This article examines the case of two papers published in Naturwissenschaften by the physicist Max Planck that were retrospectively marked as retracted on Springer digital platform. Rather than originating in scientific fraud, these withdrawals appear to result from contemporary digitization and copyright-management procedures applied anachronistically to historical publications. Through an investigation of the circulation history of Planck 1940 and 1942 philosophical essays, the article shows that republication across multiple formats was a common and legitimate practice within the scientific publishing culture of the early 20th century. Such practices only became problematic with the later transformation of the scientific article into a countable and proprietary unit within systems of bibliometric evaluation and commercial academic publishing. This article argues that contemporary notions such as duplicate publication and self-plagiarism are historically situated categories that cannot be applied retrospectively without distorting the historical record. More broadly, the Planck case reveals how digital scholarly infrastructures controlled by large commercial publishers can limit the accessibility of the scientific past. Ironically, the original papers remain accessible today through the nonprofit digital platform Internet Archive rather than through the publisher that originally issued the journal.

翻译：本文考察了物理学家马克斯·普朗克在《自然科学》期刊上发表的两篇论文被斯普林格数字平台回溯性标记为“撤销”的案例。这些注销行为并非源于科学不端，而是由于当代数字化与版权管理程序被不合时宜地应用于历史出版物所致。通过对普朗克1940年和1942年哲学文章传播史的调查，本文表明：在20世纪初期的科学出版文化中，跨多种格式的重新发表是一种常见且合理的实践。此类做法仅在后来科学文章被转化为文献计量评估体系与商业学术出版系统内部可计数、可专属的单元时才成为问题。本文论证，重复发表、自我剽窃等当代概念属于历史性范畴，若不加区分地回溯应用，必然会扭曲历史记录。从更宏观视角看，普朗克案例揭示了大型商业出版商控制的数字学术基础设施如何限制科学历史资料的获取。讽刺的是，原始论文如今仍可通过非营利数字平台“互联网档案馆”获取，而非最初出版该期刊的出版商。