> Maybe the author just independently came up with this, thought it was cool, and wanted to share?
That's perfectly fine, but that's besides the whole point.
The point is that between coming up with something and implementing it, there should be a step to check if anyone already did something similar.
The whole point of researching prior work is to a) don't waste time reinventing the wheel, b) leverage prior work to improve your own ideas, c) make better use of your time by doing meaningful contributions instead of taking a risk on whether you're ripping off someone else's work.
That's the absolute basic standard on scientific publishing, for example. If you pick up any paper at all, you'll notice that right after the introduction and summary you get a bibliographical review listing any relevant work that your peers already contributed. When anyone submits a paper, the reviewers can and outright do reject your submission if it fails to adequately contextualize the paper with regards to prior art and related work. One of the points is to ensure the author is not wasting everyone's time with a novel approach to the wheel.
More importantly, if an author fails to know what's already there, how can they tell their idea is any good?
That's perfectly fine, but that's besides the whole point.
The point is that between coming up with something and implementing it, there should be a step to check if anyone already did something similar.
The whole point of researching prior work is to a) don't waste time reinventing the wheel, b) leverage prior work to improve your own ideas, c) make better use of your time by doing meaningful contributions instead of taking a risk on whether you're ripping off someone else's work.
That's the absolute basic standard on scientific publishing, for example. If you pick up any paper at all, you'll notice that right after the introduction and summary you get a bibliographical review listing any relevant work that your peers already contributed. When anyone submits a paper, the reviewers can and outright do reject your submission if it fails to adequately contextualize the paper with regards to prior art and related work. One of the points is to ensure the author is not wasting everyone's time with a novel approach to the wheel.
More importantly, if an author fails to know what's already there, how can they tell their idea is any good?