5 ms·
Agreed. The concept of “don’t reuse your old work when you’re supposed to be creating new work” may be valid, especially in training environments, but it should
by CrazyStat 3mo ago
Agreed. The concept of “don’t reuse your old work when you’re supposed to be creating new work” may be valid, especially in training environments, but it shouldn’t be called self-plagiarism or treated like plagiarism.
- ghaff 3mo agoIt's not really a great term but, at the same time, calling it fraud--which it sort of is in some contexts--feels kinda strong.
- dpark 3mo agoThe problem is that journals become a way to fill a CV and justify tenure and grants rather than a way to disseminate information. If your goal is to share information, you want quality articles in multiple places so that people can get to them. If your goal is to use journal publishing count as a professional metric, then double publishing becomes unethical. The modern equivalent would be to declare it unethical to share an article on both Reddit and HN.
- ghaff 3mo agoI sorta agree to a point. It did used to be the case that cross-posting was generally a bad idea from an SEO perspective. Where I'm working now the theory seems to be, by all means, publish on your own site and we'll republish what makes sense to do so.