3 ms·

Well, in this particular example at least the plagiarism apparently advanced the public good: some unpublished research got published.

• simonh 10y ago
  Unless it was unpublished for good reasons, such as flaws in the methodology or data surfacing before it was submitted. Perhaps that's why the Prof was using it as an example for students to review? In which case, the public good would have been seriously harmed.
  • cmontella 10y ago
    It was unpublished basically because it wasn't that interesting, and couldn't make its way into a top-tier journal. However, it was published as a technical report through the university, so others could find it with the right keywords.
• nameless912 10y ago
  That's kind of a naive viewpoint-if the research was bunk (flawed methodologies, bad justifications, etc.) then it should definitely go unpublished. Publishing all research doesn't fix idiocracy because idiots will latch onto any small scrap of evidence that supports their viewpoint, and if you publish garbage someone will start waving it around as if it were On the Origin of Species, claiming that their viewpoint must be valid because one study said so.
• thick18cm 10y ago
  your idea has an interesting parallel in econ/finance: trading on inside information (misnomer: insider trading) has the economic effect of moving the prices of securities in the direction they're supposed to go, which is a public good. Stock markets are meant to "crowd source" a price which accurately predicts the future value, and illegal trades by insiders do that precisely, move the price of the security toward its new equilibrium. If you hold the market portfolio (i.e. invest in a broadly diversified market index ETF, as you in most cases "should") this impacts you by helping you more accurately assess your current postion and make more knowledgeable trades like "sell some now and buy a house" or "retire". Before you object to that, remember these effects occur on margin (econ, not finance)