not paid. Editors are mostly other researchers. Authors are required to put the paper in ready-to-process.format. Thus public money funelled into journal pockets.

There is almost zero reasons why the governments or NIH-like institutions don't have their paper repository.

  > There is almost zero reasons why the governments or NIH-like institutions don't have their paper repository.

Prestige. Though I do agree that prestige is almost zero reason.

"The purpose of a system is what it does"

it's designed that way.

Downvoting this comment doesn’t make it less true.

Most everyone and everything has been captured by the ultimate cynicism of Capitalism: if I don’t do it someone else will, so might as well put the money in my pocket right??

I agree with @kingleopod — this system is designed to do what it is doing: keep knowledge private and keep profits high. Full stop.

Again, the system is working as intended. Capitalism is a wonderful hack on so many levels.

Yes, making life all about money and everything else is meaningless? What a hack!

What a joy to live in such a world!

For those that need it: */S*

It is a web of self reinforcing feedback structures that even if you know how they operate, it requires too much coordination to control. It is a sticky web, the more you move, the more it binds.

I think the downvotes come from the comment not really saying much.

If my use of Tor makes me look suspicious in the eyes of the police is that the purpose of Tor?

And I think it comes from bots who attempt to police allowed thoughts on HN. To each their own, I suppose

Is reading the astralcodexten post among your allowed thoughts? I don't downvote comments, but I think POSIWID is total bollocks. It may mean "some systems are somewhat corrupted by malign influences", in which case phrasing that as POSIWID is an outrageous exaggeration, or it may mean "there are no purposes", which is just untrue, or "your hoped-for purpose is naive", which is made less clear by phrasing it as POSIWID.

You can ask dang specifically or another moderator to prove if you are being trafficked down to irrelevancy by bots. I'm very certain you're wrong either way.

Robert Maxwell, Ghislane Maxwell's father, was a big player in turning the industry towards profit seeking (though I agree with the sibling comment that it's capitalism's fault ultimately).

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpo...

The system is fine. The culture is broken. Scientific publishing isn't forced on the community by regulation or necessity. You can publish papers in infinite number of ways online. Unlike something like healthcare or housing, where there are no alternatives, there are plenty of alternatives when it comes to media publishing.

There are not if you are working in it. Some grants for example include provisions that you publish in tier so and so journals. If that is the case, there might be one of those that is open-access / independent, but more likely there is not.

What they are saying is that this is nearly a 100% self-own. The department and the academic structure sets the KPIs, like where to publish and how much. This is very much a monkey caught with their hand in a jar moment.

'Scientists' and 'administrators of scientific departments' are two groups with minimal overlap.

Department heads come from the scientific faculty, normally on a tour-of-duty rotation.

Sometimes, sure, but as someone new, you have no power to change it. Department head might, I cannot really say. In addition, I believe funding agencies have the bigger role, and they also have such requirements.

Scientists are the ones with real agency and leverage. The change has to come from the grassroots.

You forgot the "still" in that sentence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com