The real question is whether editors of scientific journals should retroactively apply contemporary standards regarding duplicate publication or self-plagiarism of historical articles. Magazine publishing standards in the early 20th century were substantially different. The emphasis was on achieving the widest dissemination of knowledge across a fragmented scientific community separated by language and geographical distance, publishing in many different journals. As a result, the boundaries between conferences, conference proceedings, pamphlets, collected essays, articles published in journals, etc., became greatly blurred.
Since then, the scientific enterprise has evolved to the point of being dominated by large commercial publishing groups that are much more sensitive to protecting copyright and turning a profit. Duplication/self-plagiarism is also a bigger problem now, when publications are an important factor in hiring and promoting scientists, as well as acquiring research funding. Applying these contemporary standards may prove problematic for the “digital circulation of historical texts,” the authors concluded.
The journal’s publisher, Springer Nature, canceled an editorial that Scarlata planned to publish addressing the issue. Springer Nature also declined to comment for the Science article, simply telling Kean through a representative that “detailed information about specific retractions is usually confidential and can only be shared with the relevant authors.”
Since Planck died in 1947, you can’t get a direct answer either. Both documents are now in the public domain in most countries, so copyright infringement is no longer an issue. Both articles can still be accessed through the Internet archive. But as Gingras and Khelfaoui argue in their preprint, removing the two articles distorts the historical record. “Whoever did it, I don’t care,” Gingras told science. “Just put them (back) in the database. Intellectually, it’s not acceptable.”
