Cfxtrjtrk

Others have already told you that a university can require novelty for a thesis in the sense that results published as papers do not count towards the thesis work.

However, the setting I've seen more often is that publication as paper (or conference presentation, poster, etc.) do not hurt the thesis novelty requirement but that no material that has been submitted for any other exam (e.g. Master thesis) can be used for the exam/thesis in question. I'll answer for this scenario.

Must one's own work be cited in a thesis?

• In consequence of that novelty requirement, any material that was submitted for other exams has to be cited as such (i.e. like any other citation) - otherwise it would be self-plagiarism.


• OTOH, having peer-reviewed publications of the thesis material would usually count in your favor, so it is in your best interest to cite them as such even if is your own thesis work ("The results of this section have been published as [publication]").
  
  In my (long form, but other language) thesis I numbered my publications with a prefix to mark them, and put them also in a separate reference list (the thesis application anyways required a list of my publications).


• Publications of the thesis work where you have co-authors must be cited unless you manage to leave out the contributions of your coauthors in the long-form thesis.

pitfalls there may be to simply copying from papers that I have previously published in order to form large sections of my thesis.

The remaining pitfall then is copyright of the paper.

• If you retained copyright for the paper, you're fine with reusing from the publisher's point of view.


• Many journals that require you to sign over copyright to them do allow thesis use in that license contract. Others require you to obtain a license (usually highly automated process). All this is pretty streamlined nowadays because it's neede for the boilerplate theses.
  
  => read the copyright agreements and act accordingly


• Also your legislation may say that you retain certain rights (i.e. clauses in the copyright agreement that take those rights away are void).


• Worst case (you don't have a license to reproduce the required parts of the paper), you'll have to reword the content of the paper and to re-format tables and figures.
  
  I'd consider a publisher with such terms a legitimate reason to not publish there any thesis-relevant work.

What I have seen is:

• to state in the first paragraph of a chapter / section, that this chapter / section was already published as a paper, your paper, and you properly cite it.


• You don't make a verbatim copy, but you can lead closely to the paper. Often you want to give more details in a PhD thesis compared to a paper, so it is less difficult than it may sound.

This does only work, if you wrote the paper. Otherwise you are almost-copying someone's else work, which is wrong.

If you intend to follow this idea, ask your adviser whether it is ok.

Actually, I will give a general answer. Don't do this. It is clearly self plagiarism and this is antithetical to the scholarly process.

Ordinary plagiarism is normally stated as attributing to yourself the work of others, but there is another aspect of it that becomes clearer when you consider self plagiarism.

When anyone reads a scholarly work, unless it is completely self contained, they will want to know where the various ideas in it originated. The way to do this is to cite the previous work. What this allows is that the reader is able to go to the prior work and read the arguments there, including further citations. S/he is then able to both understand and evaluate the complete development of the ideas in the paper that started the investigation.

If you self plagiarize, unless you copy the work as a whole, including the citations and references, you break this chain. It becomes more difficult for a serious researcher to put together the bigger picture.

It is easier now, but when I was a math grad student half a century ago, one spent hours in the library reading and trying to understand deep concepts. Usually they were too difficult for us beginners, so we went back to the referenced articles to get a bigger picture. Eventually our understanding emerged and we could then work forward back to the starting point. You, in this century, don't need to do it in consultation with the librarian any more, but the process remains the same. It is the citations that form the fundamental context of a work, not just the words in the work itself.

So, even if you advisor says it is fine, and even if local custom says it is fine, it is not fine. Your thesis will become a block if anyone stumbles across it. It will be a wall, when it should be a doorway.

However, if you still hold copyright to your original papers, it is permissible to quote from them extensively. But still necessary to cite the quotations, rather than giving the impression that the ideas originated in this work, rather than in prior works, each with their own full context.

That context is fundamentally important. Don't subvert the scholarly process.

'Thesis by Publication' ... is not available to me.

Perhaps not as such, but I very much doubt your institution wants your thesis to be on different research than what you've published. I would guess that the university expects you to do more than simple copy-paste-bind-together. However, the most important advice I have to give you is:

1. Read your university and your faculty/departments specific, detailed guidelines on what you're supposed to write and submit.


2. Talk to your advisor - s/he knows what is expected from the experience of previous advisees.


3. Skim through theses of previous advisees of your advisor or others in the department, whose research you're somewhat familiar with. See how their published papers relate to the thesis.

what pitfalls there may be to simply copying from papers that I have previously published

Don't "simply copy", but rather adapt: Use common preliminaries for different results; weave more of the context of the work in the other papers into the exposition of each result; mix up the section structure somewhat; etc.

Must one's own work be cited in a thesis?

Well, essentially yes, but even there are caveats here - never mind them. Just say explicitly that "this section/chapter is mostly based on [SelfRefHereToThePaper]" (or however it is customary to self-reference in theses in your university". That also means that if anybody has a unforeseen problem with this being the case, they'll complain upfront rather than accuse you of anything underhanded.

It is a positive that your work has already gone through peer review and is archived.

Yes, cite the previous articles (and retain the original citations from those articles). I would also discuss it in your intro chapter. You will probably have a subsection of the intro called "organization of the thesis". You can have some structure like:

Para one (list and describe the chapters in content, organization. Show a heirarchical structure and a reason for the ordering.)

Para two: Chapters 4, 5 and 7 are original work from this thesis research which were successfully published during the study. (citations). Chapters 6 and 8 are intended to be reworked and published in the future as stand-alone journal articles. Chapters 1 and 2 include synthesized content from the published research reports as well as expanded detail for this thesis. Chapter 3 is a synthesis of issue X of the lab work from articles corresponding to chapters 4, 5, and 6. It is intended to be published as a standalone article in a journal contentrating on issue X

I would go ahead and do some light editing to make the thing more integrated. For example in experimental work, the methods sections for the lab work will have a fair amount of partial duplication. Separating that out to a chapter 2 on "methods" can be useful. Same issue for the intro sections, excise them and combine into a more integrated/expanded section within the Intro chapter that has lit review and motivation.

You may, may not have other reasons to reorganize some of the meat of the content. I would not strain to do so, just do so if it makes editorial sense, not through some desire to change things for appearance.

This is also a good chance to add some expanded content that you feel is helpful but were unable to put into terse journal articles. E.g. details/advice on methods, apparatus, safety. Work that was non-notable for an article (e.g. a computer-based calculation that agrees with earlier direct methods, properties experiments that showed no change in output but may be useful in the future for example in comparison to systems with more interesting results, more detailed simulations, verification of terse proofs/derivations in supporting papers, etc. You should have a little bit the attitude that this thesis may be looked at by follow-on students, postdocs, or even your PI when doing followon work. It can be a helpful training document. This is a bit of a different issue than the archived literature (which serves that function also, but tends to be more terse.)

Also, it is just a chance to record things that you don't want "lost". I am an advocate of "publish everything", but still we have to live with the reality of terseness in normal science articles. Best is to find some way to get every finding, idea into regular journal articles. But the thesis is a sort of "half a loaf" versus just never getting the content recorded at all. The rationale for getting content published is that it prevents rework (which happens too much, see the E Bright Wilson book on research.)

IANAL but I think it is extremely unlikely that journals will have an issue with the republication of content (even graphs and the like) within a student thesis. Or the converse, when the content was in the thesis first.

Nor are your actions unethical. (I disagree with the surfeit of caution in the Buffy reply.) It is very normal in the sciences for a thesis to be a collection of papers. Not the European explicit sandwich. But a lightly edited smorgasbord, sure. Nobody is surprised, bewildered or aghast at this. It is a positive that you already got papers done.