PhD Thesis in Department of Mechanical Engineering at UKZN : S. Shaikh 961129282
 

2007-05-07

The Chairman
Higher Degrees Committee
University of kwaZulu-Natal
King George V Avenue
Glenwood
Durban
kwaZulu-Natal
 

PhD Thesis in Department of Mechanical Engineering at UKZN : S. Shaikh 961129282
 
Comparison

Comparing the attached journal paper (the Paper) entitled :
Rational transverse shear deformation higher-order theory of anisotropic laminated plates and shells
 
by authors V. G. Piskunov, V. E. Verijenko, S. Adali, P. Y. Tabakov , V. K. Prisyazhnyouk and S. G. Buryhin
         [received 1 May 2000, available online 31 July 2001]


to the thesis entitled :
Development of higher-order theories for the analysis of laminated composite structures under static and thermal loading
 
submitted by S. Shaik in November 2002
 
I find as follows :


Paper - Thesis

1.      Pg 6491 Para. 1 Abstract of Paper very similar to Pg i, Para. 1 of Thesis.

2.      Pg 6491 Para. 3 Introduction of Paper similar to Pg 1, Para. 2 Introduction and Literature Survey of Thesis.

3.      Pg 6492 Para. 3 Introduction of Paper similar to Pp 1 to 2, Para. 2 Introduction and Literature Survey of Thesis.

4.      Pp 6493 to 6520 (27 A4 pages) Sections 1 to 8 of Paper almost word-for-word identical to Pp 8 to 59 (51 A4 pages) Chapter 2 of Thesis.

5.      Pg to 6520 (8 paragraphs) of Summary and conclusions of Paper almost word-for-word identical to Pp 189 to 190  of  Chapter 5 Conclusions of Thesis.

6.      Pg to 6520 Points 2. and 3 (2 sub- paragraphs) of Summary and conclusions of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 60 Points i) and ii) (2 sub- paragraphs) of Summary and conclusions of Chapter 2 of Thesis.

8.      Pg 6493 Fig. 1. of Paper identical to Figure 2.1 Pg 9 of Thesis.

9.      Pg 6511 Fig. 2. of Paper identical to Figure 2.2 Pg 41 of Thesis.

10.     Pg 6517 Fig. 3. of Paper identical to Figure 2.3 Pg 54 of Thesis.

11.     Pg 6518 Fig. 4. of Paper identical to Figure 2.4 Pg 57 of Thesis.

12.     Pg 6519 Fig. 5. of Paper identical to Figure 2.5 Pg 58 of Thesis.

13.     Pg 6521 Appendix A of Paper almost identical to Appendix Pg 61 of Thesis.

14.     Pg 6521 Appendix B of Paper identical to Appendix Pp 61 to 62 of Thesis.

15.     Pg 6522 Appendix C of Paper identical to Appendix Pp 62 to 63 of Thesis.

16.     Pp 6521 to 6522 of Paper contains Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C; whereas Pp47 to 48 of the Thesis refers to Appendix 1, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3.

17.     The typographical error "trough" (instead of "through") appears in Para. 9 of Pg 6518 of the journal paper as well the identically worded Pg 55 Para. 3 of the Thesis


Conclusions

1.      Almost the entire paper has been regurgitated in the Thesis, primarily into Chapter 2 thereof, but also into the Abstract (Page i), Introduction and Literature Survey Pp 1 to 5, Conclusions (Pp 198 to 190) and Bibliography Pp 192 to 201.

2.      This finding is entirely congruent with my initial written opinion dated 28 March 2007 that :
"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."
3.      It is clear that the Thesis includes material previously draft by other authors, in this case V. G. Piskunov, V. E. Verijenko, S. Adali, P. Y. Tabakov , V. K. Prisyazhnyouk and S. G. Buryhin.

4.      The Paper was submitted for publication over two years before the Thesis was submitted for examination.

5.      Chippy Shaik is not an author of this Paper.

6.      Chapter 2 of the Thesis contains development of the higher-order theory relevant to mechanical stresses and is the basis for a primary claim of the Thesis, i.e. the treatment of mechanical stresses on laminated composite structures.

7.      The secondary author of the Paper is the Thesis's author's own supervisor who would or should have known that this work was simply regurgitated for the Thesis.

8.      The Paper is neither cited nor acknowledged in the Thesis.

9.      Shaik is clearly not the developer of the higher-order theory which he claims in his Thesis.

10.     Pp 6514 to 6517 of the Paper probably correspond with Pp 49, 50 and 51 of the Thesis and which are missing from all available copies of the Thesis.

11.     When there are identical errors such as typographical errors such as in the Paper and Thesis under review, this is almost incontrovertible evidence of not only plagiarism, but that one party simply electronically copied the digital text of the other party.

12.     Prima facie the Thesis is plagiarism of other people's work and the onus now rests to the candidate to prove otherwise. This would necessitate him proving that he was a contributor of the work behind the Paper and that such material was published elsewhere where he is cited as a contributing author.

13.     Beyond any reasonable doubt it can be concluded that this is not the own unaided work of the PhD candidate as attested in his declaration on Page ii of the Thesis.


Richard Young 
PrEng, MSc(Eng), PhD