The real issue is whether publishers of scholarly journals should retroactively apply modern standards of reprinting or self-plagiarism to historical documents. At the beginning of the 20th century, the norms of journal publication were significantly different. The focus was on achieving the widest dissemination of knowledge among a fragmented scientific community separated by language and geographic distance, publishing in many different journals. As a result, the boundaries between lectures, conference proceedings, booklets, collected essays, published journal articles, and so on became very blurred.
The scientific enterprise has evolved to the point where it is dominated by large commercial publishing groups that are more sensitive to copyright protection and profit. Duplication/self-plagiarism is also more of a problem at a time when publications are a key factor when it comes to hiring and promoting scientists as well as research funding. The authors argue that applying these modern standards may pose a problem for the “digital circulation of historical texts”.
The journal’s publisher, Springer Nature, killed an editorial in which Scarlata planned to address the issue. Springer Nature also declined to comment for the Science article, saying only through a representative that Keana “details about specific retractions are typically confidential and can only be shared with the corresponding authors.”
Given that Planck died in 1947, he doesn’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 documents are still accessible through the Internet Archive. But as Gingras and Khelfaoui argue in their op-ed, removing the two papers distorts the historical record. “I don’t care who did it,” Gingras told Science. “Just put them (back) in the database. Intellectually it’s unacceptable.”
