3

My former PhD supervisor has just published a paper on a scientific subject investigated by me in my thesis. The subject (or question posed), was an idea that I came up solely during my PhD and which I chose to investigate as a sub topic - my conclusions were published in my thesis in 2015 and I assume (from a legal statement in the thesis), that I own the copyright.

The paper just published has taken my hypothesis and explored it in more depth. Some of my studies have been repeated by other people in the lab. Moreover, some of the key conclusions made by me in my thesis have been made again. I have not been credited in any way.

Is this plagiarism and should I pursue this? I’ve left academia so no longer publish anyway.

|improve this question
  • 1
    It appeared in your thesis but you never published it? (not that that excuses it, just asking for clarification) – Morgan Rodgers May 8 at 5:27
-4

My former PhD supervisor has just published a paper on a scientific subject investigated by me in my thesis...The paper [takes] my hypothesis and explored it in more depth. Some of my studies have been repeated by other people in the lab. Moreover, some of the key conclusions made by me in my thesis have been made again. I have not been credited in any way.

Is this plagiarism and should I pursue this?

This is not plagiarism: As you have noted, the paper [takes your] hypothesis and explore[s] it in more depth (emphasis added), i.e., the paper goes beyond your results to provide something new. To determine whether plagiarism appears elsewhere probably requires more information than the OP has provided.

I have not been credited in any way.

A citation to your thesis or any of your other published works would be appropriate, perhaps even required, e.g., if the paper is entirely built upon your work.

|improve this answer
  • 4
    -1. The issue of plagiarism is completely orthogonal to the issue of novelty. – sgf May 8 at 9:18
  • 6
    Not only appropriate but required. – henning May 8 at 9:20
  • @sgf You seem to argue that a new study can plagiarise an old study. That's just not possible. Nonetheless, I'll clarify that plagiarism is somewhat different, I didn't think that point needed making. – user2768 May 8 at 9:57
  • @user2768 Taking the first non-wikipedia definition that Google gives me, the University of Oxford defines plagarism as "presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement." This is about work or ideas, not only about the totality of results. – sgf May 8 at 13:02
  • 1
    @user2768 "This is not plagiarism." That's just too strong a statement if we're not sure. But copying the study design without crediting the designer seems enough to me to determine that plagiarism has, in fact, been committed. – sgf May 8 at 13:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.