Recent years have seen a steady stream of journal editorials condemning self-plagiarism and other questionable publishing practices. Whilst in the biomedical sciences, redundant publication is condemned for its potential to exaggerate the efficacy of clinical trials, the potential negative consequences of textual recycling are less obvious in the humanities and social sciences. The perceived evils of self-plagiarism vary widely across the academic disciplines, undermining the claim that self-plagiarism constitutes an academic integrity issue in all cases. The article argues that questions surrounding self-plagiarism should be replaced with pronouncements around the notions of "fortunate" and "unfortunate" academic publication. Some examples of such judgements are given.