2 deleted 47 characters in body
source | link

Posting code on the Internet is somewhat like posting a preprint¹. Everybody can see it, use it, and be inspired by it, and that’s fine if they reference you as the source of this, but of course somebody can also come along and claim that they had the same idea independently and rush a publication before you (which would constitute plagiarism if they hadn’t). Even if the latter happens, you can still refer to your time-stamped post/publication to establish priority and to get at least a piece of the credit cake.

There is one major difference though: In fields where preprint servers such as the Arxiv are properly established, plagiarisers may not be very credible when they claim that they were did not know of your prior publication. Being oblivious to something posted on Code Review, on the other hand is always a plausible claim – unless the plagiariser left a trail interacting with your post.

Some other factors to consider:

  • How much of your result is contained in your code? At least for my work, noany piece of code reasonably fitting into a Code Review question at most gives you more than a hint of the bigger picture. If the same applies to you, it is extremely unlikely that somebody sees your code, recognises its relevance, and rebuilds the rest of your work around it.

  • How easy is it to rebuild your work from your code? For example, if you spend a considerable time figuring out the value of some parameter (and do not give it in your example or modify it), somebody else would have to reiterate everything leading to your parameter. Also consider that if a considerable amount of creativity, research skill, and subject knowledge are required to rebuild your work, somebody having the capability of doingable to do this can also has the capability to produce tons of original research with less effort and risk.

  • How narrow is your field? If only a small community can appreciate and plausibly reproduce your work, it also needs somebody from this community to recognise and plagiarise your work from your code.

  • How relevant is your result? Given that we are talking about a master’s thesis, it is unlikely to be very big. Of course, it’s not impossible, but you can judge yourself from the feedback you should have received from your supervisor. The less attractive your result, the less likely it is for somebody to take efforts and risks in plagiarising it. Again, most researchers probably have better things to do, e.g., performing their own research.

¹ Also see this question of mine regarding the plagiarism of pre-prints.

Posting code on the Internet is somewhat like posting a preprint¹. Everybody can see it, use it, and be inspired by it, and that’s fine if they reference you as the source of this, but of course somebody can also come along and claim that they had the same idea independently and rush a publication before you (which would constitute plagiarism if they hadn’t). Even if the latter happens, you can still refer to your time-stamped post/publication to establish priority and to get at least a piece of the credit cake.

There is one major difference though: In fields where preprint servers such as the Arxiv are properly established, plagiarisers may not be very credible when they claim that they were did not know of your prior publication. Being oblivious to something posted on Code Review, on the other hand is always a plausible claim – unless the plagiariser left a trail interacting with your post.

Some other factors to consider:

  • How much of your result is contained in your code? At least for my work, no piece of code reasonably fitting into a Code Review question gives you more than a hint of the bigger picture. If the same applies to you, it is extremely unlikely that somebody sees your code, recognises its relevance, and rebuilds the rest of your work around it.

  • How easy is it to rebuild your work from your code? For example, if you spend a considerable time figuring out the value of some parameter (and do not give it in your example or modify it), somebody else would have to reiterate everything leading to your parameter. Also consider that if a considerable amount of creativity, research skill, and subject knowledge are required to rebuild your work, somebody having the capability of doing this also has the capability to produce tons of original research with less effort and risk.

  • How narrow is your field? If only a small community can appreciate and plausibly reproduce your work, it also needs somebody from this community to recognise and plagiarise your work from your code.

  • How relevant is your result? Given that we are talking about a master’s thesis, it is unlikely to be very big. Of course, it’s not impossible, but you can judge yourself from the feedback you should have received from your supervisor. The less attractive your result, the less likely it is for somebody to take efforts and risks in plagiarising it. Again, most researchers probably have better things to do, e.g., performing their own research.

¹ Also see this question of mine regarding the plagiarism of pre-prints.

Posting code on the Internet is somewhat like posting a preprint¹. Everybody can see it, use it, and be inspired by it, and that’s fine if they reference you as the source of this, but of course somebody can also come along and claim that they had the same idea independently and rush a publication before you (which would constitute plagiarism if they hadn’t). Even if the latter happens, you can still refer to your time-stamped post/publication to establish priority and to get at least a piece of the credit cake.

There is one major difference though: In fields where preprint servers such as the Arxiv are properly established, plagiarisers may not be very credible when they claim that they were did not know of your prior publication. Being oblivious to something posted on Code Review, on the other hand is always a plausible claim – unless the plagiariser left a trail interacting with your post.

Some other factors to consider:

  • How much of your result is contained in your code? At least for my work, any piece of code reasonably fitting into a Code Review question at most gives you a hint of the bigger picture. If the same applies to you, it is extremely unlikely that somebody sees your code, recognises its relevance, and rebuilds the rest of your work around it.

  • How easy is it to rebuild your work from your code? For example, if you spend a considerable time figuring out the value of some parameter (and do not give it in your example or modify it), somebody else would have to reiterate everything leading to your parameter. Also consider that if a considerable amount of creativity, research skill, and subject knowledge are required to rebuild your work, somebody able to do this can also produce original research with less effort and risk.

  • How narrow is your field? If only a small community can appreciate and plausibly reproduce your work, it also needs somebody from this community to recognise and plagiarise your work from your code.

  • How relevant is your result? Given that we are talking about a master’s thesis, it is unlikely to be very big. Of course, it’s not impossible, but you can judge yourself from the feedback you should have received from your supervisor. The less attractive your result, the less likely it is for somebody to take efforts and risks in plagiarising it. Again, most researchers probably have better things to do, e.g., performing their own research.

¹ Also see this question of mine regarding the plagiarism of pre-prints.

1
source | link

Posting code on the Internet is somewhat like posting a preprint¹. Everybody can see it, use it, and be inspired by it, and that’s fine if they reference you as the source of this, but of course somebody can also come along and claim that they had the same idea independently and rush a publication before you (which would constitute plagiarism if they hadn’t). Even if the latter happens, you can still refer to your time-stamped post/publication to establish priority and to get at least a piece of the credit cake.

There is one major difference though: In fields where preprint servers such as the Arxiv are properly established, plagiarisers may not be very credible when they claim that they were did not know of your prior publication. Being oblivious to something posted on Code Review, on the other hand is always a plausible claim – unless the plagiariser left a trail interacting with your post.

Some other factors to consider:

  • How much of your result is contained in your code? At least for my work, no piece of code reasonably fitting into a Code Review question gives you more than a hint of the bigger picture. If the same applies to you, it is extremely unlikely that somebody sees your code, recognises its relevance, and rebuilds the rest of your work around it.

  • How easy is it to rebuild your work from your code? For example, if you spend a considerable time figuring out the value of some parameter (and do not give it in your example or modify it), somebody else would have to reiterate everything leading to your parameter. Also consider that if a considerable amount of creativity, research skill, and subject knowledge are required to rebuild your work, somebody having the capability of doing this also has the capability to produce tons of original research with less effort and risk.

  • How narrow is your field? If only a small community can appreciate and plausibly reproduce your work, it also needs somebody from this community to recognise and plagiarise your work from your code.

  • How relevant is your result? Given that we are talking about a master’s thesis, it is unlikely to be very big. Of course, it’s not impossible, but you can judge yourself from the feedback you should have received from your supervisor. The less attractive your result, the less likely it is for somebody to take efforts and risks in plagiarising it. Again, most researchers probably have better things to do, e.g., performing their own research.

¹ Also see this question of mine regarding the plagiarism of pre-prints.