DEV Community

loading...

Discussion on: What do you think about double publication?

Collapse
michelemauro profile image
michelemauro • Edited

Why should be a problem? different sites often cater to different audiences, so it can happen that the same content in two places reaches two disjoint set of people.

As others already brought up, there are the tools to explicitly mark the content as it is (primary source, repost, and such) so SEO is a solved problem.

Research and academia have other standards because by publishing you claim priority and ownership. If your content is made for diffusion and not for a priority claim, those are not your concerns.

Collapse
patarapolw profile image
Pacharapol Withayasakpunt Author • Edited

I see. It is important to delineate the purposes.

  • In Research and Academia, it is made primarily for cataloging for the future, therefore cannot allow duplicate by nature, also never throwaway.
    • Actually, reaching the audience is not always the primary purpose. Audience should try to reach, or even buy, or translate if possible, if it matches their review criteria (for example, Systematic Reviews.)
  • In general writing, it is made for PR (public relations), therefore reaching the audience is the primary concern. Duplication and being viral are their nature. It can even be throwaway, or valid only for some time period, sometimes.
    • Indexing and permanent resourcing are actually secondary. However, proper indexing may help reach more audience over a longer period of time.
  • In both, it is about the author credit, but in research and academia, it is also heavily countable as a product (i.e. having 2 always mean having 100% more than 1), therefore, the author will unduly earn more credit, and that lead to ethical concerns.
Collapse
michelemauro profile image
michelemauro

Well... that's a through summary. Much more through that I could even think. You're thinking about it really deeply, indeed.