CF
ClearFeed
Trust Analysis
74Trust
Likely Accurate
πŸ” Web Verified
David HoonMastodon3d ago
Two papers by Max Planck, the legendary Nobel laureate in physics, were retracted by Springer Nature in 2011, likely due to an algorithm flagging the papers for self-plagiarism and copyright infringement. Read on for how stupid it all is. https://www.science.org/content/article/why-have-papers-one-history-s-most-famous-physicists-been-retracted?utm_campaign=News
Trust Metrics
80
Accuracy
65
Framing
70
Context
70
Tone
Accuracy80%
Framing65%
Context70%
Tone70%
Analysis Summary
Springer Nature retracted two papers by Max Planck (published in the 1940s) in 2011 using an automated bot that flagged them as copyright violationsβ€”a mistake, since republishing the same work in different journals was common practice at the time and even Einstein did it. The retractions have since been widely criticized as an embarrassing example of journals automating retraction decisions without human review, and the Science article notes that the flagged PDFs now return blank pages. The core story is real and well-sourced, though the post's framing ("how stupid it all is") reflects opinion rather than fully explaining why the bot made the error.
Claims Analysis (2)
β€œTwo papers by Max Planck were retracted by Springer Nature in 2011”
Confirmed by Science Magazine article and multiple independent sources. The retractions occurred in 2011 for papers originally from the 1940s.
βœ“ Verified
β€œThe retractions were likely due to an algorithm flagging the papers for self-plagiarism and copyright infringement”
Science article and X posts from Niko McCarty and Greg Egan confirm automated bot retractions occurred, but the Science article indicates the flagging was for copyright violations based on prior publication rather than self-plagiarism specifically. The mechanism was algorithmic/automated, not manual review.
◐ Mostly True
Was this analysis helpful?
Try ClearFeed free β†’
clearfeed.app β€” Trust scores for your social feed