PhD
Thesis in Department of Mechanical Engineering at UKZN : S. Shaikh
961129282
2007-03-28
PhD Thesis in Department of Mechanical Engineering at UKZN : S. Shaikh
961129282
Findings
I am of the opinion that this is not the own unaided work of the candidate
as attested in the declaration.
Either there has been extensive plagiarism of another person's or persons' work,
or closer than acceptable collaboration with one or more experts in the field of
strength of materials. This other person or persons are almost surely academics
steeped deeply in the science of strength of materials as well as advanced
higher-order mathematics, especially three-dimensional vector calculus and
finite element analysis.
At least three and probably four different writing styles seem to be in evidence
throughout the thesis. English UK and English USA spelling alternates through
the chapters, as do styles of grammatical and mathematical expression. These
probably arise through the contributions of three or more authors, plus the
candidate.
The number of spelling and typographical errors (some 100 in number) is shocking
and unacceptable for a PhD thesis. Normally, anything more than a handful of
such errors would require correction and re-submission.
While lengthy derivations of formulae are provided, indeed often to the
detraction of the overall flow and understandability of the thesis, two aspects
seem noteworthy, firstly there seems to be no explanation for the choice of
numerical parameters in the examples provided and secondly, no explanation of
how the numerical solutions were actually determined.
Having only a Bibliography listing all the referenced works as
well as all other material of general interest to the subject matter and not
separate References, listing only the referenced works, is a
flawed style that lends itself to plagiarism. I find this completely
unacceptable.
In general, although the subject matter is very advanced and if it were genuine,
then definitely of doctoral (indeed post-doctoral) standard, the overall style
and layout makes the aim, research methodology and contribution difficult to
understand and to assess. The overall thesis appears to be more like a
concatenation of two or three journal papers authored over a period of time by a
group of professional academic researchers in the field of strength of materials
and then given to the candidate to wordprocess (and not very well besides) into
a self-standing thesis.
Recommendation
An independent review panel should be established to review the authenticity
of this doctoral thesis as the candidate's own unaided work.
Regarding the possibility of plagiarism or collaboration, correlation should be
made with the marked references in the Bibliography, in particular the journal
papers by Verijenko, Adali and Tabakov. Interviews with these persons should be
conducted by the review panel. Other academics and post-graduate students in the
relevant specialist research group within the Department of Mechanical
Engineering should be interviewed to ascertain their views as well as any
relevant facts.
Finally, an oral examination of the candidate should be undertaken wherein it
should be established whether the candidate has a true personal grasp of all the
subject matter presented as his own unaided work, especially the development of
the higher order theory and the advanced mathematics.