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》上发表的两篇论文被Springer数字平台追溯标记为撤稿的案例。这些撤稿并非源于科学欺诈，而是源于当代数字化与版权管理程序被错误地应用于历史出版物。通过调查普朗克1940年和1942年哲学论文的流通史，本文表明多种格式的再版是20世纪初科学出版文化中一种常见且合法的实践。此类做法仅在后来科学论文转变为可计数、可私有的学术评价与商业出版体系单元时才成为问题。本文主张，诸如重复发表和自抄袭等当代概念是历史情境化的范畴，若不加区分地回溯应用，必将扭曲历史记录。从更广泛的意义上看，普朗克案例揭示了由大型商业出版商控制的数字学术基础设施如何限制了对科学历史的可及性。具有讽刺意味的是，这些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。