Why a Major Journal Removed Two Papers by Nobel Laureate Max Planck

Max Planck was a German physicist who helped create quantum mechanics in the early twentieth century. He won the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics for his groundbreaking work on energy quanta. For many years, there were no doubts about his character or his scientific contributions. However, a strange event recently caused confusion among experts. A scientific journal suddenly removed two papers written by Planck in the 1940s. This action surprised science historians because the papers contained no obvious errors or scandals.

The journal in question is Naturwissenschaften, which is now known as The Science of Nature. Typically, this journal displays a large "RETRACTED" notice on digital articles that have been pulled. These papers remain available for readers to download, even though they are marked as retracted. However, the situation with Planck’s papers was different. The journal did not just add a notice. It removed the two articles entirely. Instead of the original text, readers now see blank pages and empty PDF files. A brief note states that the articles were "withdrawn due to article violation."

Yves Gingras, a history of physics professor at the University of Quebec in Montreal, discovered this issue by chance. He was browsing a blog called Retraction Watch, which tracks retractions of papers by famous scientists. Gingras was shocked to see Max Planck’s name on the list. He decided to investigate the reason behind the removal. He worked with Mahdi Khelfaoui, a historian at the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivieres, to find out why this happened. Together, they wrote a detailed report on their findings. They posted their analysis as a preprint on arXiv, a popular online archive for physics research.

Suzanne Scarlata, the current editor-in-chief of The Science of Nature, was unaware of the retractions when contacted by Science reporter Sam Kean. Scarlata expressed her surprise. She stated, "That’s crazy. I don’t understand why they were flagged. I think it just happened with their algorithm. It’s a mistake they should probably rectify." Reporter Kean noted that the publisher, Springer Nature, was still selling access to the empty PDF files for $39.95 each. However, Gingras and Khelfaoui were able to download the empty files for free.

Gingras and Khelfaoui believe the retractions were caused by the publisher’s misunderstanding of historical publishing habits. The official reason given for the retractions was a copyright violation. This means the scientific content of the papers was not flawed. Both articles were philosophical reflections on the nature of scientific knowledge. The historians traced the issue to metadata records. They found that the Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) for both papers were created in April 2005. This date coincides with a time when many journals switched to electronic publishing. At that time, these journals also began adding historical studies to their online archives.

The historians suspect the retraction decision was made around the time the DOIs were created. They suggest that a lawyer at Springer Nature reviewed the files and mistakenly identified them as problematic. The lawyer likely viewed the papers as "duplicate publications." This is a serious charge in modern academia. However, in the early twentieth century, publishing practices were quite different.

The first paper, titled "Meaning and Limits of Exact Science," was published in 1942. It was based on a lecture Planck gave in Berlin in 1941. Planck had also published this same content in a booklet. It appeared in another journal. Additionally, the text was included in an anthology of his essays and lectures. This was common practice at the time. Scientists often shared their ideas through multiple channels to reach a wider audience.

The second paper, "Natural Science and the Real External World," was published in 1940. This paper had not been published or reprinted elsewhere. However, there is an interesting detail about its title. In 1940, a scientist named Aloys Muller published a critique of Planck’s earlier work on positivism. Planck responded to Muller’s critique in the same journal. He used the exact same title for his response just a few months later.

Gingras and Khelfaoui believe this created a "cataloguing ambiguity." There were two separate papers in the same journal with identical titles, written by different authors. This likely confused the automated software used by publishers. These algorithms are designed to catch instances of duplication or "self-plagiarism." The software may have incorrectly flagged Planck’s response to Muller as a duplicate of Muller’s original article, or perhaps as a duplicate of Planck’s own earlier works.

The core issue is whether publishers should apply modern standards to historical papers. Publishing norms in the early 1900s were substantially different from today. The scientific community was fragmented. Scientists were separated by language and geography. The main goal was to spread knowledge as widely as possible. As a result, the boundaries between lectures, conference proceedings, booklets, and journal articles were blurred. It was normal for scientists to publish the same ideas in multiple places.

The scientific enterprise has changed significantly since then. Today, the field is dominated by large commercial publishing groups. These companies are very sensitive about protecting copyrights and maximizing profits. Duplicate publication is a major concern now. Publications are critical for hiring scientists, granting promotions, and securing research funding. Because of this, modern journals strictly enforce rules against self-plagiarism.

However, applying these contemporary standards to historical texts can be problematic. It distorts the historical record. Gingras and Khelfaoui argue that removing these papers harms our understanding of Planck’s intellectual history. The authors concluded that such actions negatively impact the "digital circulation of historical texts."

Despite these arguments, Springer Nature has not corrected the error. The publisher blocked an editorial that Scarlata planned to publish addressing the controversy. When asked for comment, Springer Nature declined to discuss the specific retractions. A representative told Kean that detailed information about retractions is usually confidential. They stated that such details can only be shared with the relevant authors.

This creates a difficult situation for historians. Max Planck died in 1947. He cannot speak for himself or clarify what happened. Furthermore, both papers are in the public domain in most countries. This means copyright violation is no longer a legal issue. The papers can still be accessed through the Internet Archive. However, their removal from the main journal database remains a point of contention.

Gingras remains firm in his criticism. He told Science that he does not care who made the decision to remove the papers. His only request is for them to be restored. He stated, "Just put them [back] in the database. Intellectually, it’s not acceptable." For historians, preserving the integrity of the historical record is paramount. Removing these documents without clear justification undermines the trust readers place in scientific archives. The debate continues over how to balance modern copyright laws with the preservation of historical scientific literature.