1) http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/108902_en.html
2) http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/110478_en.html
3) http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/101280_en.html
4) http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/103464_en.html

I would like to see that Nature, in its scientific impartiality, would be interested to publish about using a fake doctor title by Norica Carmen Godja, a manager of scientific area from an Austrian company, even is a Romanian with the Austrian citizenship, in order to get funded by EU programs-Clean Sky.
Her fake doctor title was changed by EU Commission in Mrs after I wrote more times, but not this is a problem. The problem is maybe more grave than that in which someone wrote the references at the end of dissertation. Using a fake doctor title is named imposture and it is punished by law. Why nobody noticed this?

I ask how it is possible to use a fake academic title and to be still a manager of scientific area and get funded by EU research programs?

http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/110478_en.html

Coordinator: CEST KOMPETENZZENTRUM FUR ELEKTROCHEMISCHE OBERFLACHENTECHNOLOGIE GMBHÖSTERREICH
Administrative contact: Norica-carmen GODJA (Mrs)
Viktor-Kaplan-Strasse 2, WIENER NEUSTADT, ÖSTERREICH
Tel: +43-26222226618
Fax: +43-26222226650
Email: Contact

http://www.nature.com/news/romanian-science-in-free-fall-1.13579

http://science.slashdot.org/story/13/08/30/179209/romanian-science-in-freefall

Norica Carmen Godja, manager of scientific area at CEST-Wiener Neustadt, Austria, with a CV that can be found here http://www.zukunftsakademie.or.at/media/com_eventbooking/cv_dipl.-ing.%20norica-carmen%20godja.pdf is a graduated of the Faculty of Textiles – leather treatment.

She is getting EU projects in electrochemistry engineering using a FAKE doctor title.

http://cordis.europa.eu/projects/rcn/108902_en.html
Coordinator: CEST KOMPETENZZENTRUM FUR ELEKTROCHEMISCHE OBERFLACHENTECHNOLOGIE GMBHÖSTERREICH
Administrative contact: Norica-carmen GODJA (Dr)
Viktor-Kaplan-Strasse 2, WIENER NEUSTADT, ÖSTERREICH
Tel: +43-26222226618
Email: Contact

The title of this project is hilarious and wrong from scientific point of view.
Chromium free surface pre-treatments and sealing of Tartaric Sulphuric Anodizing-

Dr Norica Carmen Godja

The pre-treatments refer to a free surface of Chromium?a free surface is: the surface of a fluid that is subject to constant perpendicular normal stress and zero parallel shear stress, such as the boundary between two homogenous fluids, for example liquid water and the air in the Earth’s atmosphere. Unlike liquids, gases cannot form a free surface on their own(Wikipedia). We can not beleive that the CEST’s Chromium used is forming a free surface.

Chromium refers to a metalic state (0) but the pre-treatments refers to an electrolyte containing chromate(CrO4)2- with Cr(VI). So, it might be chromate instead of chromium. This confusion is annoying for a chemist.

Then – Tartaric Sulphuric Anodizing- which one is anodizing here? The Tartaric Sulphuric? I really can not beleive it. It might be Tartaric Sulphuric Acid (TSA) – anodizing instead of acid is another annoying error.

Sealing of Tartaric Sulphuric Anodizing – who is sealing here? The Tartaric Sulphuric Anodizing? The sealing is of the aluminium oxide pores formed during of anodization process.

Conclusion: not any undergraduated of the Faculty of Textiles could be a scientific manager in chemistry/physics and more, a doctor.

“Dr” Norica Carmen Godja uses to fire the researchers with scientific studies (doctor and professors) maybe she wants to be the only one scientist who remains at CEST.
If the scientific meaning of the title looks as this one, how would be the results of research?

Bellow there are three proposals on a similar topic, all of them looking also very similar

1. Chromium free surface pre-treatments and sealing of Tartaric Sulphuric Anodizing

Dr Norica Carmen Godja

Objective: Corrosion of Al has to be counteracted by first anodizing the Al parts and applying further protective coatings. Anodized aluminium is normally further processed with a sealing as a final step after anodizing. A hot water sealing process is one of the widely used methods. However in order to close (seal) the pores in the aluminium oxide anodized layer for corrosion protection a process involving boiling water containing chromate is still commonly used. Cr(VI)-based sealing solutions have been employed for several decades, but remain one of the most effective and commonly-used methods to improve corrosion resistance of anodized aluminium. Alternative sealing methods have also been proposed for example with Ni(II), Co(II), Ni(II) and Co(II), rare earth salts alkali metal fluorides, alkanolamine salts of phosphonic acids, Cr(III), fatty acids, silicates, etc. Kendig and Buchheit indicate that 45 of the 92 naturally occurring elements have been considered as replacements for Cr(VI) in conversion coatings on aluminium. In general these approaches have not been as successful as the Cr(VI) sealing. Also it should be noted that Ni(II), Co(II) and fluorides are not without health implications, whereas most organic molecules would be expected to have limited lifetimes under the extreme conditions (UV radiation, low pressure, large temperature range) experience by commercial aircraft during operation.
Therefore, of the previously identified approaches Cr(III)-containing or silicate-forming sealing solutions are preferred options. Encouraging results were obtained with deposition of films of CeO2.2 H2O on aluminium alloys in a few minutes at room temperature with or without catalyst, though the performances still do not equal those of CCC. Detailed investigations and characterization of the obtained will be performed. The optimized sealing and pre-treatments process will be applied to a flat test panel of 384 x 742 mm.

2. Corrosion protection of Aluminium unpainted parts: development of an appropriated Cr free sealing process on thin SAA layer (5 µm)

Dr Erich Kny

Objective: Corrosion of Al has to be counteracted by first anodizing the Al parts and applying further protective coatings. During anodizing, Al reacts with the electrolyte and a layer of aluminium oxide is formed, which is highly porous and is subject to corrosive attack. Therefore, anodized Al is normally further processed with a sealing as a final step. Sealed SAA industrial processes providing thicker layers (~10 µm) are already in the market, but the missing step is to develop a well-suited process for thin layers ( 5 µm) that meets the corrosion resistance requirements.
Hot water sealing is one of the widely used methods. However in order to close (seal) the pores in the anodized layer for corrosion protection a process involving boiling water containing chromate is still commonly used. Cr(VI)-based sealing solutions have been used for several decades, but remain one of the most effective and commonly-used methods to improve corrosion resistance of anodized Al. Alternative sealing methods have also been proposed, e.g. with Ni(II), Co(II), Ni(II) + Co(II), rare earth salts, alkali metal fluorides, alkanolamine phosphonates, Cr(III), fatty acids, silicates, etc. It should be noted that Ni(II), Co(II) and fluorides are not without health implications, whereas most organic molecules would be expected to have limited lifetimes under the extreme conditions (UV radiation, low pressure, large temperature range) experience by commercial aircraft during operation. Therefore, of the previously identified approaches Cr(III)-containing or silicate-forming sealing solutions are preferred options. Encouraging results were obtained with deposition of films of CeO2x2 H2O, though the performance still does not equal those of CCC. Characterization with methods such as SEM, EIS, AFM-SECM will lead to more detailed understanding of sealing and corrosion mechanisms and therefore optimizing sealing parameters with respect to corrosion resistance and minimized energy consumption.

3. Chromate free and energy efficient sealing of TSA anodic films for corrosion protection

Dr Erich Kny

Objective: Corrosion of Al has to be counteracted by first anodizing the Al parts and applying further protective coatings. During anodizing, aluminium reacts with the electrolyte and a layer of aluminium oxide is formed on the surface of the aluminium specimen. This coating is highly porous and is subject to attack from the environment and corrosive elements. Therefore, anodized aluminium is normally further processed with a sealing as a final step after anodizing. A hot water sealing process is one of the widely used methods. However in order to close (seal) the pores in the aluminium oxide anodized layer for corrosion protection a process involving boiling water containing chromate is still commonly used. Cr(VI)-based sealing solutions have been employed for several decades, but remain one of the most effective and commonly-used methods to improve corrosion resistance of anodized aluminium. Alternative sealing methods have also been proposed for example with Ni(II), Co(II), Ni(II) and Co(II), rare earth salts, alkali metal fluorides, alkanolamine salts of phosphonic acids, Cr(III), fatty acids, silicates, etc. Already about 45 of the 92 naturally occurring elements have been considered as replacements for Cr(VI) in conversion coatings on aluminium. In general these approaches have not been as successful as the Cr(VI) sealing. Also it should be noted that Ni(II), Co(II) and fluorides are not without health implications, whereas most organic molecules would be expected to have limited lifetimes under the extreme conditions (UV radiation, low pressure, large temperature range) experience by commercial aircraft during operation. Therefore, of the previously identified approaches Cr(III)-containing or silicate-forming sealing solutions in REACH compliant processes are preferred options. An adaption of the electrical TSA cycle for improved corrosion resistance without negative impact on fatigue life of components will be developed. Detailed investigations and characterization of the obtained corrosion protected surfaces via ESEM, Raman + IR-spectroscopy and ESCA will be performed.

I hope that integru.org is a site addressed to universal plagiarism and not just to Romanian one.
Let’s talk about more shortcomings of the evaluation system in research and research, generally not just in Romania. I have met all of these in Italy, Austria, Romania….
.Articles with ten co-authors for which worked just one or two;
.Projects in which are employed “cheap “researchers (usually from Eastern) on very low salaries and the key-researchers of the projects doing nothing else than collecting high salaries, eventually the researchers having no rights to publish;
.Researchers who are employed just on the basis of uncompetitiveness and obedientness criteria – understanding less about projects ensure uncompetitiveness later;
.Commissions according funds created on the basis of friendship, etc
.PhD students with no basic knowledge becoming the next scientists

and the list is open

I also disagree with Dorin assessment that plagiarism at this scale has been the norme in Romania for the past century. Plagiarism did exist before 1989, but it has grown at an explosive rate only after the political changes.

With this caveat in place, I do agree that plagiarism has reached epidemic proportions in Romanian academia, and there is a real danger that the culture at large may become imune to the stigma attached to this phenomenon.

There is resistance to this phenomenon from within the academia, mostly (but not only) from pre-1989 trained individuals. However, the immense political pressures render these efforts impotent. For example, the University of Bucharest took up the case of Mr. Ponta and concluded it was plagiarism but the powers that be thought otherwise. This to me shows that the academic autonomy of Romanian university is de-facto non existent.

What can be done?

I think that Integru.org is a first important step for two reasons. It brings back in the spotlight the the stigma and immorality of plagiarism. More and more newspapers are quoting Integru findings. The recent resignation in Iasi shows that the public opprobrium can have an effect.

As importantly, Integru is at this moment the only place where intellectuals from inside Romania and beyond its borders can approach and hope that suspicions of plagiarism will be given the attention they deserve, without the fear of political intimidation I sensed in some of my friends bravely on the academic barricades in Romania. Integru makes it easier for the Romanian diaspora to help their colleagues back in Romania who still care about this issue.

Integru alone cannot dramatically change things. Some structural changes are badly needed. Real academic autonomy springs to mind. Rigorously enforced academic honor codes of the type used in many US universities can also help. This is a bit tricky because enforcing ethical standards requires individuals whose reputation is beyond suspicion.

Next, we need to have some concrete data to better gauge the right prescription.

While many of us believe that plagiarism is widespread, none of us have a real idea what widespread means. Take for example the doctoral dissertations in the last 20 years: how many of them are plagiarized, 1%, 10%, 20%? I have to admit that I do not know what organization in Romania can carry such an investigation.

Are the very bureaucratic promotion criteria and the dismal lack of resources aggravating the plagiarism phenomenon? If say a chemist or a biologist is to publish in a high impact journal, yet she has no appropriate resources to conduct research, how can that person make genuine and honest progress?

Im my view there is no immediate solution to this problem, and at some point politicians need to get involved. There has to be a critical mass in the Parliament that thinks that this course leads to the destruction of Romanian education, culture and reputation. How big are the odds of this happening? In my estimation they are discouragingly low. On the other hand I am sure of one thing: if everyone is quiet about this, nothing will change. That is why I am a bit more optimistic since Integru appeared on the scene.

I’d like to comment on Professor Galloway’s point, which basically says that prevention is better than reaction.

While principially that’s very true, I think that concentrating most or all of the efforts in prevention wouldn’t quite work right now in Romania due to the already wide spread phenomena and the lack of sanctions, but most importantly, the lack of authority. Currently in Romania, sanctions would have to first start being applied in order to discourage others. Then you can build a prevention system on top of that. The problem is that there is no actual authority to implement sanctions: the head of the government has shamelessly copy/pasted his PhD thesis, has been exposed, reviewed by international experts in his field, and still refutes all accusations, and has been supported by the minister of research and education, most heads of institutions, etc ever since they (effectively) overthrew the former government last year (*) and then were voted by the people with an overwhelming majority …

Such a climate makes one wonder “what can really be done to stop this?” And let’s not forget, stopping it woulnd’t be enough, we need to improve it after that. Sure, prevention is better than reaction, but we’re facing a really deep and wide problem which requires actual measures.

In my opinion, these crooks exist because the people allow them to … the people voted for Victor Ponta (plagiarist, then prime minister, still prime minister) and for Ecaterina Andronescu (plagiarist, then minister of research, now puppeteer)! So as Dorin correctly said, the people too are responsible for the current state. In my opinion, the public perception has to change before we can hope for any actual change. How do we do that?

Well, dear Professor Galloway, to me it seems like the hope is coming from you and authoritative voices like you. I’m not saying it’s the only way (although frankly, I can’t quite pinpoint another) but this could really work. Like Dorin, I also hope that more of us realize the importance of this and start contributing.

I too appreciate this platform, Integru.org, and I too appreciate you and the heavy-weights like you for having taken the time to offer reviews on Integru.org.

Tudor.

(*) I should point out that the previous minister of research, Dr Daniel Funeriu, this time a respectable academic internationally (unlike the atrocious and plagiarist Ecaterina Andronescu), made some very impressive steps towards cleaning and improving the romanian academic system, including prevention e.g. by requiring external international reviewers for research grants. It was going in the right direction. Andronescu reversed most of his measures after Ponta and his crooked gang came to power last year, by issuing ministerial orders. For example, following Integru.org’s Review 5 of the plagiariazed research grant asking for 600,000 USD of public funds, Ecaterina Andronescu eliminated the foreign reviewers saying they are too expensive. The funny thing is that all reviewers have been paid the same sum, regardless of geographical location or nationality.

You seem to appreciate those who are honest, which is completely skewed. In a normal environment, that’s not something to be appreciated. That’s something to be expected. The fact that in Romania it became something to be appreciated shows that the opposite entity, i.e. the dishonesty, is wide-spread …

The argument you portray continues to baffle me, as I see it skewed and dangerous (if not even harmful). In short, it sounds like “the country is not 100% rotten, so let’s not say that if there are exceptions, and leave the matter alone” … and it is precisely what has been happening in Romania for more than half a century: nothing has been done about it. It continued to flourish and now we have a prime minister with a plagiarized PhD and a whole stream of high, medium and low profile cases like him in pretty much all universities across the country!

Ethics wise, the academic environment in Romania is awfully rotten, and I will not have a debate about exceptions. The first step in fixing any problem is pointing out and admitting that there is one. This step is most efficient if the ones who do the pointing out that there is a problem are authoritative voices. That’s why Prof Galloway’s contribution (both in Review 10 and also in this article) and of all the other international experts on Integru.org is so crucially important.

Remember, we are responsible for this dreadful state too. Let’s wake up, and then do something about it.

Meanwhile in Romania the solving of present misconduct cases is expected by all honest academics as a way of preparing a better future. For this there is Integru.org.

Various cases of plagiarism in the past years, and not only from Romania (another recent one refers to Research Minister Annette Schavan in Germany), have been plaguing the academic world of the country.
In this respect, should Victor Ponta still have some honour, has to step down from his office and his PhD degree should be retracted. The same with the other “academics” in Romania.

Regarding “Al.I.Cuza” University, the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration is far from being a genuine European one. The academic staff there trumpet a European ethos. Far from the truth. The dynamics is rather Byzantine-Phanariot, a serf-like approach towards education.

Dinu Airinei in the past stated that one of ithe faculty libraries is funded through private means and actually discriminated against students who do not belong to the faculty. That is why any student of the University but not of the Faculty of Economics has to have his approval to access the library.

But the Faculty is a state one. Moreover, the apparent academic image projected in various conferences, seminars, lectures, etc. contradicts the way various professors and administrative staff behave. There are small “academic castes” within the Faculty which promote their own elected people towards the disadvantage of other students.

One of the the economics professors stated some years ago that the academic system at the Faculty of Economics has not changed in the past 20 years. It is not like in the west.

Dinu Airinei should step down from his office due to his subjective decisions and acknowledged abuses he makes while a dean. Besides making false statements in public documents.

Moreover, in the autumn of 2010, there was a two-three-day conference organised through European financing by the Centre of European Studies. The behaviour of Carmen Pascariu from the Centre was actually evidence of the Phanariot ethos when she declined the possibility of other students taking part in seminars of the conference even if the deadline of applications had passed. Moreover, some of her organising team members were reluctant to having other students participate in the event and displayed the same obnoxious attitude.

On the other hand, the University is haunted by former communist professors. During a meeting with one of the civil society associations in 2009 at the Rectorate, Prof. Vasile Isan declined to make public the names of those professors who were Securitate informants before 1989.

At the same time, at the Faculty of Philosophy and Social and Political Sciences, there are professors who still behave in a Stalinist way. One of this is Anton Carpinschi, old communist “academic”. He remains a Stalinist who likes to have serf-students around him. The entire “academic structure” at the Faculty nourishes this XVIII-th approach toward R&D, towards the EU. Students are given “blank cheques”, are bullied, are constrained to do translations, research and article writing and then the professors put their names on the students’ works, in a word, to do what the thesis advisor wants them to do. Anton Carpinschi is the one “professor” who likes to keep his “proteges” subservient by reminding them that he is the one who brought them to the Faculty. At the same time, he likes to threaten and manipulate his students. But he projects out the image of a European professor…

Where is the system of evaluations for each professor at the Faculty? Where is feedback of students? Why the authoritarian, anti-academic ethos within the University (with various exceptions)?

Moreover, there is hardly the appropriate academic infrastructure within the University. Some professors have massed books in bookcases which are then locked up. Besides, there is enough academic staff who pretends to deliver high-quality educational services. For example, at the PhD level there was a professor who was reading from a 60s’ book on how to write a thesis (Faculty of Philosophy). This was happening in 2009.

A true European academic ethos is wanting. There is only form but no substance. Moreover, the mass media has been writing about the lack of financial resources used for paying the salaries of the University staff. How is this possible with an economist serving as a rector? Where is the money Professor Isan?

However, the Faculty of Letters, at least in the 1990s, boasted remarkable professors such as Grigore Veres, Svetlana Angheloni, Marina Muresan, Cornelia Piticari, Ms. Mirtu, Stefan Avadanei, Dumitru Dorobat, etc.

It is a pity that Olesia Lupu did what she did and, justifyingly, resigned. But the system that has nourished such “academics” and behaviour has its substance entirely plagued. Since 1989 this system has become more and more vicious towards the students and academic staff. Nowadays, PhD and MA titles are granted in a Fordian way. As various PhD graduates acknowledge, there is always a festive lunch/dinner after the defending of the thesis, each committee professor is given a small present, is paid to come over and be part of the committee (if he/she is not from Iasi) and, more importantly, during the defending, there is little interest towards the theme of the thesis.

So then, is there any wonder Romania boasts “academics” like Olesia Lupu, Victor Ponta, E. Andronescu, etc.???

Many thanks to the American and British academics, mostly, as well as to the French and German ones, to have done so much research on Romania’s past and more recent history. And this goes back, at least with the beginning of the XX th century. Comparatively speaking, based on their studies, one can fully grasp what lies beneath the surface of the Romanian iceberg.

First, Prof Galloway’s article and title simply narrow the scope to that of the plagiarism in Romania, and is actually written from quite a fair perspective. The title to me looks pretty much perfect. There is no finger pointed at the country as a whole, but at a phenomena that exists in Romania, regardless of how thick or thin it is in comparison with other countries.

But you do raise an important point, and I again disagree with your opinion on it:

Those authors DO represent the country too, and not only themselves.

I don’t think it’s necessary to remind of the almost endless stream of Romanian research ministers (!!!), prime minister, rectors, deans, “researchers” etc., but just in case, remember Ioan Mang, Corina Dumitrescu, Ecaterina Andronescu, Victor Ponta, Leonard Azamfirei, Constantin Copotoiu, Klara Branzaniuc, Aurel Ardelean etc etc etc? … who still refute any plagiarism or misconduct despite blatantly clear evidence!

All of them very much also represent the country Romania. It is them and their actions that make you (and all of us) feel some shame when seeing “Romania” next to “plagiarism” in the same sentence, and it is THEM, THEIR INSTITUTIONS and STATE INSTITUTIONS who you should target your anger/disappointment/shame to and do something about it.

I for one feel ashamed that such international personalities like Professor Galloway are taking precious time out of their schedule to go beyond the line of duty and try to clean the mess which happens to be in our back yard. As I see it, they’re not doing it for Romania, nor for the worthy academics there, but out of a sense of respect and duty for the academic profession and title.

Quite frankly, we should be thankful to them for stating facts and doing things that we didn’t or still don’t have the courage to face and do … for that, shame on us!

Integru.org is doing a fantastic job by exposing thieves like the ones above, while experts like Professor Galloway are providing the immensely needed authority. The fact that “Romania” and “plagiarism” are in the same sentence should not make us resentful, but instead should make us contribute to fixing the actual problem.

I think it’s time we all did. Integru.org and its experts are doing a fantastic job!

Dorin.

p.s. I will support the Integru.org portal by recommending and inviting experts I know. I don’t yet feel enough of an expert in my field to answer review questions.