It's bad manners and a waste of people's time and attention to present previously published work as novel.
Repeating a phrase or two in a document's introduction isn't going to raise flags from any serious people, but copying data, analysis, or large swaths of text? That's a paddlin'.
I think it depends. The popular exposure to this idea, where you can be accused of self-plagiarism for a paper you write for a class, does seem stupid, because obviously your prof hasn't read your paper you wrote in another class and you're not 'wasting' anyone's time.
I can also appreciate that in a "publishing papers as research" context you're completely right.
That makes no sense, either people don't know about the previous work and thus it has clear value. Or they do and they can easily skip it. Beside for a lot of work it be great if you could just literally copy and paste fragments if your previous work to deepen out some reasoning.
I think you are contradicting yourself. If a previous work has been copy and pasted, and a novel reader doesn't know, wouldn't the reader benefit from the option to actually read the previous work as a whole?
All credible authors I read mentioned quotes from earlier works. In fact, that is on the one hand an ego boost as a prolific writer, and also helps sell more copies in case of being purchasable.
Most credible university profs in Germany from the 1990th for example always referenced their former work and mention changes of the context, or in case of a theory, modifications.
Books for example, are reprinted and it has been mentioned whether changes to the content has been done.
Personally I really see no problem, leaving the decision, whether you copied something or not, to the reader.
Many forums have/had policies about not doing cross posting (in different categories). I find this similar.
Yes, maybe from the "plagiarism" angle is not very relevant, but I would prefer not to have a system in which people try to "flood" repositories (journals, etc) with the same thing over and over. People looking for new information, people reviewing will get most of the burden to "keep things clean" while for the poster that is not a problem.
If they don't know about the previous work, they won't know to go there for more. If they do, it doesn't mean they instantly recognize it and know to skip.
It's the hood geometry, stupid. An effective regulator could fix this. As a side-effect, it would make cars look like the new USPS delivery trucks, which would make petrosexuals big mad.
The very first thing I did when coming to this thread was search for if someone had already mentioned "one book theory". My favorite episodes of IBCK are mostly the self-help trash.
I wanted to love it since despite being a self help reader I can definitely see a lot of the bad/dangerous advice given all over the place but I often found them really stretching to make stuff negative and being very smug about it which just made it the same issue as the source material. Especially annoying since in most cases there were really solidly valid negatives to go after in the books. It's very much a lets build a straw man then tear it down podcast.
Theologically their support for Israel is rooted in antisemitism. They need Israel to trigger the end times so Jews and other nonbelievers will be punished and ultimately destroyed.
If you pry and ask the right questions, they'll admit that they don't want this to happen, because they really want all those Jews and nonbelievers to convert and be saved. This is also antisemitism, but it's wrapped up in a millenia-old death cult.
Spring 2026 saw a marked shift in student performance. We saw it in intro physics courses on the East coast too. I bet anyone who cared to look saw it.
I'm not denying that. I'm just wondering if anyone measured if there is a correlation effect being induced by CS major declaration requirements.
Barely over a decade ago, CS tended to be a large but not too large major by enrollment in most universities yet nowadays it is the most in-demand major in most universities. You can see this at Stanford [0], but most other programs as well.
No. CS majors take a different physics sequence at my institution.
The proximate cause is the wide release of somewhat effective AI tooling. When the tools weren't able to do or explain, students didn't use them. Now the tools are somewhat competent, so students do use them.
The students didn't substantially change from Fall 2025 to Spring 2026. You can have whavever gatekeeping hobby-horse you want, but it's not germane to this particular conversation.
I'm at a public southeastern R2. Not selective. Mostly regional catchment. Most of our students have to learn how to be good students their first year or two.
We're making major changes in course structure as a result, so if things go well we won't have enough data to measure any kind of meaningful trend
That wasn't arbitrary, and it wasn't for no benefit. It was so that landowners along the coast could continue to use faulty sea level studies to justify state road and infrastructure investments.
In a broad sense, this distinction between Harvard and Cal is the distinction between an old money Ivy and a flagship state school. One exists to propagate a social hierarchy, and the other aims to allow all entrants to succeed.
Ironically, the techniques of the latter yield the results of the first, but everybody gets to keep a pure heart.
Repeating a phrase or two in a document's introduction isn't going to raise flags from any serious people, but copying data, analysis, or large swaths of text? That's a paddlin'.
reply