Lots of regrettable silliness here: two papers by Max Planck (!) have been retracted, probably by some automated process that based the decision on the same material appearing in another journal (which was far more common at the time, and even Einstein did it) and a rebuttal to a work being published under the same title (but not author) as the thing being rebutted.
But the funniest line in the article is:
“Springer Nature is nevertheless still selling the empty PDF for $39.95.”
@gregeganSF just in case anybody needed any more evidence that the academic publishing industrial complex is entirely broken
@darkuncle @gregeganSF broken as in it's a grift. Publishers don't add anything of value anymore in my opinion.
@Quantensalat @darkuncle @gregeganSF Sure. They think eggs lay eggs.
@Bumblefish @darkuncle @gregeganSF If you look at what utter deranged drivel some former Springer Nature execs I know are saying about scientific publishing, my verdict is that they must be giving themselves kool aid IVs.
Exhibit A: NPT on LinkedIn the other day
@Quantensalat @Bumblefish @darkuncle @gregeganSF Ah, wow. That's why it's super easy today to get the raw data of a study and the raw code that ran the analysis. 🤪
But he is right: the value doesn't lie in the paper or PDF. It lies in insight, experience, painstakingly designing experiments, verifying them, codifying and making available your experience for the next generation of researchers. You know, what publishers usually don't do - and tbh even many research departments fail to do properly.
@cweickhmann @Quantensalat @Bumblefish @gregeganSF it’s very much of a peace with most things in life: the value is in the process more than the outcome
(or, more recently, “value the goose”)