Different fields have different concepts of what kinds of things should be attributed and how. In some disciplines it's the new scholarship that matters while

Different fields have different concepts of what kinds of things should be attributed and how. In some disciplines it's the new scholarship that matters while a "current state of the field review" section isn't considered "work" that gets footnoted. A few days I submitted an article on this topic that didn't get traction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38990154 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38990154 Personally I think the real shift is that novelty is now presumed to be monetizable and there for must be monetizable -- either directly (sell recordings of songs) or indirectly (get tenure, and thus a paycheck). And then once that's the case, people kind of assume that it happens, so a scientist studying insect embryology may not get paid much either (or both) because it's not considered "worthwhile" ("who'd pay for that? Invent a new semiconductor!") or because the institution thinks all the professors are also getting money from their ideas. Coming from an open source background (and as someone who has refused to get patents) this all sounds super bizarre to me.