Summary of the Key Points
Max Planck, the founder of quantum mechanics and the Nobel Prize winner in Physics in 1918, had two philosophical essays he published between 1940 and 1942 mysteriously removed by Springer Publishing House. The reason was that modern academic publishing copyright and duplicate publication rules were mistakenly applied to past practices. Back then, scholars would publish the same content in different journals to increase its reach, not as a form of “plagiarism.” After an investigation by researchers, Springer acknowledged it was a human error and restored the papers. This incident highlights the issue of outdated approaches to handling historical documents in the digital age of academic publishing.
1. How Did Planck’s Old Papers Get Removed Suddenly?
Canadian historian of physics, Donald Kingras, noticed Planck’s name on the website Retraction Watch, which tracks removals from scientific publications. The two essays, published in the German journal *Naturwissenschaften* between 1940 and 1942, were removed. These were not research papers: one was a philosophical reflection on a speech given in 1941 (*The Meaning and Limits of Exact Science*) that had been published multiple times (in book form, other journals, and collections); the other was a brief response to a philosopher (*Natural Science and the Real External World*) that appeared only once. The removal notice cited “copyright infringement,” but the PDF files of the papers were empty, and Springer had even sold them for $39.95 (later made free). The current editor-in-chief of *Naturwissenschaften* found this utterly absurd.
2. Was the Removal Human or Mechanical? Springer’s Explanation Is Vague
Initially, Springer claimed it was a human error with no involvement of software. However, researchers doubt this, as the publisher likely used automated systems to check for copyright and duplicate publications when digitizing its historical journals in 2011. These systems flagged Planck’s articles (including the repeatedly published speech). It remains unclear who made the decision to remove them or why those specific papers were chosen. One researcher commented, “It’s far-fetched to think someone manually reviewed decades-old journals in 2011 and found copyright issues with Planck’s works.”
3. Current Rules Don’t Apply to the Past: Old Habits vs. New Regulations
Today, the academic community despises duplicate publications, considering them a form of padding. However, things were different in the past:
- Academic circles were fragmented, and foreign literature was hard to obtain. Scholars would translate the same lectures or papers into different languages and publish them in various journals to make knowledge more accessible. For example, Niels Bohr’s lectures on complementarity and Einstein’s articles were published multiple times.
- It was common for Planck’s speeches to be reprinted; in the 1940s, this was not considered plagiarism.
These new rules emerged after World War II, when academic publishing became a high-profit industry. Papers became indicators of a scholar’s reputation, and publishers began to strictly enforce copyright laws to generate profits.
4. Why Is Planck’s Case Different from Other Nobel Prize Winners’ Removals?
The removals of other Nobel laureates can be categorized as follows:
1. Academic misconduct: For example, Samuel Smolensky had 15 papers removed due to image fraud.
2. Involvement of collaborators: Thomas Baltimore was implicated in data fraud by his lab members, although he was later exonerated.
3. Voluntary acknowledgment of errors: Robert Andrews voluntarily removed a paper after realizing the experiment could not be replicated, which earned him praise from the academic community.
4. Reversal of conclusions: Results previously dismissed by Werner Heisenberg were later proven correct.
Planck’s case is unique: there was no academic misconduct; he was simply mistaken due to differences in historical practices and is completely innocent.
5. What Does This Incident Teach Us About Managing Historical Documents in the Digital Age?
- The Risk of Commercial Publishers Controlling Digital Platforms: Giants like Springer can use modern rules to alter historical records, nearly erasing important works like Planck’s. Fortunately, researchers were vigilant and corrected the mistake.
- Removal Tools Should Not Become “Erasers”: These tools are meant to correct errors, but if used without understanding academic history, they can inadvertently erase valuable information.
- Copyright Expirations: Planck passed away in 1947, and in most countries, copyright protection lasts 50–70 years after the author’s death. His papers should have long been in the public domain, so publishers no longer have a valid claim to copyright.
This incident highlights the need for more caution when handling historical documents in the digital age. Commercial publishers, with their control over digital platforms, can significantly impact the preservation of academic heritage. Removal tools must be used judiciously to avoid unintentional erasure of important knowledge. Additionally, we must be aware of the limitations of copyright laws and ensure that they do not hinder the free dissemination of scientific information.