|
PhD
Thesis in Department of Mechanical Engineering at UKZN : S. Shaikh
961129282 |
2007-05-08
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 :
- Transverse shear and normal deformation higher-order theory for
the solution of dynamic problems of laminated plates and shells
- by authors V.G. Piskunov, V.E. Verijenko, S. Adali and P.Y. Tabakov
[received 9 March 1994, revised form 26 May 1994]
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 3345 Abstract of Paper similar to
part of Abstract Pg i of Thesis.
2. Pg 3345 Introduction of Paper very similar
to Pg 1 Introduction and Literature Survey of Thesis.
3. Pg 3346 Introduction of Paper very similar
to Pp 2 to 4 Introduction and Literature Survey of Thesis (almost
all of the cited items in thec Paper and also cited in the Thesis).
4. Pp 3346 to 3351 (5 A4 pages) Basic Assumptions and
Derivation of Kinematic Hypotheses of Paper almost identical to Pp 8 to
14 (7 A4 pages) Chapter 2 of Thesis.
5. Pp 3354 to 3367 of Paper have numerous identical and/or
very similar paragraphs as Pp 22 to 30 of Chapter 2 of Thesis.
6. Pg 3347 Fig. 1. of Paper identical to
Figure 2.1 Pg 9 of Thesis.
7. This paper is referred to as both Items [58] and [61] of
the Bibliography of the Thesis.
Conclusions
1. Much of the 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 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
drafted by other authors, in this case V.G. Piskunov, V.E. Verijenko, S. Adali
and P.Y. Tabakov.
4. The Paper was submitted for publication some eight years
before the Thesis was submitted for examination.
5. Chippy Shaik is not an author of this Paper.
6. The Paper contains the development of a higher-order
theory relevant to the dynamics of laminated composite structures. It
would seem clear that such theory is a derivation of a previous higher-order
theory relevant to the statics of laminated composite structures recorded
by the same three primary authors in their journal paper entitled :
- A higher-order theory for the analysis of laminated plates and
shells with shear and normal deformation
- by authors V.G. Piskunov, V.E. Verijenko, S. Adali and E.B. Summers,
International Journal of Engineering Science, [1993]
- which is cited as Item [60] of the Bibliography of the
Thesis.
- I am convinced that there will be much higher degree of correlation
between this paper and the Thesis because the latter deals mainly with
static and not dynamic behaviour or laminated plates and shells.
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.
9. 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.
10. From this Paper it is difficult to believe that this is
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