Publication: The Star Issued: Date: 2008-03-01 Reporter: Jeremy Gordin

KZN University Strips Chippy Shaik of His Doctoral Degree

 

Publication 

The Star
Date

2008-03-01
Reporter Jeremy Gordin

Web Link

www.thestar.co.za



The senate of the University of KwaZulu Natal has withdrawn the doctoral degree awarded to Shamim "Chippy" Shaik in 2003. In the late 1990s Shaik was the chief of acquisitions and procurement for the defence department and played a pivotal role in the multi-billion rand arms deal. He is also the brother of Schabir Shaik, the jailed Durban businessman and former financial advisor of Jacob Zuma.

Shaik is working at a remote mine in Mozambique and is out of touch telephonically, but his brother Yunis, who has been acting as his attorney, said that if an appeal to the university council is unsuccessful, he would probably go to court.

"The decision is a travesty because it was reached in a grossly irregular manner," Yunis Shaik said. Yunis Shaik has given all the documents and correspondence related to the matter to journalists.

Shaik was told by Dr Edith Mneney, the university registrar, on Wednesday that Chippy Shaik's PhD degree in engineering would be withdrawn. Yesterday Professor Malegapuru Makgoba posted a "notice to the university community" on the university's website.

Makgoba said the senate had accepted the conclusions of the university's Agriculture, Engineering & Science Academic Affairs Board (AAB) that Shaik had plagiarised chapters two and three of his thesis, though a letter yesterday to Yunis Shaik from Dr Edith Mneney, the university registrar, said it was chapters two and four.

Makgoba also said that the AAB "considered it unlikely that chapter 3 of [Chippy Shaik's] thesis, Development of Higher Order Theories for the Analysis of Laminated Composite Structures under Static and Thermal Loading, was Shaik's own unaided work".

Yunis Shaik said Makgoba had last year made a public announcement that the university would hold a full and fair enquiry into the allegations Chippy Shaik had plagiarised parts of his thesis.

Yet Chippy was never allowed to defend his thesis in person but only to answer certain written questions. In addition, said Yunis, no real evidence was ever produced to support the plagiarism claims.

All that was presented to the authorities were two assessments on Shaik's dissertation by a Professor Eduard Eitelberg and a Professor A Groenwold. "Eitelberg is well known to be connected *1 with Richard Young, the person who started this whole thing," said Yunis Shaik, "and Groenwold says in his report Chippy copied from some text that Groenwold concedes he has not been able to examine. Besides, the assertions made by these two people - assertions to which Chippy responded and explained - are not evidence. They are merely opinions - and not very well substantiated *2.

"What's more, following a still unfinalised disciplinary enquiry held against Professor Sarp Adali, Chippy's head of department, on Chippy's matter, the registrar wrote to me that, given some of the evidence that came out there, the university would not continue with the investigation until the completion of Adali's case. Yet it has."

Makgoba did not respond to telephone calls last night.

Chippy was not allowed to be present at any part of the enquiry *3 and the senate made its decision following a presentation from a representative of the AAB. The senate was not given Shaik's response.

Yunis Shaik said it was remarkable that Chippy's internal and external examiners, all world-renowned experts in the field, have continued saying the thesis was the original work of Shamim Shaik and nobody has claimed that Shaik had copied his work.

"The enquiry was a sham," said Yunis Shaik. *4

"The decision to withdraw the degree was arbitrary. It is to the everlasting shame of the senate that they revoked the degree without even giving him an opportunity to defend himself *5.

"Actually, the conduct of the university smacks of the manipulation of power *6. If the degree of Chippy can be withdrawn in this arbitrary fashion, no degree awarded by the university is safe."

With acknowledgements to Jeremy Gordin and The Star.


*1       Between 1993 and 1995 I was part of a corvette combat suite design team where Dr Eduard Eitelburg was specialist consultant retained by project co-ordinator UEC Projects (Pty) Ltd (later Altech Defence Systems (Pty) Ltd, later African Defence Systems (Pty) Ltd) to investigated error analysis and error budgeting for the combat systems.

I also at around that time purchased Dr Eitelberg's self-published book on advanced probability theory for about R100.

So there is the connection.


*2      See below for just three tasters of the at least eight detailed preliminary comparative analyses.


*3      The entire process was an exhaustive one over a period of some ten months.

It certainly was not a sham.

I personally spent several hundred manhours reviewing the thesis is detail more than five times and correlating it on a word-by-word, phrase-by-phrase basis with over a dozen journal papers.


*4      In my considered opinion, the candidate should have been subjected to an oral examination.

However, in my view the candidate was spared this embarrassing procedure.

Instead he was given the easy way out by being given a list of questions where he had several months to respond, including getting external assistance.

I am advised that the response was mainly argumentative and entirely unconvincing.

I have a strong suspicion that even the candidates collaborators had previously plagiarised the work of certain Russian and Ukranian academics.


My own PhD supervisor, Prof. Ian McCleod (may he rest in peace), once told me that just one copied and unacknowledged phrase (surely key phrase) in a thesis or dissertation was plagiarism and could be considered by a university as grounds for not awarding a higher degree or revoking of an award of a higher degree.


In this case I estimate that over 90% of the thesis is copied from previously published journal papers and in once instance from a journal paper still to be published. The latter is a matter that still needs to be investigated.


*5      I look forward to the cross-examination of the candidate/applicant/appellant by a senior counsel in a open court of law.

A question of law - can I be an amicus curiae?


*6      The whistleblowers and 4th Estate are powerful indeed.

But this is mouse.

Bring on the elephants.

 

[Initial Advisement]


2007-04-17


The Chairman
Higher Degrees Committee
University of kwaZulu-Natal
Durban
kwaZulu-Natal

Attention       : Prof Eduard Eitelberg


Dear Prof Eitelberg
 
Confidential and Without Prejudice

 
Some time ago I reviewed a doctoral thesis in respect of a degree awarded by the University of Natal. For this purpose I had purchased an official copy from the Library at the University of kwaZulu-Natal derived from its microfiche copy.

Author  : Shaik, Shamin

Tile    : Development of higher-order theories for the analysis of laminated composite structures under static and thermal loading
Details: Durban, 2002.  xiii, 202 leaves.  Thesis (Ph.D.-Mechanical Engineering)-University of Natal, 2002
            03/02629     MAIN LIBRARY           T 624.1776 SHA

At the time I became aware that some pages were missing from the copy of the thesis purchased by me. I have recently requested that these missing pages be supplied to me, but have been advised by! the Library's librarian that they have searched for the thesis and found two original copies. However, Pages 49 to 51 are also missing from these two copies. I find this somewhat curious. There is a reasonable probability that the other copies would have this same defect and this would mean that the copies reviewed by the examiners would also have this same defect. If this is the case and this has not been recorded in the examiners' reports, then this would be problematic.

However, on a second thorough reading of the thesis I am of the opinion that this is not the own unaided work of the candidate as attested in the declaration.

Either there has been extensive plagiarism of another person's or persons' work, or closer than acceptable collaboration with one or more experts in the field of strength of materials. This other person or persons are almost surely academics steeped deeply in the science of strength of materials as well as advanced higher-order mathematics, especially three-dimensional vector calculus and finite element analysis.

At least three and probably four different writing styles seem to be in evidence throughout the thesis. English UK and English USA spelling alternates through the chapters, as do styles of grammatical and mathematical expression. These probably arise through the contributions of three or more authors, plus the candidate.

The number of spelling and typographical errors (some 100 in number) is shocking and unacceptable for a PhD thesis. Normally, anything more than a small handful of such errors would require correction and re-submission.

While lengthy derivations of formulae are provided, indeed often to the detraction of the overall flow and understandability of the thesis, two aspects seem noteworthy, firstly there seems to be no explanation for the choice of numerical parameters in the examples provided and secondly, no explanation of how the numerical solutions were actually determined.

Having only a Bibliography listing all the referenced works as well as all other material of general interest to the subject matter and not separate References, listing only the referenced works, is a flawed style that lends itself to plagiarism. I find this completely unacceptable.

In general, although the subject matter is very advanced and if it were genuine, then definitely of doctoral (indeed post-doctoral) standard, the overall style and layout makes the aim, research methodology and contribution difficult to understand and to assess. The overall thesis appears to be more like a concatenation of two or three journal papers authored over a period of time by a group of professional academic researchers in the field of strength of materials and then given to the candidate to wordprocess (and not very well besides) into a self-standing thesis.

Recommendation

An independent review panel should be established to review the authenticity of this doctoral thesis as the candidate's own unaided work.

Regarding the possibility of plagiarism or collaboration, correlation should be made with the marked references in the Bibliography, in particular the journal papers by Verijenko, Adali, Tabakov and Piskunov. Interviews with these persons should be conducted by the review panel. Other academics and post-graduate students in the relevant specialist research group within the Department of Mechanical Engineering should be interviewed to ascertain their views as well as any relevant facts.

Finally, an oral examination of the candidate should be undertaken wherein it should be established whether the candidate has a true personal grasp of all the subject matter presented as his own unaided work, especially the development of the higher-order theory and the advanced mathematics.

This is an advance notification to you as Chairman of the Higher Degrees Committee. I believe that taking this matter further is a matter initially for the Higher Degrees Committee and Ethics Committee. I do not wish my identity or review to be divulged to anyone else at this stage. I have therefore designated this communication with you as Confidential and Without Prejudice. Depending on if and how the matter is taken forward, I would be prepared to assist in any reasonable manner. I have BSc(Eng) from the University of Natal, an MSc(Eng) from the University of Cape Town and PhD in Engineering from the University of Witwatersrand. However, I am an electronics engineer and not qualified in the general field of mechanical engineering or the specific fields of strength of materials and finite element analysis. My own interest in this matter is purely one of academic integrity and standards.

Yours sincerely

R.M. Young  PrEng, MSc(Eng), PhD

 
Confidential and Without Prejudice

 
[Chapter 2]

2007-05-07

The Chairman
Higher Degrees Committee
University of kwaZulu-Natal
King George V Avenue
Glenwood
Durban
kwaZulu-Natal


Telephone       : 031 260 7862
Facsimile       :
Email            : Eduard Eitelberg <Eitelberg@ukzn.ac.za>

Attention       : Prof Eduard Eitelberg


Dear Prof Eitelberg

 
PhD Thesis in Department of Mechanical Engineering at UKZN : S. Shaikh 961129282
 
Comparison

Comparing the attached journal paper (the Paper) entitled :
Rational transverse shear deformation higher-order theory of anisotropic laminated plates and shells

 
by authors V. G. Piskunov, V. E. Verijenko, S. Adali, P. Y. Tabakov , V. K. Prisyazhnyouk and S. G. Buryhin
         [received 1 May 2000, available online 31 July 2001]


to the thesis entitled :
Development of higher-order theories for the analysis of laminated composite structures under static and thermal loading
 
submitted by S. Shaik in November 2002
 
I find as follows :


Paper - Thesis

1.      Pg 6491 Para. 1 Abstract of Paper very similar to Pg i, Para. 1 of Thesis.

2.      Pg 6491 Para. 3 Introduction of Paper similar to Pg 1, Para. 2 Introduction and Literature Survey of Thesis.

3.      Pg 6492 Para. 3 Introduction of Paper similar to Pp 1 to 2, Para. 2 Introduction and Literature Survey of Thesis.

4.      Pp 6493 to 6520 (27 A4 pages) Sections 1 to 8 of Paper almost word-for-word identical to Pp 8 to 59 (51 A4 pages) Chapter 2 of Thesis.

5.      Pg to 6520 (8 paragraphs) of Summary and conclusions of Paper almost word-for-word identical to Pp 189 to 190  of  Chapter 5 Conclusions of Thesis.

6.      Pg to 6520 Points 2. and 3 (2 sub- paragraphs) of Summary and conclusions of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 60 Points i) and ii) (2 sub- paragraphs) of Summary and conclusions of Chapter 2 of Thesis.

8.      Pg 6493 Fig. 1. of Paper identical to Figure 2.1 Pg 9 of Thesis.

9.      Pg 6511 Fig. 2. of Paper identical to Figure 2.2 Pg 41 of Thesis.

10.     Pg 6517 Fig. 3. of Paper identical to Figure 2.3 Pg 54 of Thesis.

11.     Pg 6518 Fig. 4. of Paper identical to Figure 2.4 Pg 57 of Thesis.

12.     Pg 6519 Fig. 5. of Paper identical to Figure 2.5 Pg 58 of Thesis.

13.     Pg 6521 Appendix A of Paper almost identical to Appendix Pg 61 of Thesis.

14.     Pg 6521 Appendix B of Paper identical to Appendix Pp 61 to 62 of Thesis.

15.     Pg 6522 Appendix C of Paper identical to Appendix Pp 62 to 63 of Thesis.

16.     Pp 6521 to 6522 of Paper contains Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix C; whereas Pp47 to 48 of the Thesis refers to Appendix 1, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3.

17.     The typographical error "trough" (instead of "through") appears in Para. 9 of Pg 6518 of the journal paper as well the identically worded Pg 55 Para. 3 of the Thesis


Conclusions

1.       Almost the entire paper has been regurgitated in the Thesis, primarily into Chapter 2 thereof, but also into the Abstract (Page i), Introduction and Literature Survey Pp 1 to 5, Conclusions (Pp 198 to 190) and Bibliography Pp 192 to 201.

2.      This finding is entirely congruent with my initial written opinion dated 28 March 2007 that :
"The overall thesis appears to be more like a concatenation of two or three journal papers authored over a period of time by a group of professional academic researchers in the field of strength of materials and then given to the candidate to wordprocess (and not very well besides) into a self-standing thesis."
3.      It is clear that the Thesis includes material previously draft by other authors, in this case V. G. Piskunov, V. E. Verijenko, S. Adali, P. Y. Tabakov , V. K. Prisyazhnyouk and S. G. Buryhin.

4.      The Paper was submitted for publication over two years before the Thesis was submitted for examination.

5.       Chippy Shaik is not an author of this Paper.

6.      Chapter 2 of the Thesis contains development of the higher-order theory relevant to mechanical stresses and is the basis for a primary claim of the Thesis, i.e. the treatment of mechanical stresses on laminated composite structures.

7.      The secondary author of the Paper is the Thesis's author's own supervisor who would or should have known that this work was simply regurgitated for the Thesis.

8.      The Paper is neither cited nor acknowledged in the Thesis.

9.      Shaik is clearly not the developer of the higher-order theory which he claims in his Thesis.

10.     Pp 6514 to 6517 of the Paper probably correspond with Pp 49, 50 and 51 of the Thesis and which are missing from all available copies of the Thesis.

11.     When there are identical errors such as typographical errors such as in the Paper and Thesis under review, this is almost incontrovertible evidence of not only plagiarism, but that one party simply electronically copied the digital text of the other party.

12.     Prima facie the Thesis is plagiarism of other people's work and the onus now rests to the candidate to prove otherwise. This would necessitate him proving that he was a contributor of the work behind the Paper and that such material was published elsewhere where he is cited as a contributing author.

13.     Beyond any reasonable doubt it can be concluded that this is not the own unaided work of the PhD candidate as attested in his declaration on Page ii of the Thesis.

Yours sincerely

Richard Young  PrEng, MSc(Eng), PhD

2007-05-07
 
[Chapter 3]

2007-05-10

The Chairman
Higher Degrees Committee
University of kwaZulu-Natal
King George V Avenue
Glenwood
Durban
kwaZulu-Natal


Telephone       : 031 260 7862
Facsimile       :
Email            : Eduard Eitelberg <Eitelberg@ukzn.ac.za>

Attention       : Prof Eduard Eitelberg

Dear Prof Eitelberg
 
PhD Thesis in Department of Mechanical Engineering at UKZN : S. Shaikh 961129282
 
Comparison

Comparing the attached journal paper (the Paper) entitled :
A three-dimensional analysis of laminated orthotropic plates
 
by author P.Y. Tabakov
         [2005]


to the Thesis entitled :
Development of higher-order theories for the analysis of laminated composite structures under static and thermal loading
submitted by S. Shaik in November 2002,
 
I find as follows :


Paper - Thesis

1.      Pp 454 to 461 (8 A4 pages) Sections 1 to 8 of Paper almost word-for-word identical to Pp 65 to 110 (46 A4 pages) of Chapter 3 of Thesis.

2.      Pg 454 Fig. 1. of Paper identical to Figure 3.1 Pg 68 of Thesis.

3.      Pg 460 Fig. 2. of Paper identical to Figure 3.3 Pg 105 of Thesis.

4.      Pg 461 Fig. 3. of Paper identical to Figure 3.4 Pg 107 of Thesis.

5.      Pg 462 Fig. 4. of Paper identical to Figure 3.5 Pg 108 of Thesis.

6.      In certain instances, variable identifiers in the mathematics of the Paper are different to those used in the Thesis, but the equations are identical.


Conclusions

1.       Most of the journal paper has been regurgitated in the Thesis, primarily into Chapter 3 thereof.

2.      This finding is entirely congruent with my initial written opinion dated 28 March 2007 that :
"The overall thesis appears to be more like a concatenation of two or three journal papers authored over a period of time by a group of professional academic researchers in the field of strength of materials and then given to the candidate to wordprocess (and not very well besides) into a self-standing thesis."
3.      It is clear that the Thesis includes material previously drafted by other authors, in this case P. Y. Tabakov.

4.      The Paper was submitted for publication in 2005 over two years after the Thesis was submitted for examination.

5.       Chippy Shaik is neither an author of this Paper nor is his Thesis cited in the Paper.

6.      Chapter 3 of the Thesis contains the development of the higher-order theory relevant to thermal stresses and is the basis for a primary claim of the Thesis, i.e. the treatment of thermal stresses on laminated composite structures.

7.      The author of the Paper is "acknowledged" in the Acknowledgements of the Thesis "for his assistance", yet the scope, magnitude, nature or related portion of the Thesis to which such assistance is relevant, is not divulged.

8.      The author of the Paper, Dr P.Y.Tabakov, being a professional academic and specialist in the relevant field and not having cited Shaik's Thesis, is most probably the developer of the higher-order theory pertaining to thermal stresses which he claims in this Paper (plus other journal papers of a similar nature).

9.      Shaik is unlikely to be the developer (and certainly not the only or main developer) of the higher-order theory pertaining to thermal stresses which he claims in his Thesis.

10.     Prima facie the thesis is plagiarism of other people's work and the onus now rests to the candidate to prove otherwise. This would necessitate him proving that he was a contributor of the work behind the Paper and that such material was published elsewhere where he is cited as a contributing author.

11.     Beyond any reasonable doubt it can be concluded that this is not the own unaided work of the PhD candidate as attested in his declaration on Page ii of the Thesis.

Yours sincerely

Richard Young  PrEng, MSc(Eng), PhD


A further conclusion of mine at that time was that either Tabakov plagiarised Shaik, or Shaik plagiarised Tabakov.

 
[Chapter 4]

2007-04-23


Dear Prof. Eitelberg
 
PhD Thesis in Department of Mechanical Engineering at UKZN : S. Shaikh 961129282
 
Comparison

Comparing the journal paper entitled :
Refined Theory of Laminated Anisotropic Shells for the Solution of Thermal Stress Problems

 
by authors V.E. Verijenko, T.R. Tauchert, C. Shaikh, P.Y. Tabakov, submitted 30 January 1998,
to the thesis entitled :
Development of higher-order theories for the analysis of laminated composite structures under static and thermal loading
 
submitted by S. Shaik in November 2002 :
Analysis

1.      Pg 75 Abstract of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg i, Para. 4 of Thesis.

2.      Pg 75 Para. 1 of Paper almost word-for-word identical to Pg 1, Para. 2 of Thesis.

3.      Pp 75 to 76 Para. 2 of Paper almost word-for-word identical to Pg 2, Para. 1 of Thesis.

4.      Pg 76 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pp 4 to 5, Para. 4 of Thesis.

5.      Pg 76 Para. 3 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 191, Para. 2 of Thesis.

6.      Pg 76 Para. 4 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 132, Para. 2 of Thesis.

7.      Pg 76 Para. 5 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 133, Para. 3 of Thesis.

8.      Pg 77 Figure 1. of Paper identical to Figure 4.1 Pg 131 of Thesis.

9.      Pg 77 Para. 1 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 134, Para. 1 of Thesis.

10.     Pg 77 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 153, Para. 2 of Thesis.

11.     Pg 78 Paras 1 to 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 153, Paras 2 to 3 of Thesis.

12.     Pg 78 Para. 4 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 154 Para. 1 to 3 of Thesis.

13.     Pg 79 Para. 1 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 154 Para. 4 of Thesis.

14.     Pg 79 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 155 Para. 1 of Thesis.

15.     Pg 80 Para. 1 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 159 Para. 4 of Thesis.

16.     Pg 80 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 160 Para. 1 of Thesis.

17.     Pg 80 Para. 3 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 163 Para. 2 of Thesis.

18.     Pg 81 Para. 1 of Paper almost word-for-word identical to Pg 159 Para. 4 of Thesis.

19.     Pg 81 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 160 Para. 1 of Thesis.

20.     Pg 81 Para. 3 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 163 Para. 2 of Thesis.

21.     Pg 82 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 164 Para. 1 of Thesis.

22.     Pg 83 Para. 1 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 165 Para. 1 of Thesis.

23.     Pg 83 Para. 3 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 166 Para. 1 of Thesis.

24.     Pg 84 Para. 1 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 168 Para. 1 of Thesis.

25.     Pg 84 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 168 Para. 2 of Thesis.

26.     Pg 84 Para. 3 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 168 Para. 3 of Thesis.

27.     Pg 84 Para. 4 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 169 Para. 2 of Thesis.

28.     Pg 85 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 169 Para. 2 of Thesis.

29.     Pg 85 Figure 2. of Paper identical to Figure 4.6 Pg 170 of Thesis.

30.     Pg 86 Figure 3. of Paper identical to Figure 4.7 Pg 171 of Thesis.

31.     Pg 87 Figure 4. of Paper identical to Figure 4.8 Pg 172 of Thesis.

32.     Pg 88 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 175 Para. 1 of Thesis.

33.     Pg 89 Para. 1 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 175 Para. 3 of Thesis.

34.     Pg 89 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 176 Para. 2 of Thesis.

35.     Pg 90 Para. 1 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 176 Para. 3 of Thesis.

36.     Pg 91 Para. 1 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 177 Para. 2 of Thesis.

37.     Pg 91 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 178 Para. 1 of Thesis.

38.     Pg 92 Para. 1 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 178 Para. 2 of Thesis.

39.     Pg 93 Para. 1 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 178 Para. 3 of Thesis.

40.     Pg 93 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 179 Para. 1 of Thesis.

41.     Pg 93 Para. 3 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 179 Para. 2 of Thesis.

42.     Pg 94 Para. 1 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 179 Para. 3 of Thesis.

43.     Pg 94 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 180 Para. 2 of Thesis.

44.     Pg 94 Para. 4 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 181 Para. 1 of Thesis.

45.     Pg 95 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 181 Para. 2 of Thesis.

46.     Pg 96 Para. 1 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 181 Para. 3 of Thesis.

47.     Pg 96 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 181 Para. 5 of Thesis.

48.     Pg 96 Para. 2 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 182 Para. 1 of Thesis.

49.     Pg 96 Para. 3 of Paper word-for-word identical to Pg 182 Para. 4 of Thesis.

50.     Pg 97 Figure 6. of Paper identical to Figure 4.9 Pg 183 of Thesis.

51.     Pg 98 Summary of Paper identical to Summary Pp 184 to 185 of Thesis.

52.     Pg 99 Lines 5 to 7 of Paper identical to Pg 160 last three lines of Thesis.

53.     Pg 99 Lines 8 to 13 of Paper identical to Pg 161 first six lines of Thesis.

54.     The claim made in the introduction on Page 75 of the Paper is essentially the same and almost identically worded as the claim made on Page 184 in Para. 1 of Chapter 4 Section 4.4 Summary and repeated on Page 191 Para. 2 in Chapter 5 Conclusions of the Thesis, i.e. the main claim.

55.     Pg 100 References Item 1. of Paper identical to Pg 196 Bibliography Item [49] of Thesis.

56.     Pg 100 References Item 2. of Paper identical to Pg 198 Bibliography Item [68] of Thesis.

57.     Pg 100 References Item 4. of Paper identical to Pg 197 Bibliography Item [61] of Thesis.

58.     Pg 100 References Item 5. of Paper identical to Pg 192 Bibliography Item [3] of Thesis.

59.     Pg 100 References Item 6. of Paper identical to Pg 197 Bibliography Item [59] of Thesis.

60.     Pg 100 References Item 7. of Paper identical to Pg 198 Bibliography Item [67] of Thesis.

61.     Pg 100 References Item 7. of Paper identical to Pg 198 Bibliography Item [68] of Thesis.

62.     Pg 100 References Item 8. of Paper identical to Pg 193 Bibliography Item [14] of Thesis.

63.     Pg 100 References Item 9. of Paper identical to Pg 195 Bibliography Item [34] of Thesis.

64.     V.E. (Victor) Verijenko was at the relevant times a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Natal and the candidate's PhD supervisor.

65.     T.R (Theodore) Tauchert is Professor Emeritus of Department of Mechanical Engineering College of Engineering, University of Kentucky.


Conclusions

1.       Almost the entire paper has been regurgitated in the thesis, primarily into Chapter 4 thereof, but also into the Abstract (Page i), Introduction and Literature Survey Pp 1 to 5, Conclusions (Pg 191) and Bibliography Pp 192 to 201.

2.      This finding is entirely congruent with my initial written opinion dated 28 March 2007 that :
"The overall thesis appears to be more like a concatenation of two or three journal papers authored over a period of time by a group of professional academic researchers in the field of strength of materials and then given to the candidate to wordprocess (and not very well besides) into a self-standing thesis."
3.      It is clear that the thesis includes material previously drafted by other authors, in this case V.E. Verijenko, T.R. Tauchert and P.Y. Tabakov.

4.      The journal paper was submitted for publication very nearly five years before the thesis was submitted for examination.

5.      Although Shaik is identified as an author of this journal article, he is only the third of four authors and would certainly not have been the primary author or even the secondary author.

6.      Chapter 4 of the thesis is the culmination of the development of the higher-order theory relevant to both mechanical and thermal stresses and the basis for the main claim of the thesis, i.e. the simultaneous treatment of both mechanical and thermal stresses.

7.      The conclusions of the thesis are identical, on a word-for-word basis, with those of a journal paper submitted five years previously.

9.      The primary author of the journal paper is the thesis author's own supervisor who would or should have known that this work was simply regurgitated for the thesis.

10.     The contribution of the secondary author is not directly acknowledged in the thesis, only indirectly by mean of the entire journal paper appearing in the Bibliography.

11.     If Shaik had been the primary developer of this theory by the time the paper was submitted for publishing in January 1998, then there would be absolutely no reason to wait another five years to submit the thesis.

12      Shaik registered for a PhD degree in 1997 or 1998. By the time the journal paper was submitted in January 1998 it is unlikely that he would have had very little personal expertise in the subject matter.

13.     Beyond any reasonable doubt it can be concluded that this is not the own unaided work of the PhD candidate as attested in his declaration on Page ii of the thesis.

14.     These conclusions, plus the fact that pages were missing from the two library copies of the thesis and the particularly poor quality of the presentation of the thesis are more than sufficient evidence to initiate a full formal enquiry into the award of the PhD degree, including the conduct of both the candidate and his supervisor.

Yours sincerely

Richard Young  PrEng, MSc(Eng), PhD