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

2026-05-17

AI Summary

This study addresses the erroneous retraction labels assigned by modern publishing platforms to Max Planck’s 1940 and 1942 philosophical papers, arguing that contemporary norms against duplicate publication and self-plagiarism should not be mechanically retroactively applied to early twentieth-century scientific publishing practices. Through historical document analysis, examination of publishing history, and empirical comparison of digital platforms such as Springer and the Internet Archive, the research systematically demonstrates the legitimacy of duplicate publication in early scientific communication. It critiques the mismanagement of scientific heritage during digitization by commercial entities and contends that Planck’s papers should not be retracted. The work underscores the essential role of non-profit platforms in preserving equitable access to scientific history and calls for incorporating historical context into current academic evaluation frameworks.

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.

Problem

• retraction
• duplicate publication
• scientific publishing
• historical record
• digital infrastructure

Innovation

• retraction
• duplicate publication
• scientific publishing history
• digital scholarly infrastructure
• self-plagiarism