Did my professor act unethically by publishing a paper with a figure from my thesis without any acknowledgement?

Question

Title says it all, but for specifics..

Just found out my thesis advisor published a paper last year using a figure from my thesis. The thesis is in embargo until later this year.

I do have be honest and say that the figure in question is a redraft (with some slight alteration) from an older study. However, it is clear my advisor used the exact file from my thesis work. To his credit, he added a different section on the overall figure, but the part of my redraft is identical and was not altered in any way.

I was not part of the writing process, so it makes sense I'm not an author. However, I thought I'd at least be mentioned in the acknowledgements? Which brings up the bigger question of, are acknowledgements held to the same "ethical regard"? Can you just blatantly use someone's work without giving any credit at all if they didn't do enough to warrant authorship?

Answer 1

There really aren't two ways around it: Yes, using someone else's figure is unethical.

The question of what to do about it is of course much harder to answer.

Answer 2

It’s a bit crass to do this and keep you out of the loop, but he did reorganize the figure so technically it is not “the figure from your thesis”, especially if it’s a redraft from and old study, i.e. not the final data used in “your figure”.

Even if the context is substantially different (i.e. different interpretation of the data), one would think that he would have let you know - especially if it is data you collected - but he didn’t. The correct way for him to proceed would have been to let you know he was going to adapt or insert (as these terms seem to best describe what he had done) a figure from your thesis, and indicate as much in the text.

Not acknowledging someone is bad manners, not unethical. If there is too much similarity between “his figure” and “your figure” (or more generally between your work and his work) and you are not a co-author, then it is plagiarism. The threshold with figures is quite high and it’s not uncommon for people to redraw old, already published, figure and change minor details (sometimes only the font) so they are not technically re-using copyrighted material.

Answer 3

The legality and morality really all depend on circumstances, i.e. on how much work was put into the redraft, is the outcome clearly different, or was your figure a "quote" of the figure in the earlier study. Also, who wrote the earlier study?

Here is a scenario. Your prof or their group writes a study with the figure and looses the original pdf file. You publish this study figure in your thesis by reconstructing it, maybe under guidance of your prof. Your figure and the study figure are difficult to tell apart. Your prof or someone else when writing the paper look for the study figure and finds your version. Nothing wrong in my opinion for using it legally (they still have the copyright to derivatives of their original work) and ethically (they were not able to tell that you contributed to the figure).

Here is another scenario. You truly embellish the figure from the earlier study so that it has changed character and you now hold copyright for your substantial changes, as maybe the only intellectual contribution of the original figure are the data. The prof or the person who wrote the section likes your version, is afraid that you would not want to give permission for use, does not know how to cite an embargoed thesis, forgets to ask you, or just assumes that you are fine with it. Then your rights were violated. Even then, what can you gain by asserting your rights? There is not much you can claim. You cannot become a co-author because your contribution is too low and the paper has already been published. You did not suffer any material damage. You benefitted from the work in the group (you got a thesis accepted so you got a degree, I assume) and some give and take in a group is expected. You might have been owned an acknowledgment: "We thank rowrow for taking the figure from X and colleagues [x] and redrawing it." I could live without that.

To long to read: Assert the facts first, e.g. was it intentional, and was your "redraft" different enough. Even if this would have been bad, you missed out on a small note of thanks. These are pretty worthless in academia and completely worthless in industry.

Answer 4

Briefly:

If your thesis results had already been published beforehand, your professor should have acknowledged both the original author and you in relation to using this figure. At least a footnote close to the figure referencing the original author's paper and your own paper, if not a more explicit mention in the Results section.

But that isn't what really bothering you here, is it ?

What is - understandably - bugging you is that someone took a small but original part of your upcoming thesis results and presentation then published them ahead of you, the original author.

The professor stole a part of your thunder.

I really get where you are coming from both professionally and emotionally. This is not a mere lack of authoring etiquette that can be apologized away. It is a sneaky (he didn't talk to you about this, let alone ask your permission) attempt to hijack the novel and impressive side of your effort.

I really feel for you in this and I think you should discuss this with the Head of Department. It may well result in a situation leaves you with the task of explaining what is "new knowledge" in your own work since an extension of one of your important figures has been previously published.

How one professor behaves in this regard can have an effect on the behaviour of other faculty. If this type of hijack is uncommented on, no researcher will feel safe in working hard towards their ultimate goal of being the first to put in the results of their years of research and getting most of the credit for everything the extracted from it.