The Researcher extracted information from his PhD work and published, it will be fall into plagiarism?
No. It can't be plagiarism to "take" work from oneself. In any event, you reference it. Not in foot or endnotes, but in a general note at the very start. At the end of the article's title put a * Put the same at the bottom of the page, like a first footnote. Then explain there where the work is drawn from (the thesis). Give full details of the thesis, like a normal note of a book you've referenced. Author, title, any particular section drawn from, university name, date, etc. Some people do mention and thank their supervisor. I think that should depend on the extent they actually helped you complete, or not.
Christopher NOCK
No. It can't be plagiarism to "take" work from oneself. In any event, you reference it. Not in foot or endnotes, but in a general note at the very start. At the end of the article's title put a * Put the same at the bottom of the page, like a first footnote. Then explain there where the work is drawn from (the thesis). Give full details of the thesis, like a normal note of a book you've referenced. Author, title, any particular section drawn from, university name, date, etc. Some people do mention and thank their supervisor. I think that should depend on the extent they actually helped you complete, or not.
Christopher NOCK
Dr Nock is perfectly correct. I have published so many papers from my Ph D thesis and no one has questioned me. So you need not to worry about.
Dear Nishad Nawaz,
No, it's not plagiarism. Everyone publishes papers from his/her Ph. D. work.
Good luck!
No. It is not plagiarism as it is your own work (unless the thesis itself is a compilation of other's research work with out any acknowledgement).
Of course not. Infact, at some universities, they accept a minimum number of published papers bound together as a PhD thesis.
It's not a case of plagiarism. However, if the name of advisor is not added then a case of conflict will be there.
I also agree with the all answers. But if someone is extracted information from others PhD work and publishing then it will be plagiarism.
Of course it will be called plagiarism if the thesis itself plagiarized.
If the work is of worth and not copied then there is no plagiarism.
In our country the reseacher cannot use the results of PhDissertation in his own Doctor of Sciences dissertation.
Well Dmytro, although interesting, that's a completely different matter.
As people here keep saying, if the thesis is plageriaised then the article will be to! But there aren't too many people that stupid are there? Once is a sin, twice is just madness! Anyway what would proper universities and publishers be doing accepting plageriaised work?
Have some faith in the system....
NOCK
Here we are discussing about good thesis where a student extends the frontier of knowledge already know to us.
That's correct! Draw things back to the original point. Thanks.
NOCK
Can a Ph D work merely be a compilation work with acknowledgement? If yes which university awards Ph D based merely on compilation?
You can till out papers from your PhD thesis and publish. It's not plagiarism. Unless your PhD research was written in a plagiarized manner
I know of one person here in the UK, with no formal education to speak of, who has a full time senior academic position at a perfectly reputable university. As I understand things, that person was granted a Doctoral degree on the sole basis of previous (largely commercial) publications. The person is a prolific publisher, and highly regarded in his/her field of study. The only thing lacking was the formal education. But who needs it if you're that good.
NOCK
Dear Nishad Nawaz,
No, it's not plagiarism.
Regards
Dr.Kamath Madhusudhana.
Name of supervisor added or not depends on the supervisor. I know many supervisors, who dont really help in the PhD work and many are not even capable. Dont give authorship in charity to anyone.
Dear Pankaj,
Whatever you have told is generally true but there are guides who prefer to have their names in acknowledgement only. However, such cases are rare.
I know of a guide who published a paper from a Ph D thesis without the knowledge of the scholar. The first author was the guide and the second author was the scholar!
After going through the published paper the scholar was in a embarrassing situation because a part of the paper was already accepted for publication in a foreign journal.
The Editor of that journal was perplexed when the scholar informed him that he wants to withdraw the manuscript without giving any reason. Obviously it was not possible for him to tell the truth!
And that's a great example. As long as you are not a plaigerist, you should keep an eye on others who read your work before publication! There are dishonest academics out there and they maybe one, even if you're not!
Nock
Publishing from own thesis can not be plagiarism as it is his own unpublished work and nowadays the thesis must have been checked for plagiarism before submission in Indian universities. I agree with Dr Pankaj that no authorship should be given in charity. However, there are still supervisor who insist on making them first author while publishing thesis work at least for few papers which makes their bread and butter for completing API score which is needed for promotion. On the other hand, in many cases, supervisors contribute significantly to take authorship in post Ph.D. publications.
One issue we've missed here is whether plaigerism requires intent? Or, perhaps, unintentional plaigerism is a lesser offence than intentional? Like the difference between murder and manslaughter perhaps....
NOCK
Not at all, it is not plagiarism! you can prepare and publish your research paper from your original Ph.D. work!
@Christopher Nock: If PhD examiners permit unintentional plagiarism to slip through, then immediately all plagiarising PhD students will be asking for their intentional plagiarism to be condoned as "unintentional" plagiarism. So my PhD standard is "One missing, wrong or untraceable reference, and you are plagiarising". My students knew that and respected that.
Well sir, some might consider you a very harsh chap! But I have a certain sympathy for your view. In the good old days we would sit undergraduate plaigerisers down, grill them, and judge the seriousness of any actual wrongdoing. Then usually give a suspended sentence!
MA students were treated rather less leniently. Usually one last chance.
PhD students? Well they should know better all round. Little sympathy. Serious inquest.
I've not taught now since 2011. But, long before I gave up, due to ill health, things were changing greatly. "If I commit plaigerism, it's your fault for not properly teaching me how to avoid it!" Parents-with expensive lawyers--storming in to protect their little darlings from false allegations! University administrators scared of losing students numbers and, as a consequence, related funding and points in the standings, requesting or demanding leniency. This the hell that academia was becoming in certain places I knew. Not a job I'd wish to have now!
NOCK
Hello,
No, definetly. But, he/she must be talk with his/her supervisor about mentioned case, surely.
Thanks,
no it is not a plagiarism case but will help to acknowledge your work in paper form globally.
https://www.aaas.org/news/fresh-look-self-plagiarism
Not perfect, but useful for clarifying ideas on the highly ambiguous topics of plagiarism and self-plagiarism.
Dennis
Dennis Mazur
Not at all, it is not plagiarism!
It is costly to publish the entire thesis, so,it's common to publish the extracted information from the PhD work.
Ian Kennedy,
I might also have said that I'm not suggesting anyone allow anything "to slip through." Rather, my concerns are these:
1. Most plaigerism tends to be caught by academics grading or supervising students.
2. After proper investigation, it is possible in some cases that, while wrong and reprehensible, the student's activity was generally understandable and forgivable--even if the actual outcome is not! Not all road accidents are the same!
3. If a forgivable student recognises his/her fault, is sufficiently contrite, rectifies the matter, and is largely considered worthy of our trust despite this aberration, surely what they've done is less serious than a cynical, deliberate plaigerist's knowing falsehood?
If you are unable to say something like that, then I'd have to think you actually are a very harsh chap!
NOCK
The Researcher extracted information from his PhD work and published, it will be called as plagiarism?
It depends on how we define "extracted" - e.g. literally copy from PhD thesis & published, then this can constitute as plagiarism even though is self-plagiarism. But most of the times when we extract a portion of our thesis's conceptual framework e.g. out of 9 constructs, you extracted 4 constructs & write a paper based on the 4 constructs, you tend to perform a little bit more literature review to evaluate e.g. the direct / indirect relationships that you didn't explore during your thesis time & rewrite / rephrase texts that you'd been used in thesis and with appropriate citations, then this shouldn't consider as plagiarism.
Since the PhD work has not been previously published, it is not plagiarism by the same author who originated the work.
@Christopher Nock In my sweeping statement, I did not cover schoolwork and first year, where formative education should be more forgiving. Most universities have a graded punishment depending on previous convictions.
At the most severe level, the student is expelled from the university, and the blemished student record prevents the student from gaining access to any other university. This is especially so in the context of the original question which related to PhD candidates.
What I am saying is that a PhD candidate must guard against any plagiarism or self-plagiarism. To prevent self-plagiarism, all that is necessary is to keep good records of publications, and otherwise to use tools to search the files for identical strings of text that are too long to have happened by chance.
There is no need to rewrite texts to make them seem different. The purpose is always to have the current version as clear as is possible. If the text cannot be improved, quote it. If it can be improved, paraphrase the original and cite it.
My best PhD candidate already had 6 prior papers in the tightly focused field. I told him to ignore 1, update and unify terminology of the remaining 5, put in a logical order (significant to less significant), signpost the way each chapter fitted into the big picture, introduce each at the beginning with a citation, then write an Introductory and a Conclusions chapter. Obviously my external examiner had to tick the box: Is part of this work publishable? My student was able to graduate 2 years later with glowing reports from the examiners.
Certainly not. However, if it is verbatim reproduction and re-use in multiple publications, it would be unethical, though it may pass the Plagiarism test.
@Christopher Nock In practice it is not possible for the lecturer/supervisor to prove the student had intent to plagiarise. We cannot save "intent" in an evidence file, with the intent highlighted like we do for the copying. In practice, 95% of plagiarising students will use as a defence what they regards as the get-free card of "Oh, I forgot".
Normally it’s not. However a PhD thesis is mostly a co-creation of the student and the advisor. Therefore if that publication from the thesis without the approval of the advisor, that would be an ethical issue.
Well Ferhan, I'm glad it's like that that for you. At the very end of my first year of DPhil studies I hadn't seen my supervisor since the first week. I was walking into town, a car pulled up beside me, I thought it was someone asking directions. After an embarrassing period of time, I realized it was my supervisor! We never met much after that. Maybe once a term for lunch, but never discussed my work. Then, on my last day in town we had one major discussion session. One more by phone two years later, and that was that. I submitted, was examined, received my degree! I suppose he thought I knew what I was doing. But he never told me, and I never asked.
NOCK
Ian Kennedy, I take it that your answer to my question is that "we can't save intent as an evidence file." And you only wish the full weight of the ",law" to apply to PhD students. The second part is fair enough and I think I've already agreed with that. Your first claim is far less compelling. Certainly the police, courts of law, insurance companies judge on intent everyday. We might with others: naughty children, enemies, friends even. People in the street, the list is endless.
The quickest route is to ask them. Just being asked will cause some to confess. Others will construct provably nonsense defences. Those lacking intent will behave quite differently.
I'm displeased with the notion of accusers abrogating their duty to complete a job they've started. I can't unintentionally murder anyone, but I can kill them unintentionally.
NOCK
Ferhan, I should clarify a bit on what I said before. It's a long time ago, in the mists of time! I seem now, on reflection, to remember our termly meetings did involve pre-lunch discussion of my recent work. But no such discussion at lunch!
NOCK
MOST INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT:
An article in today's London Times reports:
The University of Oxford has created an "plagiarism-avoidance course" after record numbers were caught cheating last year!
The course seeks to teach students "how to avoid INTENTIONAL plagiarism." It's aimed primarily at POST-graduates.
The university found 53 students guilty of plagiarism last year.
NOCK
IMPORTANT CORRECTION:
It teaches how to avoid "UNITENTIONAL plagiarism"!
NOCK
Clearly, it would be a nonsense to teach people how to avoid INTENTIONAL plagiarism!!! Hence the focus on the UNINTENTIONAL!
NOCK
Invariably, students retain copyright to theses. And they tend not to be previously published. So you publish the whole thing as a book, or split it up into articles.
NOCK
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher