You're definitely seeing the consequences of papers being written in the past when large-scale fraudulent analysis wasn't that feasible, and now you have all this tech that can scoop it up and look for those "needle in a haystack" instances of fraud.
I'm thinking about all the plagiarism issues uncovered with the publications of the former Harvard president Claudine Gay (and, similarly, of Neri Oxman, the wife of Bill Ackman, who basically was exposed due to Ackman's campaign against Gay). I looked over all the instances of plagiarism in detail, and, while not excusing them, they seemed like less of egregious theft of others' ideas and more like laziness/sloppiness. But I could easily imagine that laziness/sloppiness being fostered by an idea of "How could someone really check this word-for-word anyway?"
Well, now we have tech that makes it almost trivially easy to expose this type of misconduct.
That's an interesting perspective. We tend to make judgments based on what's possible today, not twenty years from now (obviously, there are exceptions, like privacy). So it's easy to fall into sloppiness and not expect consequences. Maybe there's a lesson here...
I'm thinking about all the plagiarism issues uncovered with the publications of the former Harvard president Claudine Gay (and, similarly, of Neri Oxman, the wife of Bill Ackman, who basically was exposed due to Ackman's campaign against Gay). I looked over all the instances of plagiarism in detail, and, while not excusing them, they seemed like less of egregious theft of others' ideas and more like laziness/sloppiness. But I could easily imagine that laziness/sloppiness being fostered by an idea of "How could someone really check this word-for-word anyway?"
Well, now we have tech that makes it almost trivially easy to expose this type of misconduct.