3 ms·

I thought plagarizing was producing new work substantially copied from prior work, regardless who owns the copyright? I thought this because self-plagarizing ex

by tomrod 2y ago

I thought plagarizing was producing new work substantially copied from prior work, regardless who owns the copyright? I thought this because self-plagarizing exists.

verdverm 2y ago
Well, if we could not reproduce with changes, what others have written and we have learned, it is unlikely we could make real progress. There are many more concepts, like fair use, meaningful changes, and other legalese; as well as how people use the term "plagiarize" differently. I never heard of this "self-plagarizing" concept, it seems like something fringe that would not be enforceable other than in the court of public opinion or the classroom via grades
- tomrod 2y ago
  You're one of today's lucky 10,000! https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/ It's a core issue in academia and other areas where the output is heavily the written word. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Self-plagiarism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Self-plagiarism [1] https://ori.hhs.gov/self-plagiarism https://ori.hhs.gov/self-plagiarism [2] https://www.aje.com/arc/self-plagiarism-how-to-define-it-and-why-to-avoid-it/ https://www.aje.com/arc/self-plagiarism-how-to-define-it-and...
  - verdverm 2y ago
    Reproducing sections is useful in academic publishing. I saw it while reading 100s of papers during my PhD. (1) If you are reading your entrypoint into an area of research, or a group, it is useful context on first encounter (2) If you are not, then you can easily skip it (3) Citing, instead of reproducing sections like background work, means you have to go look up other papers, meaning a paper can no longer stand on its own. Self-plagiarism is an opinion among a subset of academics, not something widely discussed or debated. Are there bad apples, sure. Is there a systemic issue, I don't think so.

3 ms·

I thought plagarizing was producing new work substantially copied from prior work, regardless who owns the copyright? I thought this because self-plagarizing ex

by tomrod 2y ago

I thought plagarizing was producing new work substantially copied from prior work, regardless who owns the copyright? I thought this because self-plagarizing exists.

verdverm 2y ago
Well, if we could not reproduce with changes, what others have written and we have learned, it is unlikely we could make real progress. There are many more concepts, like fair use, meaningful changes, and other legalese; as well as how people use the term "plagiarize" differently. I never heard of this "self-plagarizing" concept, it seems like something fringe that would not be enforceable other than in the court of public opinion or the classroom via grades
- tomrod 2y ago
  You're one of today's lucky 10,000! https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/ It's a core issue in academia and other areas where the output is heavily the written word. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Self-plagiarism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism#Self-plagiarism [1] https://ori.hhs.gov/self-plagiarism https://ori.hhs.gov/self-plagiarism [2] https://www.aje.com/arc/self-plagiarism-how-to-define-it-and-why-to-avoid-it/ https://www.aje.com/arc/self-plagiarism-how-to-define-it-and...
  - verdverm 2y ago
    Reproducing sections is useful in academic publishing. I saw it while reading 100s of papers during my PhD. (1) If you are reading your entrypoint into an area of research, or a group, it is useful context on first encounter (2) If you are not, then you can easily skip it (3) Citing, instead of reproducing sections like background work, means you have to go look up other papers, meaning a paper can no longer stand on its own. Self-plagiarism is an opinion among a subset of academics, not something widely discussed or debated. Are there bad apples, sure. Is there a systemic issue, I don't think so.