Metaplagiat

From this first creative crown, the second comes with the same angels, rulers and the throne, who found another lower sky, completely symmetrical to the original. This second conclave is reproduced in the third, he is in the following, and so until the 365th.

Jorge Luis Borges. Execution of pseudo-vasilide

What kind of miracles we did not have to see in the execution of the permanent dissertation council D 222.020.01 under the standard form. Here is the 71 written out dissertation [ 1 ], protected under the reliable wing of Mikhail Ivanovich Lomakin [ 2 ] - Deputy Chairman of the Warks and Part -Certificate of Deputy Chairman of the Vaca Expert Council for many sins for many sins in the industry and regional economy [ 3 , 4 ], and reinforced concrete refusals to recognize plagiarism plagiarism, because it does not affect the “scientific scientific novelty ”, and only refers to“ well -known information ” - this is the so -called doctrine of Dokukina, named after the ordinary by position, but not by the influence of the dissertation of Alexander Vladimirovich Dokukin [ 5 ], and the urgent request of the latter cannot be called the above conclusion [ 6 ], and the failed attempt to put the mineral resources on behalf of two Deprived of the degree of defendants from the eagle (the same representative of the same Dr. Dokukin [ 7 ]), and the attempt on behalf of Dissernet to run into the Deputy Minister Trubnikov, when he agreed that he should not send an application for the deprivation of the degree to the very advice that awarded her and proposed to amend the provisions on the protection of scientists of the degrees [ 8 ].

It was because of this point that Dissernet, after several unsuccessful attempts [ 9 , 10 ], temporarily stopped submitting applications for degrees assigned to the standard form: there is no reception against Lomakin-Dokukin. However, colleagues outwitted themselves: they so delayed the consideration of the applications already submitted that they overwhelmed the Patience of the Vakov authorities, which was forced to explain with prosecutors who responded to complaints about violation of the deadlines. The disable was closed, and Dissernet opened the boxes of his desk and took out the prepared Cinderelles, waiting in the wings. The updated expert council on economics began to send them to different dissertation councils, many of which supported the statements, agreeing with the applicants that the informed text is not what deserves awarding a scientific degree.

Many, but not all. In some conclusions of the dissociates, a familiar quoted tambourine sounded: “Bu-bo-boo-boo simple presentation of well-known provisions of textbooks ... Bu-bo-boo is not a protective scientific result ... Bu-boo-boo are the well-known scientific results of third parties ... Bu-boo-boo-boo and generally accepted academic concepts ... Bu-boo-boo-boo, a well-known general-the-a-a-a-way nature ... Bu-boo-bo in the shortcomings in the design of the work are technical and cannot serve as the basis for imprisonment of the degree ... ”Attentive reading brought a truly amazing result: these conclusions themselves contain accurate coincidences with the text of one of the standard formations.

A long time ago, four years ago, the Standinforms Disad did not agree to deprive the degree of candidate of economic sciences, a certain G. V. Batenev [ 10 , 11 ] (funny, however, that she then, and possibly, still worked as a senior researcher at the republican research and consulting center of the examination-is the same Rinkese that conducts competitions and examination of scientific research on orders for orders Ministry of Education and Science and other departments). It was a little unusual that in the imprisonment of the dissovetor a letter allegedly written by Galina Vladimirovna himself was abundantly quoted, in which some considerations were described in detail, then the basis of Dokukin’s doctrine formed. I must say that, in principle, this approach could be welcomed: in an ideal situation, a dissocard, and followed by Es VAK should be arbitrators in a dispute between the owner of the degree and those who want to deprive him of this degree. But, of course, it should be a bona fide referee.

And the pieces of this letter and the standard -forming text framing it were discovered in the conclusions adopted on 12/11/2018 by the Disosovet D 212.080.16 on the basis of the Kazan National Research Technological University in the case of D. A. Gayvoronsky [ 12.01.01.2019 by the Dissections of the Russian Economic University named after G.V. Plekhanov in the case of L. A. Chudakov [ 13 ].

“The study of this statement was shown by the existence of gross violations of the requirements established by law. These requirements were established in the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 09.24.2013 No. 842 (as amended on 07/30/2014, which acted at the time of submission of the application) “On the Procedure for the Assistance of Scientific Seeps” (along with the Regulation on the award of scientific degrees). In Art. 67 of this resolution is determined ... ” - writes G. V. Batenev, quoted by the Standotin -Fundamental Warvestment, and leads further a long extract from the resolution.

“The study of this application was shown by the presence of violations of the requirements established by applicable law. These requirements were established in the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 24, 2013 No. 842 “On the Procedure for the Presentation of Scientific Seeps” (along with the “Regulation on the award of academic degrees”). In Art. 67 of this resolution is determined ... ” - writes the Plekhanovsky dissent. (Yes, I see three differences - and you, dear reader?)

“Thus, in the editorial office the Regulations (sic! - MG) on the procedure for the award of scientific degrees (no comma! - MG ) relevant at the time of filing the application, the burden of evidence is certainly assigned to the taxes on the deprivation of the scientific degree, including the application of the documents confirming the arguments indicated in it. The lack of evidence confirming the arguments is an indisputable basis for the deviation of the application, ” the letter of G. V. Bateneva continues.

“Thus, in the editorial office, the provision on the procedure for awarding scientific degrees actual at the time of filing the application, the burden of evidence is certainly assigned to the receiver of the application for deprivation of the degree, including the requirement of the application of documents confirming the arguments indicated in it. The lack of evidence confirming the arguments is an indisputable basis for the deviation of the application, ” continues the Plekhanovsky dissent. (Attentive reader, of course, you noticed repeated grammatical errors and suggested that the authors of the conclusion of the Plekhanovsky dissociety did not write off a paper copy or scan, but made a direct copy from the file.)

“Thus, the application for the deprivation of the scientific degree should, according to the mandatory requirement of the legislation, include documents confirming the applicant’s arguments about unscrupulous borrowing,” the standard form (with lips, more precisely by a pen, G. V. Bateneva) and REU they tell us. Plekhanova.

Standinform already without the help of Galina Vladimirovna writes further: “ As for the assertion of violation of GOST R 7.0.5–2008“ Bibliographic link. General requirements and rules of compilation ”, as well as any other standards - these statements do not apply to the substantiation of awarding a degree, since the Federal Law of 27.132.2002 (SIC! -M.G.)“ On Technical Regulation ” 184-ФЗ, adopted in 2002 (bis! -M. G.), the voluntaryness of the application of national standards is unambiguously declared <... > Thus, since Bateneva G.V. did not take the obligation to comply with the specified GOST, then to impose on him (sic!-MG) his violation is incorrectly guilty . "

“As for the statement of violation of GOST R 7.0.5–2008“ Bibliographic link. General requirements and rules for compiling ”, as well as any other standards - these statements do not apply to the essence of the validity of awarding a degree, since the Federal Law of 27.132.2002“ On Technical Regulation ”No. 184-ФЗ, the voluntary of the use of national Standards < ... > Thus, since Gayvoronsky D. A. did not take the obligation to comply with the specified GOST, it is incorrectly improving this violation, ” another dissent corrects the errors - now the writings.

Patient reader! I will not torment you with the unknown and immediately show you the last fragments of the mosaic. The opponent of the defense of both L. A. Chudakov-Plekhanovsky and A. A. Gayvoronsky-Kazansky was A. V. Dokukin. Both works were performed in the state-owned qualification and retraining of personnel for construction and housing and communal complex and protected in the standard form with a difference of two months: 12/27/2011 and 21.02.2012, respectively. And the supervisor of L. A. Chudakova was V. N. Scheblykin [ 14 ], who was all the same Dr. Dokukin, a scientific consultant in the defense of the doctor on 03/28/2012. The epic about how the General of the FSB Scheblykin was not deprived of the degree, can be read in the recent rooms of the TRV-hobby [ 15 , 16 ]. I will not deprive you of an insightful reader, the opportunity to draw a begging conclusion myself.

We will certainly ask the chairman of the dissertation of KNIT, Professor Sergei Vladimirovich Kiselev, scientist secretary of this council of the assistant professor Alexander Viktorovich Morozov, chairman of the dissoet of REU named after Plekhanov Professor Nikolai Sergeyevich Yashin and Associate Professor Associate Professor Elena Anatolyevna Natsepaeva, as well as members of commissions for the consideration of applications - professors Mikhail Petrovich Prelyuk, Dilbar Shamilevna Sultanova, Elmira Shamilevna Shaimieva (to KNITU) and Igor Mikhailovich Kublin, Alexander Vladimirovich Googlev, Alexander Vladimirovich, Olga Nikolaevna Grimashevich (in the REU) - how it was so inaccurate.

And of course, the facts presented are submitted for consideration by the Expert Council on Economics and the Presidium of Vak. Let's see what they are daring.

Mikhail Gelfand