Should I cite myself in my PhD proposal?
I am writing a research proposal for a PhD, and I am referring to my earlier research, which is published in a scientific journal. Should I cite myself? It feels a little preposterous, but I can imagine it could be good to provide the full reference. I do provide it in my CV as well.
An additional reason I thought it would be good to cite my paper is because I am making the claim that it built on the work of a professor from the department I am applying to, and I figured providing a reference - with DOI - to my paper would be the best way to back that claim up.
Thank you in advance for the advice, I really appreciate it.
phd citations research-proposal
edited Jan 22 at 1:27
Ben
13.1k33259
asked Jan 21 at 23:11
DavidDavid
10016
add a comment |
I am writing a research proposal for a PhD, and I am referring to my earlier research, which is published in a scientific journal. Should I cite myself? It feels a little preposterous, but I can imagine it could be good to provide the full reference. I do provide it in my CV as well.
An additional reason I thought it would be good to cite my paper is because I am making the claim that it built on the work of a professor from the department I am applying to, and I figured providing a reference - with DOI - to my paper would be the best way to back that claim up.
Thank you in advance for the advice, I really appreciate it.
phd citations research-proposal
edited Jan 22 at 1:27
Ben
13.1k33259
asked Jan 21 at 23:11
DavidDavid
10016
Yeah sure. You self-cite from paper to paper also. And for grant proposals.
– guest
Jan 22 at 0:31
1
Why not? If you find it 'preposterous' to cite yourself, you have trouble making a career ...
– Walter
Jan 23 at 0:56
Well, I understand why one would cite oneself if one is a practicing scholar. But as an aspiring scholar, I thought maybe it would come off a little self-important.
– David
Jan 23 at 9:56
add a comment |
I am writing a research proposal for a PhD, and I am referring to my earlier research, which is published in a scientific journal. Should I cite myself? It feels a little preposterous, but I can imagine it could be good to provide the full reference. I do provide it in my CV as well.
An additional reason I thought it would be good to cite my paper is because I am making the claim that it built on the work of a professor from the department I am applying to, and I figured providing a reference - with DOI - to my paper would be the best way to back that claim up.
Thank you in advance for the advice, I really appreciate it.
phd citations research-proposal
edited Jan 22 at 1:27
Ben
13.1k33259
asked Jan 21 at 23:11
DavidDavid
10016
I am writing a research proposal for a PhD, and I am referring to my earlier research, which is published in a scientific journal. Should I cite myself? It feels a little preposterous, but I can imagine it could be good to provide the full reference. I do provide it in my CV as well.
An additional reason I thought it would be good to cite my paper is because I am making the claim that it built on the work of a professor from the department I am applying to, and I figured providing a reference - with DOI - to my paper would be the best way to back that claim up.
Thank you in advance for the advice, I really appreciate it.
phd citations research-proposal
phd citations research-proposal
edited Jan 22 at 1:27
Ben
13.1k33259
asked Jan 21 at 23:11
DavidDavid
10016
edited Jan 22 at 1:27
Ben
13.1k33259
asked Jan 21 at 23:11
DavidDavid
10016
edited Jan 22 at 1:27
Ben
13.1k33259
edited Jan 22 at 1:27
Ben
13.1k33259
edited Jan 22 at 1:27
Ben
13.1k33259
13.1k33259
asked Jan 21 at 23:11
DavidDavid
10016
asked Jan 21 at 23:11
DavidDavid
10016
asked Jan 21 at 23:11
DavidDavid
10016
10016
Yeah sure. You self-cite from paper to paper also. And for grant proposals.
– guest
Jan 22 at 0:31
1
Why not? If you find it 'preposterous' to cite yourself, you have trouble making a career ...
– Walter
Jan 23 at 0:56
Well, I understand why one would cite oneself if one is a practicing scholar. But as an aspiring scholar, I thought maybe it would come off a little self-important.
– David
Jan 23 at 9:56
add a comment |
Yeah sure. You self-cite from paper to paper also. And for grant proposals.
– guest
Jan 22 at 0:31
1
Why not? If you find it 'preposterous' to cite yourself, you have trouble making a career ...
– Walter
Jan 23 at 0:56
Well, I understand why one would cite oneself if one is a practicing scholar. But as an aspiring scholar, I thought maybe it would come off a little self-important.
– David
Jan 23 at 9:56
Yeah sure. You self-cite from paper to paper also. And for grant proposals.
– guest
Jan 22 at 0:31
Yeah sure. You self-cite from paper to paper also. And for grant proposals.
– guest
Jan 22 at 0:31
1
1
Why not? If you find it 'preposterous' to cite yourself, you have trouble making a career ...
– Walter
Jan 23 at 0:56
Why not? If you find it 'preposterous' to cite yourself, you have trouble making a career ...
– Walter
Jan 23 at 0:56
Well, I understand why one would cite oneself if one is a practicing scholar. But as an aspiring scholar, I thought maybe it would come off a little self-important.
– David
Jan 23 at 9:56
Well, I understand why one would cite oneself if one is a practicing scholar. But as an aspiring scholar, I thought maybe it would come off a little self-important.
– David
Jan 23 at 9:56
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Yes, you should cite all relevant research: When conducting research projects that extend over multiple papers it is not unusual to want to refer to your past published papers on the topic. These should be treated just as with other relevant literature ---i.e., if they are relevant then they should be cited properly.
answered Jan 22 at 1:26
BenBen
13.1k33259
2
On a related note, failure to cite it can be plagiarism. And yes, strangely you can plagiarize yourself.
– Michael W.
Jan 22 at 22:40
add a comment |
In general you cite yourself just as you would any other person. Failing to do so, while repeating earlier things you have published, leads to a charge of self-plagiarism. It is an odd concept, but is treated seriously.
Ordinary plagiarism is when you claim the work of another as your own. Self plagiarism is a bit different, of course.
But avoiding both types of plagiarism via proper citation has the purpose of placing a work of scholarship within its complete context. People reading a new paper want to know what it is based on, whether by that author or another. Having the citation lets a reader go back to that context (and possible further citations).
So, while this isn't an actual publication you are developing, the same rules should apply. The reader wants/needs the context.
answered Jan 22 at 0:48
BuffyBuffy
42.9k11139220
10
I agree with everything here, but I'm not sure it's the right emphasis. In this case, it's overwhelmingly advantageous for the asker's proposal to establish that they're already a published expert in the field. Not citing the earlier paper would simply be shooting oneself in the foot. (Which, yes, would be an unlawful discharge of a firearm, but the reason you don't shoot yourself in the foot is that it frickin' hurts.)
– David Richerby
Jan 22 at 13:52
2
@DavidRicherby, never tried it so I'll take your statement about the pain as "likely valid". Legality might vary with jurisdiction, I suppose.
– Buffy
Jan 22 at 13:59
add a comment |
As others suggest, you can and should cite yourself. But, more importantly, you should clarify this - not via the citation but in the proposal text itself. That is:
- Explain what kind of research you were doing before, what you motivation was, what limited your scope (if anything) etc.
- Explain how your proposed Ph.D. research continues your previous work - as such, i.e. don't just say "It was established in [3] that bars can be frobnicated; I propose to extend this result to baz" - where [3] is your own paper.
- Explain how your proposed Ph.D. research goes in a different direction / does not continue your previous work.
answered Jan 22 at 23:42
einpoklumeinpoklum
23.8k138136
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123527%2fshould-i-cite-myself-in-my-phd-proposal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Yes, you should cite all relevant research: When conducting research projects that extend over multiple papers it is not unusual to want to refer to your past published papers on the topic. These should be treated just as with other relevant literature ---i.e., if they are relevant then they should be cited properly.
answered Jan 22 at 1:26
BenBen
13.1k33259
2
On a related note, failure to cite it can be plagiarism. And yes, strangely you can plagiarize yourself.
– Michael W.
Jan 22 at 22:40
add a comment |
Yes, you should cite all relevant research: When conducting research projects that extend over multiple papers it is not unusual to want to refer to your past published papers on the topic. These should be treated just as with other relevant literature ---i.e., if they are relevant then they should be cited properly.
answered Jan 22 at 1:26
BenBen
13.1k33259
2
On a related note, failure to cite it can be plagiarism. And yes, strangely you can plagiarize yourself.
– Michael W.
Jan 22 at 22:40
add a comment |
Yes, you should cite all relevant research: When conducting research projects that extend over multiple papers it is not unusual to want to refer to your past published papers on the topic. These should be treated just as with other relevant literature ---i.e., if they are relevant then they should be cited properly.
answered Jan 22 at 1:26
BenBen
13.1k33259
Yes, you should cite all relevant research: When conducting research projects that extend over multiple papers it is not unusual to want to refer to your past published papers on the topic. These should be treated just as with other relevant literature ---i.e., if they are relevant then they should be cited properly.
answered Jan 22 at 1:26
BenBen
13.1k33259
answered Jan 22 at 1:26
BenBen
13.1k33259
answered Jan 22 at 1:26
BenBen
13.1k33259
answered Jan 22 at 1:26
BenBen
13.1k33259
13.1k33259
2
On a related note, failure to cite it can be plagiarism. And yes, strangely you can plagiarize yourself.
– Michael W.
Jan 22 at 22:40
add a comment |
2
On a related note, failure to cite it can be plagiarism. And yes, strangely you can plagiarize yourself.
– Michael W.
Jan 22 at 22:40
2
2
On a related note, failure to cite it can be plagiarism. And yes, strangely you can plagiarize yourself.
– Michael W.
Jan 22 at 22:40
On a related note, failure to cite it can be plagiarism. And yes, strangely you can plagiarize yourself.
– Michael W.
Jan 22 at 22:40
add a comment |
In general you cite yourself just as you would any other person. Failing to do so, while repeating earlier things you have published, leads to a charge of self-plagiarism. It is an odd concept, but is treated seriously.
Ordinary plagiarism is when you claim the work of another as your own. Self plagiarism is a bit different, of course.
But avoiding both types of plagiarism via proper citation has the purpose of placing a work of scholarship within its complete context. People reading a new paper want to know what it is based on, whether by that author or another. Having the citation lets a reader go back to that context (and possible further citations).
So, while this isn't an actual publication you are developing, the same rules should apply. The reader wants/needs the context.
answered Jan 22 at 0:48
BuffyBuffy
42.9k11139220
10
I agree with everything here, but I'm not sure it's the right emphasis. In this case, it's overwhelmingly advantageous for the asker's proposal to establish that they're already a published expert in the field. Not citing the earlier paper would simply be shooting oneself in the foot. (Which, yes, would be an unlawful discharge of a firearm, but the reason you don't shoot yourself in the foot is that it frickin' hurts.)
– David Richerby
Jan 22 at 13:52
2
@DavidRicherby, never tried it so I'll take your statement about the pain as "likely valid". Legality might vary with jurisdiction, I suppose.
– Buffy
Jan 22 at 13:59
add a comment |
In general you cite yourself just as you would any other person. Failing to do so, while repeating earlier things you have published, leads to a charge of self-plagiarism. It is an odd concept, but is treated seriously.
Ordinary plagiarism is when you claim the work of another as your own. Self plagiarism is a bit different, of course.
But avoiding both types of plagiarism via proper citation has the purpose of placing a work of scholarship within its complete context. People reading a new paper want to know what it is based on, whether by that author or another. Having the citation lets a reader go back to that context (and possible further citations).
So, while this isn't an actual publication you are developing, the same rules should apply. The reader wants/needs the context.
answered Jan 22 at 0:48
BuffyBuffy
42.9k11139220
10
I agree with everything here, but I'm not sure it's the right emphasis. In this case, it's overwhelmingly advantageous for the asker's proposal to establish that they're already a published expert in the field. Not citing the earlier paper would simply be shooting oneself in the foot. (Which, yes, would be an unlawful discharge of a firearm, but the reason you don't shoot yourself in the foot is that it frickin' hurts.)
– David Richerby
Jan 22 at 13:52
2
@DavidRicherby, never tried it so I'll take your statement about the pain as "likely valid". Legality might vary with jurisdiction, I suppose.
– Buffy
Jan 22 at 13:59
add a comment |
In general you cite yourself just as you would any other person. Failing to do so, while repeating earlier things you have published, leads to a charge of self-plagiarism. It is an odd concept, but is treated seriously.
Ordinary plagiarism is when you claim the work of another as your own. Self plagiarism is a bit different, of course.
But avoiding both types of plagiarism via proper citation has the purpose of placing a work of scholarship within its complete context. People reading a new paper want to know what it is based on, whether by that author or another. Having the citation lets a reader go back to that context (and possible further citations).
So, while this isn't an actual publication you are developing, the same rules should apply. The reader wants/needs the context.
answered Jan 22 at 0:48
BuffyBuffy
42.9k11139220
In general you cite yourself just as you would any other person. Failing to do so, while repeating earlier things you have published, leads to a charge of self-plagiarism. It is an odd concept, but is treated seriously.
Ordinary plagiarism is when you claim the work of another as your own. Self plagiarism is a bit different, of course.
But avoiding both types of plagiarism via proper citation has the purpose of placing a work of scholarship within its complete context. People reading a new paper want to know what it is based on, whether by that author or another. Having the citation lets a reader go back to that context (and possible further citations).
So, while this isn't an actual publication you are developing, the same rules should apply. The reader wants/needs the context.
answered Jan 22 at 0:48
BuffyBuffy
42.9k11139220
edited Jan 22 at 18:34
answered Jan 22 at 0:48
BuffyBuffy
42.9k11139220
answered Jan 22 at 0:48
BuffyBuffy
42.9k11139220
answered Jan 22 at 0:48
BuffyBuffy
42.9k11139220
42.9k11139220
10
I agree with everything here, but I'm not sure it's the right emphasis. In this case, it's overwhelmingly advantageous for the asker's proposal to establish that they're already a published expert in the field. Not citing the earlier paper would simply be shooting oneself in the foot. (Which, yes, would be an unlawful discharge of a firearm, but the reason you don't shoot yourself in the foot is that it frickin' hurts.)
– David Richerby
Jan 22 at 13:52
2
@DavidRicherby, never tried it so I'll take your statement about the pain as "likely valid". Legality might vary with jurisdiction, I suppose.
– Buffy
Jan 22 at 13:59
add a comment |
10
I agree with everything here, but I'm not sure it's the right emphasis. In this case, it's overwhelmingly advantageous for the asker's proposal to establish that they're already a published expert in the field. Not citing the earlier paper would simply be shooting oneself in the foot. (Which, yes, would be an unlawful discharge of a firearm, but the reason you don't shoot yourself in the foot is that it frickin' hurts.)
– David Richerby
Jan 22 at 13:52
2
@DavidRicherby, never tried it so I'll take your statement about the pain as "likely valid". Legality might vary with jurisdiction, I suppose.
– Buffy
Jan 22 at 13:59
10
10
I agree with everything here, but I'm not sure it's the right emphasis. In this case, it's overwhelmingly advantageous for the asker's proposal to establish that they're already a published expert in the field. Not citing the earlier paper would simply be shooting oneself in the foot. (Which, yes, would be an unlawful discharge of a firearm, but the reason you don't shoot yourself in the foot is that it frickin' hurts.)
– David Richerby
Jan 22 at 13:52
I agree with everything here, but I'm not sure it's the right emphasis. In this case, it's overwhelmingly advantageous for the asker's proposal to establish that they're already a published expert in the field. Not citing the earlier paper would simply be shooting oneself in the foot. (Which, yes, would be an unlawful discharge of a firearm, but the reason you don't shoot yourself in the foot is that it frickin' hurts.)
– David Richerby
Jan 22 at 13:52
2
2
@DavidRicherby, never tried it so I'll take your statement about the pain as "likely valid". Legality might vary with jurisdiction, I suppose.
– Buffy
Jan 22 at 13:59
@DavidRicherby, never tried it so I'll take your statement about the pain as "likely valid". Legality might vary with jurisdiction, I suppose.
– Buffy
Jan 22 at 13:59
add a comment |
As others suggest, you can and should cite yourself. But, more importantly, you should clarify this - not via the citation but in the proposal text itself. That is:
- Explain what kind of research you were doing before, what you motivation was, what limited your scope (if anything) etc.
- Explain how your proposed Ph.D. research continues your previous work - as such, i.e. don't just say "It was established in [3] that bars can be frobnicated; I propose to extend this result to baz" - where [3] is your own paper.
- Explain how your proposed Ph.D. research goes in a different direction / does not continue your previous work.
answered Jan 22 at 23:42
einpoklumeinpoklum
23.8k138136
add a comment |
As others suggest, you can and should cite yourself. But, more importantly, you should clarify this - not via the citation but in the proposal text itself. That is:
- Explain what kind of research you were doing before, what you motivation was, what limited your scope (if anything) etc.
- Explain how your proposed Ph.D. research continues your previous work - as such, i.e. don't just say "It was established in [3] that bars can be frobnicated; I propose to extend this result to baz" - where [3] is your own paper.
- Explain how your proposed Ph.D. research goes in a different direction / does not continue your previous work.
answered Jan 22 at 23:42
einpoklumeinpoklum
23.8k138136
add a comment |
As others suggest, you can and should cite yourself. But, more importantly, you should clarify this - not via the citation but in the proposal text itself. That is:
- Explain what kind of research you were doing before, what you motivation was, what limited your scope (if anything) etc.
- Explain how your proposed Ph.D. research continues your previous work - as such, i.e. don't just say "It was established in [3] that bars can be frobnicated; I propose to extend this result to baz" - where [3] is your own paper.
- Explain how your proposed Ph.D. research goes in a different direction / does not continue your previous work.
answered Jan 22 at 23:42
einpoklumeinpoklum
23.8k138136
As others suggest, you can and should cite yourself. But, more importantly, you should clarify this - not via the citation but in the proposal text itself. That is:
- Explain what kind of research you were doing before, what you motivation was, what limited your scope (if anything) etc.
- Explain how your proposed Ph.D. research continues your previous work - as such, i.e. don't just say "It was established in [3] that bars can be frobnicated; I propose to extend this result to baz" - where [3] is your own paper.
- Explain how your proposed Ph.D. research goes in a different direction / does not continue your previous work.
answered Jan 22 at 23:42
einpoklumeinpoklum
23.8k138136
answered Jan 22 at 23:42
einpoklumeinpoklum
23.8k138136
answered Jan 22 at 23:42
einpoklumeinpoklum
23.8k138136
answered Jan 22 at 23:42
einpoklumeinpoklum
23.8k138136
23.8k138136
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f123527%2fshould-i-cite-myself-in-my-phd-proposal%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Yeah sure. You self-cite from paper to paper also. And for grant proposals.
– guest
Jan 22 at 0:31
1
Why not? If you find it 'preposterous' to cite yourself, you have trouble making a career ...
– Walter
Jan 23 at 0:56
Well, I understand why one would cite oneself if one is a practicing scholar. But as an aspiring scholar, I thought maybe it would come off a little self-important.
– David
Jan 23 at 9:56