'Sloppy' PhD should be revoked 1

February 23, 2007

The response of Birmingham University to your report on the controversy surrounding the PhD thesis by Charlotte Exon about Rudolf Schwarz ("University under fire for flawed PhD thesis", February 9) raises more questions than it answers.

The university defends the supervision, examination and quality of the thesis but states that, after detailed criticism of the research, it decided to institute a review even though it was "under no obligation" to do so. Yet, on the basis of reports about the faults in the thesis, it is hard to conceive how it would have been possible to do otherwise.

The university asserts that the thesis cannot be revoked or revised and does not even require a list of errata. This, too, is peculiar. The review of the thesis, which the university embraced, found that it contained "contradictions", "inaccuracies" and instances of "sloppiness" and "naive" use of sources, albeit they did not invalidate the thesis as a whole.

Normally, this would be enough to warrant referring a thesis back for correction and resubmission, referring it back for the award of a lesser degree, or failing it outright. While it may be awkward and embarrassing to do this retrospectively, it should not be impossible.

Unless Birmingham rethinks its position, will it be necessary to assume that every PhD it has passed in recent years may be marred by "contradictions", "inaccuracies" and "sloppiness"? Is there not a danger that by refusing to reassess one it risks compromising them all?

David Cesarani.
Royal Holloway, University of London

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October


Featured jobs