5 replies to this topic

[frintab]

Dear all

I have finished my PhD thesis several years now..

 I would like to ask you a few questions regarding the intellectual property of a PhD thesis and other aspects of those rights:

 

 1. Can a partner who contributed with some measurements in his laboratory ( e.g. analysis) under a partnership/collaboration with a university, under a research project, publish those results only by himself as one author , or with other co -authors ( unconnected with the old partnership/ collaboration ) just because he “had made those measurements”, without indicating anywhere the university cooperation or the people who had this cooperation?

 

2. When someone has a PhD thesis fulfilled, is his work is copyrighted safe? How? In what extent?

 

3. In a review paper, it is usually analyzed what happens in one area of a research during recent years.

In a review paper, the authors used a single measurement ( a figure ), as an example, without analyzed or even concentrate the paper to that figure, since it is very common. That figure was included in one of the 10+ topics discussed in this review.

Should the authors include the supervisor of the laboratory (where the figure came out), as author or could just declare the laboratory and the name of the supervisor to the acknowledgments, where they could thank him personally, as well as his laboratory? (The supervisor has not contributed in writing of the review).

 

4. Can anyone of the members of the committee of a PhD theses use data of the former doctoral student’ PhD thesis, without mentioning that it has gotten out of his PhD theses?

 

5. Can a researcher make use of data at a conference, that has been already being presented in another conference (poster) with other/different co-authors?

 

Thanks in advance for your answers

 

[bob1]

This is a difficult one and will depend on where in the world you did your PhD.  In a few countries the PhD is actually published and as such is copyrighted, however in most countries, the PhD is considered unpublished (any papers you got out of it would be considered published work), and is not copyright as far as I am aware, but again check your university and country copyright law.

 

The ethics of publishing data without acknowledging others is up to the person publishing, though declarations of who did what parts of each paper are usually required by the publishing journal so as to prevent honorary authorship (i.e. people who didn't actually contribute to the work, but their name may help get the paper published or something similar)

 

To get authorship most journals require statements of work - to get authorship on a review the person MUST have actually contributed to the work of writing.

 

Supervisory committee use of data (apart from direct supervisors, where it would be implied) without the permission of the person who generated the data, is very unethical, but again there probably isn't an actual law against it - you need to check the university policy, and if you have a problem take it to the relevant people.

[frintab]

This is a difficult one and will depend on where in the world you did your PhD.  In a few countries the PhD is actually published and as such is copyrighted, however in most countries, the PhD is considered unpublished (any papers you got out of it would be considered published work), and is not copyright as far as I am aware, but again check your university and country copyright law.

 

The ethics of publishing data without acknowledging others is up to the person publishing, though declarations of who did what parts of each paper are usually required by the publishing journal so as to prevent honorary authorship (i.e. people who didn't actually contribute to the work, but their name may help get the paper published or something similar)

 

To get authorship most journals require statements of work - to get authorship on a review the person MUST have actually contributed to the work of writing.

 

Supervisory committee use of data (apart from direct supervisors, where it would be implied) without the permission of the person who generated the data, is very unethical, but again there probably isn't an actual law against it - you need to check the university policy, and if you have a problem take it to the relevant people.

In my phD thesis, it is written that i have the intellectual property rights, while in my phD -university rules it is written that results from a phD thesis can be used by the student and its supervisor together...(?)

I am very sad.. because we had a big argument about the previous questions and my  ex-counselor supported her... and i have realised that... i have just lost two "reference letters"....I couldnot keep silent!

[pito]

 

This is a difficult one and will depend on where in the world you did your PhD.  In a few countries the PhD is actually published and as such is copyrighted, however in most countries, the PhD is considered unpublished (any papers you got out of it would be considered published work), and is not copyright as far as I am aware, but again check your university and country copyright law.

 

The ethics of publishing data without acknowledging others is up to the person publishing, though declarations of who did what parts of each paper are usually required by the publishing journal so as to prevent honorary authorship (i.e. people who didn't actually contribute to the work, but their name may help get the paper published or something similar)

 

To get authorship most journals require statements of work - to get authorship on a review the person MUST have actually contributed to the work of writing.

 

Supervisory committee use of data (apart from direct supervisors, where it would be implied) without the permission of the person who generated the data, is very unethical, but again there probably isn't an actual law against it - you need to check the university policy, and if you have a problem take it to the relevant people.

In my phD thesis, it is written that i have the intellectual property rights, while in my phD -university rules it is written that results from a phD thesis can be used by the student and its supervisor together...(?)

I am very sad.. because we had a big argument about the previous questions and my  ex-counselor supported her... and i have realised that... i have just lost two "reference letters"....I couldnot keep silent!

 

 

I would find it very very very strange that your PhD is not the property of the lab/university where you did it!

 

Did you write it yourself that you have the intellectual property rights? or who wrote this?

 

In general: everything a professor/student/post doc/(who ever works at a university) publishes/finds when working for the university owns "nothing". The university owns it. 

This is why spin off companies are created.

(of course its more complicated, but you get the idea: a university also has the rights otherwise a university would never "make money").

 

Not sure why you had an argument about it, but in discussions like this its always difficult and you always need to be carefull to avoid having problems like yours.

[hobglobin]

To point 1: It surely depends also on agreements between the involved persons and institutions (and the value of the research). If they agree that the partner publishes results alone then there should be no problem (I did it once with a part of my MSc thesis in which my boss had no interest at all, so that he did not care, and finally even the university relation was deleted, but that was something special). To add co-authors which did not contribute anything is very questionable.

 

Point 3: Also here the original authors or the copyright holder (perhaps already a publisher) should be asked if they agree with it, and it has to be mentioned where the figure comes from and if its a paper or book it is mentioned in the reference list finally. Or if it's unpublished then it has to be mentioned as unpubl. work from the this author. Anyway this author don't need to be added as co-author, as he was cited and is mentioned accordingly (but you can add him also in the acknowledgements).

 

Point 5: I guess there are many who do this, especially if the conference topics are so different that there are different scientists, so that it won't be too conspicuous. Not sure if it's really a bad idea, as if you have great results and they fit to both conferences, it might be a good idea. Anyway I'd avoid it usually or set a different focus with the talk or poster and therefore create a more or less new presentation.

[frintab]

 

 

This is a difficult one and will depend on where in the world you did your PhD.  In a few countries the PhD is actually published and as such is copyrighted, however in most countries, the PhD is considered unpublished (any papers you got out of it would be considered published work), and is not copyright as far as I am aware, but again check your university and country copyright law.

 

The ethics of publishing data without acknowledging others is up to the person publishing, though declarations of who did what parts of each paper are usually required by the publishing journal so as to prevent honorary authorship (i.e. people who didn't actually contribute to the work, but their name may help get the paper published or something similar)

 

To get authorship most journals require statements of work - to get authorship on a review the person MUST have actually contributed to the work of writing.

 

Supervisory committee use of data (apart from direct supervisors, where it would be implied) without the permission of the person who generated the data, is very unethical, but again there probably isn't an actual law against it - you need to check the university policy, and if you have a problem take it to the relevant people.

In my phD thesis, it is written that i have the intellectual property rights, while in my phD -university rules it is written that results from a phD thesis can be used by the student and its supervisor together...(?)

I am very sad.. because we had a big argument about the previous questions and my  ex-counselor supported her... and i have realised that... i have just lost two "reference letters"....I couldnot keep silent!

 

 

I would find it very very very strange that your PhD is not the property of the lab/university where you did it!

 

Did you write it yourself that you have the intellectual property rights? or who wrote this?

 

In general: everything a professor/student/post doc/(who ever works at a university) publishes/finds when working for the university owns "nothing". The university owns it. 

This is why spin off companies are created.

(of course its more complicated, but you get the idea: a university also has the rights otherwise a university would never "make money").

 

Not sure why you had an argument about it, but in discussions like this its always difficult and you always need to be carefull to avoid having problems like yours.

 

The university have a common  format to every phD thesis, where it is written that i am the owner of  the intellectual property rights....