HN rules strongly prefer original article titles, even if they're a bit clickbaity.

On the contrary, the guidelines ask for original titles unless they’re clickbait:

> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That title is neither misleading nor linkbait. It does veer close to the "You'll never guess what happened next" form but it's accurate as far as it goes.

It is clickbaity because it gives a little information while teasing a bigger revelation if you click through.

Which there was. Not only was her name used but the paper was largely plagiarized which could have all sorts of consequences. I'm not going to argue it's a great headline but it's the one on the article and the clickbait police could just chill sometimes.

> the clickbait police could just chill sometimes

I would personally prefer the clickbait police to be alert and vigilant in identifying and penalizing submissions that rely on sensationalized headlines to attract clicks and traffic.

So... "A professor found her name on an article she didn’t write, which was plagiarized"

>Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

> That title is neither misleading nor linkbait.

Debatable, but my comment didn’t argue either way. It clarified what the guidelines say, not how they should be applied to this particular case.

(This comment sounds like you're defending yourself, but I didn't read ghaff's comment as an "attack.")