Unoriginal refers to academic work that lacks novelty, creativity, or independent thinking — often repeating established ideas, methods, or frameworks without adding meaningful insight or value.

• Repackaging of known content under new titles or buzzwords.
• Redundant reviews that cite the same sources as previous ones with minimal reinterpretation.
• Safe conclusions that align with dominant narratives and avoid controversy or innovation.
• Copy-paste structures mimicking the format of previous high-impact papers.
• Academic mimicry disguised as contribution.

• Superficial integration of trending topics (e.g., “AI,” “radiomics”) without depth.
• Predictable, committee-written consensus papers with no fresh insight.
• Grant-driven publications produced to check boxes rather than solve problems.

A review that discusses “osteosarcopenia and AI” using generalities, without new data, new hypotheses, or new clinical pathways — simply rephrasing what’s already been said in more exciting packaging.

• Wastes academic space and attention.
• Crowds out original thinkers and disruptive ideas.
• Perpetuates mediocrity and academic inertia.

• Mediocrity
• Academic Theater
• Factory-Made Science
• Careerism

Bottom line: *Unoriginality is the silent killer of scientific progress — hard to detect when dressed in prestige, but intellectually empty at its core.*