[xoa]

>If plagiarizing is bad because the copied info might be wrong, then original research is bad because it might be wrong.

No, that's not what I wrote at all. Original honest research might be wrong and that's completely fine and understood, that's the entire point of replication! But if someone lies and says they've independently replicated it when they just plagiarized that's fraud and wrong. Telling the world original research has been replicated when it hasn't been is different then a tentative first result. Depending on the area nobody else may then attempt replication for awhile, assuming it's already been done and instead waste resources trying to build upon it only to later discover it was wrong. The original team has also been robbed of independent review they may have otherwise gotten, and themselves move on only to much later have the rug pulled out from under them. Depending on the nature of what caused the original research to be incorrect it may have further ripple effects. Say some piece of equipment or new instrument has some subtle flaw that a true replication attempt would have discovered, but instead it then keeps getting used and causing other experiments to go off.

And this is all in the generous case where the plagiarist does at least pretend to have the same result as what they're copying, vs hacking it into something else and generating total garbage completely.