Experts confirm that Dr Olesia Mihai (formerly Lupu) from “Al. I Cuza” University, Iasi, Romania, plagiarized extensively within her PhD thesis (April 2005, then a PhD student) the PhD thesis from 1981 of Prof Jay W. Ruud, at the time at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA.
As confirmed by the experts below, including Professor Ruud himself, hundreds of pages have been lifted by copy/pasting. Out of 180 pages of actual content, close to 100% of them were identified as Prof Ruud’s original work, as one can tell from the highlighted thesis compared against Prof Ruud’s thesis (also highlighted).
It is worth mentioning that the original PhD thesis of Prof Ruud is not available online. It is stored as a microfilm and can be only ordered and purchased from ProQuest . . .
Prof Liana Mos from the Faculty of Medicine Pharmacy and Dentistry from “Vasile Goldis” Western University, Arad, Romania, together with 6 other authors, were identified to have plagiarized extensively within their article entitled “Cytokine and atherogenesis“, published by the “Arad Medical Journal” in 2009, as confirmed by two international experts below.
Among the 7 authors are:
The full list of authors is found in the Report section further below.
Among other sanctions to be applied to the journal and to the authors, Dr Autieri and Dr Liatchko below recommend that the authors should be cut off from funding sources and blocked from obtaining promotions. From the list above we can see that a Professor became Rector of the University the moment that this article was published. We can only speculate about the fate should this case had been surfaced earlier . . .
This case refers to 4 works published in the period 2006-2007, revealing serious breaches of ethical academic conduct, including multi-submission, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and copyright violations, as confirmed by 4 international experts after careful and independent investigation.
The content of all 4 papers is virtually the same, although the title and the authorship changes from one paper to the next. Moreover, two new authors, Ecaterina Andronescu and Sorin Jinga, both from the Polytechnic University of Bucharest, are added on the last 3 subsequent re-publications of the original article, with essentially no new contribution. As the experts mentioned, this is seen as plagiarism of the initial work.
The papers have been published in two Elsevier journals (Thin Solid Film and Journal of the European Ceramic Society), the IEEE International Semiconductor Conference, and a Romanian Academy journal (Romanian Journal of Information Science and Technology) . . .
Acest caz se refera la doua situatii de incalcare a eticii si conduitei academice, avand si consecinte legale, la Facultatea de Stiinte Economice (FSE) din Universitatea Petrol-Gaze Ploiesti (UPG).
Prima vizeaza acordarea abuziva de note de catre decanul FSE, Prof Ion Iarca, la discipline unde nu este titular. A doua arata existenta unor studenti care sunt in acelasi timp si cadre didactice, predand si examinand grupele de studenti din care fac parte.
La 1 Mai 2012, Prof Florin Oprea demisioneaza din Senatul UPG, citand apararea infractiunii penale si secretizarea raportului comisiei de analiza de catre Senatul UPG. Ambele situatii sunt aduse la cunostinta Ministerului Educatiei prin sesizarea facuta in 12 Mai 2012 de Prof Oprea. Ministerul nu a oferit inca un raspuns, desi termenele legale au fost depasite . . .
The offending paper is a conference proceedings paper authored by Aurelia Cristina Nechifor and Ecaterina Andronescu, the current minister of research of Romania, published in 2003 at the 13th Romanian International Conference on Chemistry and Chemical Engineering.
As can be seen below, 7 international experts in the field confirm that the work constitutes plagiarism and falsification of data.
[30 Nov 2012] Emeritus Professor Ian J. Bruce offered the 7th review.
The 2003 conference paper by Nechifor and Andronescu was found by experts to plagiarize 3 previous works: - a PhD thesis from 2001, pages 18-19,
- a journal paper from 2001, page 1 ,
- a Source-#3-1993-Page-3 from 1993, page 3. The latter was published by members of the same Nechifor family . . .
This is a grant application for a nationally funded project in Romania, signed off by 4 (four) Romanian institutions, as part of the Partnership Research Programme PCCA 2011. It was suspected of plagiarizing 5 international works. As usual, a number of international researchers are asked to review the conduct.
The proposal was asking for 465,000 Euro (2 MILLION RON) from the public budget, the maximum that could be claimed, as specified in the call for proposals. Of this sum, roughly 116,000 Euros/year were planned for salaries (excluding indirect costs) for 4.5 person-month over 2.5 years (see table 6). Each of the four institutions justify 2 persons. One institution was asking 4 times more the amount for salaries than the other three.
Also read the Nature article and the Adevarul article (English Translation), by Dr Alison Abbott and Liviu Avram respectively, the two correspondents we collaborated with for this case. Details below . . .
Editorial summary: This article was published by authors from the University of Pharmacy and Medicine in Targu-Mures, Romania, which include the current Rector of the University, Prof Leonard Azamfirei, in the Romanian journal Acta Medica Marisiensis, vol 57, no 5, 2011, pp 460-462.
Large amounts of copy-paste plagiarism were identified by several reviewers. Strikingly, some statistical data and also numerical results are identical to the ones found in the original paper published 4 years earlier by the authors Stachon et al. Until this date, these numerical data have not been verified as true. Identical reproduction of numerical data falls under data fabrication and duplication.
Prof Leonard Azamfirei is now the Rector of the University of Pharmacy and Medicine in Targu-Mures, Romania. He was formerly the Vice-Dean for Scientific Research of the same university . . .
This article was published with the contribution the Vice-Rector (Prof Klara Branzaniuc) and the Senate President of the University (Prof Constantin Copotoiu) – the latter acting as the PhD Supervisor.
Plagiarism of the ‘copy-paste’ type is evident to a large extent, including sources that have been copied incorrectly. The very pronounced similarity between some numerical data is highly suspicious and an extremely serious matter (see data fabrication and duplication) and have cast doubts on the truthfulness of the reported results.
Prof Klara Branzaniuc was at the time of writing and continues to be the Vice-Rector and President of the Scientific Council at the University of Pharmacy and Medicine in Targu-Mures, Romania . . .
This article was produced by Dr Anghel while still a PhD student and was published in the Romanian Journal of Communication and Public Relation, vol. 11, no. 2 (16), 2009, pp. 109-116 (online, local copy retrieved 6/8/2012). Experts in Media and Education studies confirm that Dr Anghel extensively plagiarised sentences and paragraphs from different sources, without quoting or referencing the copied texts in an ethically accepted manner.
Besides Dr Anghel’s paper, the same journal issue also publishes a 19 pages paper on plagiarism by Octavian Rujoiu: “Academic Dishonesty: Copy – Paste method. Shame and Guilt among Romanian high school students”, p. 45.
Dr Anghel was awarded the PhD title and is, at the time of this writing, Media Policy Counsellor at the National Audiovisual Council of Romania . . .
This post presents the PhD thesis of the Romanian Prime Minister, Dr Victor Ponta, which includes over 100 pages of copy-pasted material from at least three sources.
A few months ago, this case sparked a debate about whether doctoral theses or journal articles in Law should be exempt from observing ethical norms common in other scientific fields. The case was analysed by 3 committees: the National Ethics Council, the University of Bucharest (which conferred the PhD title in 2003) and the National Council for the Certification of University Titles, Diplomas and Certificates. The first concluded that no plagiarism is noticeable, while the second and third denounced the work as a clear breach of academic standards in the form of plagiarism.
The academic community publicly condemned the misconduct, sought the Prime Minister’s demise and signed several petitions to this effect. The Prime Minister has not, as yet, stepped down, nor was his Dr title revoked . . .