Translated material
Answer to “Trinity Option” by A.V. Dokukin
Advance notice. Alexander Vladimirovich Dokukin appealed to the editor with a request to publish his commentary on A.V. Zayakin’s note [1], preceding the publication of the final document of the scientific and practical conference “Problems of the quality of scientific work and academic plagiarism” [2].
Professor Dokukin is well known both to readers of TrV-Nauka and to everyone who follows the activities of Dissernet [3]. He was a member of two dissertation councils at Standardinform, the first of which, on economic sciences [4], two years ago finally filled the patience of the Ministry of Education and Science with its actions and was dissolved [5], and the second, on technical sciences [6], was suspended in its activities last fall [7]; he tried to challenge in the Supreme Court a number of orders of the Ministry of Education and Science to deprive him of academic degrees [8]; there are serious reasons to believe that it was he who was the author of the application submitted on behalf of the “Dissernet activist from Yakutsk” to deprive the deputy of his academic degree. Minister of Education and Science G.V. Trubnikov [9–11].
I first became acquainted with the point of view of Professor Dokukin at a meeting of the dissertation council [12], where he proposed rejecting applications for the deprivation of degrees of a number of economists [13–15] on the basis that the copied pieces of text “do not contain scientific novelty” and therefore cannot be considered as borrowed results or materials. This is precisely his contribution to the “Grib-Dokukin-Nizhegorodtsev doctrine.” The experience of Dissernet shows that considerations of this kind were subsequently widely used by a variety of dissertation councils, usually of an economic profile: the idea went to the masses; Moreover, while I was still allowed to attend meetings of the humanitarian section of the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission, I repeatedly heard such statements from a (former) member of the Higher Attestation Commission for Regional and Sectoral Economics, Professor Nizhegorodtsev. Another contribution is a proposal to require notarized copies of all pages of the dissertation that are mentioned in the application for revocation of an academic degree.
I do not see the need to enter into a substantive debate with Professor Dokukin. His arguments, like those of A.A. Ryabov, to whom he refers, were analyzed in detail in the Fifth Dissernet report, published as a separate article [16]. The purpose of this warning is minimal: to remind the reader who the author is, whose arguments are to be read.
Mikhail Gelfand
Zayakin A. To the final document of the International Scientific and Practical Conference “Problems of the quality of scientific work and academic plagiarism.” TrV-Nauka No. 266 (06.11.2018).
https://trv-science.ru/2018/11/06/k-itogovomu-dokumentu-conferencii-26-sep-v-rsuh/Final document of the conference “Problems of quality of scientific work and academic plagiarism”. TrV-Nauka No. 266 (09.10.2018).
https://trv-science.ru/2018/10/09/final-dos-academ-plagiarism/Abalkina A. Standardinform is no longer standard. TrV-Nauka No. 243 (05.12.2017).
https://trv-science.ru/2017/12/05/standartinform-bolshe-ne-po-standartu/http://vak.ed.gov.ru/documents/10179/0/300...pdf/28d6a957-dd7d-47c0-bd07-9c5ce11edf12
M. G. Process. TrV-Nauka No. 201 (04/05/2016).
https://trv-science.ru/2016/04/05/process/Zayakin A. Who plagiarizes Dissernet? New newspaper No. 3 (01/15/2018).
https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2018/01/11/75113-kto-plagiatit-dissernetZayakin A. “Let the minister better check the rectors of universities.” TrV-Nauka No. 245 (01/16/2018).
https://trv-science.ru/2018/01/16/pust-ministr-luchshe-proverit-rektorov-vuzov/https://www.facebook.com/andrew.zayakin/posts/10215434573284236
Kotlyar P. “System generation of dissertation crap.” Gazeta.Ru (21.10.2015)
https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2015/10/21_a_7832969.shtmlGelfand M. Unfair borrowings in dissertations. Education and Science, Vol. 20, No. 3 (2018)
https://www.dissernet.org/publications/nedobrosovestnye_zaimstvovaniya_v_dissertatsionnyh_rabotah.htm
I read with interest the publication by A.V. Zayakin “Towards the final document of the international scientific and practical conference “Problems of the quality of scientific work and academic plagiarism.”
Since A.V. Zayakin calls for an open scientific discussion on issues of academic plagiarism, touching on the views attributed to me, I consider it necessary to express my position on this issue.
Firstly, I consider it necessary to comment on the theses of A.V. Zayakin regarding the so-called Grib-Dokukin-Nizhegorodtsev doctrine. I find this name unacceptable. Firstly, I am not familiar with the statements of Grib and Nizhegorodtsev on the problem of incorrect borrowings (“academic plagiarism”). Secondly, the theses attributed to A.V. Zayakin are not fully shared by me. Thirdly, my position on this issue is not original, my views are completely based, as I have repeatedly pointed out to A.V. Zayakin, on the works of Alexey Alexandrovich Ryabov, candidate of legal sciences, associate professor, head of the legal examination service of the Commissioner under the President of the Russian Federation for protection of the rights of entrepreneurs, in particular, in an article in the journal “Civilist” No. 4 for 2013 entitled “A dissertation as an object of copyright” and in a chapter in a collective monograph published at Moscow State Law Academy, “Intellectual Property Law: Current Issues: Monograph” under total ed. E.A. Morgunova. - M.: NORMA, INFRA-M, 2014.
The article was posted by the author on the blog at the following addresses:
https://ar-ombudsman.livejournal.com/1801.html
https://ar-ombudsman.livejournal.com/2137.html
Thus, the doctrine I set out at the meetings of the dissertation council should be called the Ryabov doctrine, or, in extreme cases, the Ryabov-Dokukin doctrine, taking into account some minor clarifications I made to Ryabov’s statements. The fact that A.V. Zayakin is well aware of the source of my views, but the article does not contain a reference to Ryabov’s works, I consider as a desire to avoid discussion with Ryabov’s doctrine on the substance of the issue.
As for the essence of the theses attributed to me under the name “Grib-Dokukin-Nizhegorodtsev doctrine”, I can explain the following:
“ Plagiarism is not plagiarism if it is allowed in the introductory part of the dissertation .” I didn't say anything like that. Incorrect borrowing of someone else's scientific result or material is incorrect, regardless of its location in the dissertation. At the same time, indeed, the specific content of the review parts of the study makes such a violation less likely.
“ Plagiarism is not plagiarism if fragments containing well-known, trivial statements are plagiarized .” I agree with this point, as does A.A. Ryabov.
“ Plagiarism is not plagiarism if the plagiarized fragments are “not in mutual connection” (whatever that means) with the provisions submitted for defense .” I have never stated anything like this and I do not understand the specified wording. Perhaps this relates to the analysis of the scientific validity of the work (its novelty, etc.), but I do not know of a single case of filing a ZOLUS on grounds other than violation of the procedure for using borrowed results, with the exception of V.R. Medinsky’s ZOLUS, therefore this The question has no practical significance yet.
“ The presence of plagiarism in itself is not sufficient to deprive one of an academic degree .” I have not spoken on this issue, but, indeed, I believe that the decision on deprivation must be made by the relevant authorities individually each time, based on consideration of the severity of the violations, therefore no violation in itself can be automatically sufficient for deprivation. The Regulations on the awarding of academic degrees clearly state that non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations may be grounds for deprivation of a degree, but is not the basis: clause 65 “ Persons to whom academic degrees were awarded in violation of the criteria established by clauses 9 – 14 of these Regulations may be deprived of these degrees by decision of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation ."
“ Only experts in the relevant discipline can demand the revocation of an academic degree for plagiarism .” According to the current legislation, applications for deprivation can be filed by any person, so I, of course, cannot share a statement that is contrary to the law, although I believe that in the future this point may be debatable.
“ If the victim of plagiarism does not object to the use of his text, then he cannot be deprived of his academic degree .” I never claimed anything like that.
Secondly, I want to briefly state my true views on this issue, following the analysis of A.A. Ryabov.
1. Since the Regulations regulate the procedure for using “ scientific results or materials ” of third parties, a violation of the procedure for use (“academic plagiarism”) would be the borrowing of scientific results - according to the Federal Law “On Science...”, this is “ a product of scientific and (or) scientific- technical activity, containing new knowledge or solutions and recorded on any information medium .” In this regard, A.A. Ryabov rightly writes:
“ The restriction on the anonymous use of other people’s scientific materials and results in dissertations applies only if these “borrowed” materials and results are new or original, i.e. obtained as a result of scientific research, creative scientific activity of another author. There is no point in establishing sanctions for the use of materials or results without indicating their author, if they do not have signs of novelty or originality (i.e., in their essence cannot be truly called scientific), or are so strongly woven into the fabric of the history of science and culture , that their authorship is obvious to any educated person (for example, the authorship of the heliocentric system of the universe or the law of universal gravitation).
For example, in scientific works in the field of law, traditionally, a large volume is occupied by the presentation of normative material, to one degree or another adapted in relation to the purposes of presentation, its doctrinal interpretation. Obviously, this kind of presentation will not necessarily be covered by the concept of original scientific materials or results. The materials, in this case normative ones, are generally known, and their presentation (and sometimes doctrinal interpretation) does not always form a new, original scientific result. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the interpretation of legal norms does not create new knowledge and reveals only what was originally inherent in legal matter.
The abstract parts of scientific research will also not have the characteristics of original scientific material or results. The originality of abstracts can only relate to the “formal” part of a work of science, if the review of scientific positions on the research topic is original in creative layout or literary treatment .”
It should be taken into account that the norm of both the old and new provisions requires reference to either the author or the source of borrowing. Thus, if we are talking about a reference to the author of a scientific result, then, in relation to one scientific result (regardless of the length and form of its presentation - text, formulaic, graphic, tabular), it is necessary to mention the name of its author once or, at the choice of the dissertation author , indication of the source from which the result was borrowed (in this case, regardless of whether the source of borrowing is primary or secondary, i.e. a retelling of the original position of the author of the original result). Of course, the text of the dissertation must be structured in such a way that the reader can understand which fragment relates to the scientific result of a given author. This can be achieved by different means - quotation marks, introductory and concluding words (for example: “according to Ivanov...” marks the beginning of the presentation of Ivanov’s scientific result, and “as the analysis of Ivanov’s opinion shows” marks the completion of the presentation of Ivanov’s author’s result and the transition to its analysis by the author of the dissertation ; a popular form is to preface the scientific result with a reference to the author’s name, and end the fragment with a statement of the scientific result with a reference to the source of borrowing). Of course, in the advisory document issued by the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission as a commentary on the 2013 Regulations, it is proposed to use more strict forms of citation in the interests of simplifying the reader’s understanding, however, any option of citing the author or source of borrowing is completely legitimate from the standpoint of the norms of both new and more than the old Regulations, therefore its use cannot be a basis for deprivation of a degree.
The above opinion of A.A. Ryabov was widely circulated by a number of people in the media, formed the basis for a number of decisions of dissertation councils approved by the Expert Councils and the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission, and formed the basis for orders of the Ministry of Education and Science, including in such landmark precedent cases as the consideration of ZOLUS Sviridenko O .M., thus, it can be considered confirmed by the entire practice of functioning of the scientific certification system.
2. A special issue is the analysis of violations associated with the use of “ideas and developments” made in collaboration. Here I will formulate my opinion, which is not based on the doctrine of A.A. Ryabov.
Firstly, according to the opinion of a number of scientists, which I share, in the Regulations of 2002 (on the procedure for awarding academic degrees), which was in force at the time of the defense of the vast majority of contested dissertations, two hypotheses can be distinguished in relation to the structure of the legal norm regulating the issue of the use of borrowings.
The first is “borrowing materials or individual results.”
The second is “the use in the dissertation of ideas or developments belonging to co-authors with whom scientific works were jointly written.” Obviously, we can talk about “borrowing” when it comes to other people’s “materials or individual results.” In relation to one’s own or collective “ideas and developments” the term “use” is used.
Further, in relation to the first norm regulating the borrowing of materials or individual results, the legislator in the disposition of this norm prescribes the following behavior: the applicant is obliged to refer to the author and (or) source of borrowing.
In relation to the second norm, which regulates the use of one’s own or collective ideas and developments, the legislator in the disposition of the norm prescribes the following behavior: the applicant is obliged to note this circumstance in the dissertation.
The second norm, which describes the requirement to mention the fact of using one’s own personal or collective ideas and developments, does not have a sanction, unlike the first, according to which the sanction is prescribed: “ In the case of using borrowed material without reference to the author and (or) source of borrowing, the dissertation is removed from consideration by the dissertation council without the right to re-defend the said dissertation ” (by analogy: in the case of consideration of an already defended work, a possible sanction is the satisfaction of the application for deprivation of the degree), i.e. the norm is advisory in nature. As for the civil legal side of the issue, according to Art. 1258 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “A work created in collaboration is used jointly by the co-authors, unless otherwise provided by agreement between them.”
Thus, when considering works protected under the old regulations (until 2013), in our opinion, there can be no talk of deprivation of a degree if we are talking about the use of ideas or developments created in co-authorship, regardless of the presence or absence of references on this circumstance in the dissertation. Proof of the very fact of co-authorship is quite sufficient, for example in the form of joint publications available in the Russian State Library or deposited in a scientific organization, even if these publications are not noted in the dissertation and abstract, for example, due to their non-compliance with the requirements for the procedure for publishing basic scientific results (for example, joint the results are published in the form of research reports, popular science and educational publications). At the same time, current legislation does not require any mandatory division of scientific results between co-authors. Similarly, the basis for deprivation of a degree for the use of joint scientific results cannot be insufficient completeness of publication of these results - for example, if the main results are presented in abstract in a joint article, and in more detail in the dissertations of co-authors. I consider the filing of applications to revoke the degree of persons who defended dissertations on the basis of results obtained in co-authorship to be fundamentally incorrect, contrary to the entire established co-authorship practice in Russian science and aimed at undermining the stability of the scientific certification system. The same applies to submitting applications to persons connected by scientific supervision, since, according to the established practice in domestic science, the scientific supervisor and his dissertation candidate take an active part in each other’s scientific activities, i.e. are actual co-authors, regardless of the completeness of the publication of joint scientific results. The very fact of scientific leadership should be sufficient to recognize the existence of co-authorship and, thereby, eliminating the requirement of mandatory reference to the source of borrowings, violation of which may be punishable by deprivation of a degree.
Secondly, with regard to applications for deprivation of a degree in relation to dissertations defended under the new Regulations (i.e. starting from 2013), paragraph 38 prescribes sanctions in case of all types of violations of the rules on references to other people’s results or ideas and developments obtained in co-authorship (in case of non-compliance with the requirements established by paragraph 14 of these Regulations, and (or) the presence in the dissertation of unreliable information about the works published by the applicant for an academic degree, which set out the main scientific results of the dissertation. Such a dissertation is removed from consideration by the dissertation council without the right of re-protection "), therefore, in relation to these works, the very fact of co-authorship is no longer enough and it is necessary to reflect the fact of the use of materials in the work. According to established practice, a sufficient form of such reference to joint ideas and developments is the listing of joint scientific works in the abstract.
Thirdly, I would like to note that A.V. Zayakin’s statement regarding the fact that “ The points of the “Grib-Dokukin-Nizhegorodtsev doctrine” were analyzed in detail in the “Regulation” section. Speakers of the session: Ph.D. legal Sciences, Ved. expert at the Institute of Legal Regulation Problems of the Higher School of Economics Ekaterina Alekseevskaya, Ph.D. legal Sciences, Professor of the Higher School of Economics in St. Petersburg Alexey Liverovsky, Director of the Institute of Precedent, Doctor of Law Alexander Vereshchagin, Ph.D. legal Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Intellectual Rights, Moscow State Law Academy named after. Kutafina Dmitry Ogorodov, Dr. legal sciences, prof. Higher School of Economics Mikhail Krasnov, Ph.D. legal sciences, prof. Ilya Shablinsky, Honorary Worker of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, Ph.D. legal scientists Galina Tarasova provided convincing evidence [ 10 ] of the insignificance of the provisions of the “Grib-Dokukin-Nizhegorodtsev doctrine”, their scientific, ethical, legal and logical inconsistency ” is completely incorrect and designed for the reader’s unfamiliarity with the adopted final document.
Consideration of the contents of this document shows that at the meeting of the legal section a number of key issues related to the assessment of bad faith borrowings were not considered at all, in particular, issues of the protectability of original scientific results and the protectability of well-known provisions, issues of the specifics of assessing results obtained in co-authorship, etc. . There, completely different issues are considered, most of which relate not to current law enforcement, but to possible legislative reform: in particular, E.I. Alekseevskaya defends the need to transfer consideration of ZOLUS to another dissertation council. A.N. Vereshchagin raises an interesting question about what circle of people should be able to file applications for deprivation of an academic degree. At the same time, he rightly points out the possibility of abuse of the applicant's right and proposes to combat this with the help of an application fee. I completely agree with A.N. Vereshchagin regarding such a threat - abuse of law in the form of mass submission of obviously unfounded applications, but I propose to legitimize another measure to combat them - by analogy with sanctions against dissertation councils (suspension of activities for two violations) and against scientific supervisors (deprivation of the opportunity to be members of dissertation councils for one deprivation of the degree of a supervised person) introduce a loss of the right to submit ZOLUS in case of rejection of one previously submitted application for a period of 10 years.
Further, D.V. Ogorodov rightly points out that the struggle for the compliance of dissertations with established requirements is the protection of public legal interest, which differs from the protection of private interests of individuals - the authors of scientific results. I completely agree with this and see no subject for dispute.
Further, I.G. Shablinsky discussed the issue of organizing the work of the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission into sections. Various authors then discussed various ethical issues, without any definite conclusions. And finally, G.V. Tarasova rightly emphasizes that cases of joint publications should be studied to determine whether these publications were carried out “retroactively”, after the appearance of an application for deprivation of an academic degree, as a form of protection. Contrary to the statement of A.V. Zayakin, no other issues were considered within the framework of this conference session.
In general, to briefly summarize, we can say: I consider it possible to deprive a degree for borrowing original scientific results of third parties without reference to the author or source of borrowing in relation to dissertations defended before 2013, and for dissertations defended after 2013 (under the new Regulations) , in addition, for the use of scientific results obtained jointly with co-authors without indicating this fact in the dissertation and/or abstract.
As for ways to improve the scientific certification system, this is a separate topic for discussion.
A.V.Dokukin