Perhaps it would be useful to think about plagiarism in quantitive terms, rather than yes/no. There are hundreds, if not thousands of papers published in obscu

Perhaps it would be useful to think about plagiarism in quantitive terms, rather than yes/no. There are hundreds, if not thousands of papers published in obscure journals that are word-for-word copies of other peoples' work. And even more papers where entire figures and paragraphs were lifted without attribution (or modification). I suppose one might argue that this is not a problem, because the journals are typically obscure (more reputable journals now run software to look for duplication), but I think that taking someone else's published work and calling it your own damages science. As does re-publishing the same results multiple times under slightly different titles (it's more difficult to refute a finding if it has been "replicated"). There is no doubt that "plagiarism" can be ambiguous ("self-plagiarism??") and copying with modification can be justified, but there are much more blatant examples that I think clearly cause harm.