One dissertation - two approaches

The story offered to readers touches on the important and complex issue of the integrity and honesty of scientists, as well as entire scientific teams taking one or another part in the certification of highly qualified scientific personnel. Yes, we will talk here about dissertation defenses, about the work of dissertation councils using the example of one specific case.

In 2013, Samara scientist Alexander Sergeevich Vedernikov presented his thesis “Development of theory and development of methods for analyzing the modes of asymmetrical double-circuit overhead power lines” in the specialty 05.14.02 - “Electric stations and electric power systems” for the degree of Doctor of Technical Sciences. The scientific consultant for this dissertation was Professor Valery Gennadievich Goldshtein, a well-known personality in Dissernet.

The history of this dissertation begins in the dissertation council D 212.285.03 on the basis of the Ural Federal University. B.N. Yeltsin (Ural Federal University, Ekaterinburg). The meeting went as expected: respectable opponents (Director of the Center for Physical and Technical Problems of Energy of the North B.V. Efimov, Head of the Department of Automated Electrical Systems at UrFU A.V. Pazderin, Rector of the St. Petersburg Energy Institute for Advanced Studies A.I. Tadzhibaev) , dear members of the dissertation council (chairman F.N. Sarapulov, scientific secretary A.M. Zyuzev), all necessary bureaucratic procedures have been followed. The crowning achievement was the decision to award A.S. Vedernikov degree of Doctor of Technical Sciences.

Eyewitnesses from Yekaterinburg talk about the background of the defense: before the start of the meeting, an anonymous message was sent to the dissertation council D 212.285.03 that the dissertation of A.S. Vedernikov, for the most part, is a copy of Andrei Arkadyevich Almendeev’s Ph.D. thesis, defended in 2009 in the dissertation council D 212.217.04 at Samara State Technical University (SamSTU).

We must pay tribute - the received letter was considered by the leadership of the dissertation council, but it was decided not to take it into account and not include it in the dissertation file on the grounds that it is anonymous.

Looking ahead, I will say that if UrFU had simply compared the texts of A.A.’s dissertations by eye. Almendeev and A.S. Vedernikov, then in a couple of minutes it would become clear that the anonymous letter contains reliable information. Subsequently, this was clearly and convincingly confirmed by Dissernet research [1]. By the way, Dissernet additionally discovered many incorrect borrowings from other sources. Needless to say, the dissertation of A.S. Vedernikova turned out to be a very weak work: with the technology of scientific research chosen by A.S. Vedernikov, an original scientific work could not have happened.

In Yekaterinburg, no conclusions were drawn either regarding the anonymous letter or regarding the quality of the dissertation submitted for defense. In fact, dissertation council D 212.285.03 from UrFU made a mistake that could be mildly called an oversight, if not for some circumstances.

To make what has been said clear, one should turn to the personality of the applicant himself, to some other persons and to the events preceding the defense. A.S. Vedernikov works at SamSTU as the head of the Department of Electric Power Plants of the Faculty of Electrical Engineering. Evil tongues link the appointment of A.S. Vedernikov to head it with the patronage of Valentin Pavlovich Stepanov, who was recently the dean of the faculty. At one time V.P. Stepanov was the scientific supervisor of A.S. Vedernikov's Ph.D. thesis. Now he is the head of the Department of Automated Electric Power Systems, where A.S. previously worked. Vedernikov, and now his scientific consultant V.G. Goldstein. As indicated in the abstract, the dissertation work of A.S. Vedernikov was carried out, among other things, at the Department of Nuclear Power Plants.

Further, V.P. Stepanov served as chairman of the dissertation council D 212.217.04 from 2007 to 2012 and defended his thesis by A.A. Almendeev passed just at this time. Moreover, V.G. Goldstein was the official opponent in the defense of A.A. Almendeev and, therefore, was well acquainted with his dissertation. Finally, we note that at the time of A.S.’s defense. Vedernikov's dissertation at UrFU, SamSTU had its own council D 212.217.04, where it would be more convenient to conduct a defense in this specialty. However, in light of the above, it is clear that the defense at SamSTU would immediately turn into a scandal, since the forgery is easily detected.

So, one might think that the head of the department V.P. Stepanov and scientific consultant V.G. Goldstein knew what work they recommended and promoted for defense at UrFU. As is clear from what follows, both the leadership of the dissertation council at UrFU and the opponents were well aware that the scientific work, to which, by the way, they gave positive reviews, could not be recognized as a doctoral dissertation that satisfies the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission.

An appeal was filed against the dissertation council's decision D 212.285.03, which the dissertation council considered and left its decision unchanged. This suggests that either the members of council D 212.285.03 at UrFU are incompetent as specialists, or they are saving the “honor of their uniform” and are ready to commit forgery for this.

After receiving a conclusion from UrFU on the consideration of the complaint, the Higher Attestation Commission sent the dissertation file to A.S. Vedernikov for an additional conclusion to the dissertation council D 512.002.01 on the basis of OJSC Scientific and Technical Center of the Federal Grid Company UES. The meeting of the dissertation council D 512.002.01 took place on April 3, 2014; A video of it is available [2].

Dissertation by A.S. Vedernikov considered this advice on its merits. In other words, ignoring incorrect borrowings (which, perhaps, the council was not aware of), members of the scientific and technical council had to answer the question: is the scientific work (dissertation) of A.S. worthy? Vedernikova has a doctorate or is not worthy.

The council's conclusion was clear: for (worthy) - 1, no - 13 with two invalid ballots. Scientific discussion of members of the scientific council D 512.002.01 and invited specialists on the essence of the work proposed for discussion by A.S. Vedernikova was carried out publicly, objectively, highly professionally and is a credit to this scientific team.

So, we see two approaches to the same work. In the first case (Ural Federal University), decisions were made without concern for the substance of the matter. The second is the professional approach to the problem, demonstrated by council D 512.002.01, which provides an example of how to evaluate the essence of scientific work. Unfortunately, in Russia there are clearly not enough dissertation councils preaching such professionalism.

Russian dissertations are increasingly assessed formally - whether the necessary papers have been prepared correctly, whether the conclusion has been drawn up correctly, and so on. At the same time, the essence of scientific work, its originality, or, conversely, mediocrity, the presence of errors, remain unappreciated. This arrangement plays into the hands of falsifiers and is extremely disadvantageous for honest scientists.

1. www.dissernet.org/publications/summa-vedernikov.htm

2. https://cloud.mail.ru/public/ff4397e44683/Sovet%20STC%20FGC.mp4