You’ve probably come across phrases like "we have measured for the first time..." in almost every one of her papers, or the classic line "Since the discovery of high-Tc superconductivity..."—those staples that have been hanging around forever. And don’t get me started on the closing paragraph, where co-workers and anyone with even the slightest influence on the research get a repetitive shout-out. If you were to run this through a plagiarism checker, you’d definitely get a list of red flags. But is it really plagiarism? Or is it that fancy term, "self-plagiarism"? Hold on a second. When you’re doing experimental physics, there’s the hands-on work in the lab, the data analysis, the modeling… and then comes the writing. The awkward English? That’s just the packaging. The science? It’s there, buried under the prose—sometimes clear, sometimes not, but the writing itself isn’t the science. That’s a whole different game in the humanities, though. In fields like ...
Plagiarism is The thing these days. Powerful software sifts through scientific work of everybody (who has some visibility), it seems. And the software finds huge chunks of copied/re-used text and discovered quite a few rascals in the community and many examples of shady behavior. And there are consequences for the authors of many a scientific thesis. This is good. Now there are voices promoting some exception from scrutiny when writing a PhD thesis. They call it 'modular writing'. It would allow you to re-use existing text (from textbooks, published papers, news-articles...) in, e.g., the introduction, the paragraph on scientific background, etc. The argument is that those parts aren't scientifically original anyway, english isn't the native language for many PhD students and requiring them to wirte original text supposedly puts some unneccessary burden on them. Well. No. A PhD-thesis is *not* just another certificate you frame and hang over the TV to have something t...