Dissertation Council Rudn. The dissolution council refused to deprive the academic degree and. about. Rector of KSU
Transcript of the meeting of the dissertation council D 212.203.29 at RUDN University
Free network community "Dissernet"
CHRONICLES OF "DISTERNET"
On March 28, 2018, a meeting of the Discussion Council D 212.203.29 at RUDN University was held, at which ZOLUS "Dissernet" was considered in relation to
ZoLUS was rejected, read about it in Andrey Zayakin's article. And we offer a transcript of this significant meeting and viewing.
***
Secretary of the Academic Council(A.R. Batyaeva): To be honest, I don't have everything that is listed here. I have only one article presented and a table.
Andrey Zayakin (A.Z.): Excuse me, but the applications on CDs, did you take this advice into account?
Secretary of the Academic Council: The Council had all the material that was sent to us by the Department of the Discussion Council, and we all did it ...<нрзб>…
A.Z.: Well, that is, applications, they did?
Secretary of the Academic Council: Everything that came here ... on disk, at least ....
A.Z.: The discs contained the texts of dissertations by Prokofiev, Savchishkin...
Chairman (chaired by the deputy chairman of the dissertation council): we saw them, the expert commission saw them. Are you done? Do you have any questions for the speaker? Someone wants to clarify something? No, he doesn't want to.
Chairman: Andrey Alievich, I would like to ask you, please report to the meeting the results of your investigation and study.
Prof. Mamedov Andrey Alievich: I won't read this whole preamble, you all know it. Two months of study. I'm just for the quoting part. Commission...<нрзб>... and compared what was provided on the disks, all the materials that were provided to us by colleagues from the dissertation, all the materials that were allegedly borrowed by Prokofiev Konstantin Georgievich, with the material provided was his scientific and methodological manual, and came to the following conclusion:
Regarding the material presented by the applicants in general, the expert commission made the following conclusions, according to which, according to the statements of the author of the application, the incorrectness of the borrowings in the text of Prokofiev’s dissertation, which can be assessed as plagiarism, were made in violation of the procedure for using the borrowed material in accordance with clause 14 of the Regulations on Procedure awarding academic degrees from the works of the following authors Savchishkin, Gorin, ...<нрзб>... Tregubova is, when compared page by page, the result of Prokofiev's research activities, representing a kind of synthesis of both Prokofiev's own scientific ideas and other legal scholars in this segment of administrative law science, set forth by Prokofiev in his work, published earlier than the above works of Savchishkin's authors, Gorina, ..., Kostelnikova, Tregubov in 2010 (see the work of Prokofiev "Administrative responsibility for violation of the law on meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions and picketing", a scientific and methodological manual edited by the distinguished professor Salnikov of the Academy of Law and Economics of Life Safety, published in 2010.)
The above allowed the expert commission to draw a conclusion about the scientific priority of the research conducted in this segment of administrative and legal science by Prokofiev Konstantin Georgievich and about the absence of illegal borrowing of plagiarism from Prokofiev Konstantin Georgievich.
In accordance with the foregoing, the expert commission came to the conclusion that there were no grounds for satisfying the application for the deprivation of Prokofiev Konstantin Georgievich of the degree of candidate of legal sciences.
Chairman: Questions, please. There is not. Good. I then give the floor to the representative of the applicants. Do you have a power of attorney?
A.Z.: The statement was signed by me as well, dear council.
Chairman: You speak on your own behalf, I specifically specify, or on behalf of all your comrades
A.Z.: Please, let me speak on my own behalf, from a formal point of view.
Dear Colleagues, I am deeply disappointed that the Commission...
Chairman: Andrei Viktorovich, right?
A.Z.: Andrei Viktorovich, yes.
Chairman: I beg you, let's refrain. We are still in the scientific community. I ask you to refrain from such somewhat market expressions “I am deeply disappointed”. How can you be disappointed or not disappointed. You may be disappointed with our decision, I would still allow it. But when a professor comes forward and expresses the opinion of a group of other professors, you have no right to be disappointed, you have no reason for this, you have no opportunity for this. Therefore, I ask you to behave correctly.
A.Z.: Dear Chairman, could you tell me how much time I have to speak
Chairman: I think that 10 minutes is enough for you to state your position.
A.Z.: I hope that even faster, and I hope to put questions to the members of the commission in these 10 minutes.
Dear advice, however, I will allow myself to express purely scientific disappointment that the commission did not actually analyze the key evidence that we presented.
I specifically requested that these key pieces of evidence, namely pages 43-45 of the Degree Revocation Statement, be read out so that everyone can hear them, and no matter how quickly or slowly this statement of ours is read, everyone would be in the know. On the basis of the book, which we reasonably consider to be a falsification, the commission completely rejects our claims. Meanwhile, we write about it in our statement that if this book existed in the year in which it was allegedly published, then of course the statement should be considered completely void. We, dear colleagues, are aware that we saw this book and we proved that this book did not exist at that moment, in the year in which it was announced. I will once again remind you of three direct ironclad arguments that completely exclude the existence of this book for 2010. First, it says that we have 53 political parties in Russia and that there is a simplified procedure for the formation of political parties. In our statement, we specifically cite the regulatory legal act that introduced the simplified registration of political parties, this is the 2012 Federal Law. And specific data about 53 parties correspond to reality at the beginning of 2013. And the dissertation actually says this quite correctly – the dissertation says that in 2013 we had 53 political parties. But in 2010 there was neither a simplified procedure, nor such a number of parties that were formed, since it became easier to register them. Further, the next reinforced concrete argument is an increase in fines for administrative offenses under an article related to holding public events. It took place on June 8, 2012. And if the book was really published in 2010, then there could not be such a thing. More precisely, if there are prophets in our country, if the Lord God endowed Konstantin Georgievich Prokofiev with the opportunity to foresee the future, then she could. But then, dear colleagues, we probably do not belong in the university auditorium, because after all, prophecy is not a subject of study of science. Finally, the third reinforced concrete argument is related to the fact that the book and the dissertation cite the ruling of the constitutional court of 2013 with the specified number and title. Again, either we must assume that in 2010 Konstantin Georgievich secretly ordered the constitutional court to adopt a certain decision, and three years later it complied with his order, which would be a complete scandal from the point of view of the independence of the court from private individuals, etc. , it’s not for me to explain this to you, or in fact the book is falsely dated to 2010. Further, let me remind you that I specifically sent a request from our editorial office to both the book chamber and the RSL, and they confirmed that no one had seen this book before 2017, moreover, before the moment when it was publicly announced that there is such an examination of Prokofiev's dissertation. Therefore, summarizing once again, dear colleagues, I present ...<нрзб>... Your advice, in general, at one time made very wise and reasonable decisions, and seeing the preponderance of arguments in favor of deprivation, it took absolutely fair conclusions from this. I urge you not to dishonor your scientific reputation by taking as an argument a book that never existed in the stated year. This book could not have been published, as we prove textually, earlier than 2013. Therefore, the argument that this book precedes those works from which, in our opinion, Prokofiev's dissertation was copied incorrectly in a significant part, does not correspond to reality. Let me remind you that these works date mainly from 2011. The bulk of the borrowing comes from Savchishkin and Gorin. And, as I said, the book, allegedly published in 2010, was actually published no earlier than 2013. This is probably the most important thing to say. I will gladly answer your questions.
Chairman: Do you have any questions for the applicant? No questions. Please swear. Andrey Alievich, I have a question for you. When you studied materials, did you study questions regarding the date of publication of books, articles, and so on?
Prof. Mammadov: The commission consisted of three professors, doctors of law. The commission was guided by legal facts. What are the legal facts: there is a scientific and methodological manual. The year of publication of the scientific and methodological manual is 2010. The commission did not deal with the criminological aspect and did not carry out investigative measures. It was not in her jurisdiction. The commission dealt with questions of a substantive nature only.
A.Z.: May I have a commission question?
Prof. Mammadov A: Sure, please. I listen to you, Andrey Viktorovich.
A.Z.: I'm waiting for the chairman to give me permission to ask a question.
Chairman: Please.
A.Z.: I have a question. Did the commission examine the textual arguments on pages 43-45 of the Degree Revocation Application? I note that they are not criminological from our point of view. And have concrete answers been given to those reinforced concrete arguments, namely, explanations of how the 2010 book, as we write it in the statement, turned out to be the data for 2013, the legislative acts of 2012 and 2013?
Prof. Mammadov: The Commission did not study these issues. The commission was given the task of whether the material contains plagiarism, for which Prokofiev Konstantin Georgievich can be deprived of the degree of candidate of legal sciences in accordance with the Regulations on the procedure for awarding academic degrees and on scientific priority. The scientific priority is proved by the year of publication of this scientific and methodological manual. This scientific and methodological manual was published in 2010, or it would have been published in 2017, or in 2013 - this is not a question of the competence of the expert commission. If you want to deal with these issues, please deal with these issues. Not a single force in the world will force me, Doctor of Law, Professor Mammadov, to engage in criminal-criminological investigative measures. For a dissertation. This is not our area of expertise.
Chairman: Colleagues, what other judgments, what opinions? Please speak up. We will give the floor to everyone and the applicants, but what else.
Prokofiev Konstantin Georgievich: Dear Chairman of the Attestation Council, Valery Vasilyevich, dear members of the Council. On a well-known occasion, I am at a meeting of respected members of the attestation council. Unfortunately, the council where I defended myself at the time, it does not exist at the moment. Therefore, by decision of the VAK commission, I ...<нрзб> … here. What I want to say. ... to defend one's point of view ... regarding that scientific and methodological manual, someone would probably like it to be interpreted from the words of Andrei Viktorovich exactly in 2017 with all the indicated facts, but this is absolutely not the case. As proof of this, well, probably, I invited a very respected person, Viktor Petrovich Salnikov, with whom we worked on this scientific and methodological manual and where it was published and printed under the guidance of Viktor Petrovich. And accordingly, the arguments that we, in principle, can give in this case, that the allowance was sent to all instances, and if we talk about the amounts of those fines that Andrei Viktorovich called here, and which later appeared, you know, this allowance was everywhere. And I do not at all exclude the moment that it is precisely with regard to the data indicated in this manual that the figures were taken from there. There is such a practice. For this, we write scientific publications, scientific articles, present novelty in dissertations, and on the basis of this, then certain laws or legislative acts are adopted. I would also like to say that the novelty is actually present. All members of the dissertation council had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with this. And the expert group of the Discussion Council has now clearly stated this. Now, probably, I should not go through all aspects of my dissertation, it is the novelty that is present there, and I want to say that some points, in principle, later received a legislative initiative and were adopted in amendments and additions to laws. This is exactly what I want to say. For example, amendments were made by federal law 332 dated November 4, 2014 to article 23 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. This is a public demonstration of national paraphernalia and symbols. I sent these documents to the State Duma as well. I have a letter where it is indicated (this is a copy of the letter, I can offer it to you (gives a copy of the letter) that “the State Duma of the Russian Federation is currently considering the issue of amending the amendment to federal law 54, and the materials received from your thesis containing legislative proposals on this topic, will be taken into account when considering the draft law". You know, not every dissertation receives practical application of its scientific novelty. Very many dissertations remain lying with us, that is, they remain in the same theoretical plane, and not every one receives practical application. Therefore, only on this basis can we say that the degree that was awarded to me by the dissertation council is still deserved. I will not touch on other aspects now, because I consider them in fact to be simply insignificant, presented by colleagues from the dissertation. And I don’t even consider it necessary and necessary in principle to make excuses for something that, in principle, was not committed. Probably, it will still be fair if the floor is given to Viktor Petrovich Salnikov, a person I respect, with whom we have known each other for a long time. And he also has interesting thoughts on this subject, which he would like to convey to all members of the dissertation council.
Chairman: Are you finished?
Prokofiev: Yes
Chairman: Thanks! Have questions?
A.Z.: There are 4 short questions. Dear Konstantin Georgievich, please tell us how in 2010 you became aware of the fact, and already as a fait accompli, of simplifying the procedure for registering political parties.
Prokofiev: I want to tell you that after all, scientific work, research involves certain thoughts that are presented .... Well, if it's about ... I know that the second question will be in terms of those amounts of fines, but it was stated. But as I said, the scientific and methodological manual was sent out and distributed everywhere. Therefore, it is not surprising that it fell into the hands of precisely those people who were able, in principle, without inventing anything, to take from scientific work exactly what they considered necessary and submit it for consideration for the adoption of a law.
A.Z.: Clarifying question.
Chairman: I ask you, 4 questions. This does not mean that there will be 16 with clarifying ones. And no controversy.
A.Z.: Good. How did you know in 2010 the exact number of political parties registered by the beginning of 2013, which is absolutely correct in your dissertation?
Prokofiev: Well, apparently, I'm at a loss now, quite a lot of time has passed, and how this number coincided. So, it means I can't really answer you.
A.Z.: Yes. Third question. Do you write about the increase in fines as a fact or as a legislative proposal.
Prokofiev: Well, it is my opinion that is indicated here, in my opinion exactly what amount of fines, by how much it should be increased, and in what digital equivalent it should be expressed.
A.Z.: The fourth question. Where in 2010 did you become verbatim aware of a paragraph from the CC resolution of 2013?
Prokofiev: I'm not ready to remember this paragraph now.
A.Z.: This is stated in the deprivation statement. But, unfortunately, the council did not consider this part of the statement, as we have just been told.
Prokofiev: As far as my memory allows me to recall, this particular paragraph is not indicated in my scientific and methodological manual.
A.Z.: He is there.
Chairman: Thank you, Konstantin Georgievich. Thank you. Since Mr. Prokofiev mentioned Mr. Salnikov, I would like to... Please, tell me your opinion.
Salnikov: Dear chairman, dear members of the dissertation council, dear colleagues. I am very pleased, I am grateful to the chairperson that I have been given the opportunity to speak in such an authoritative scientific community. It so happened that I had to speak in very many dissertation councils, but here I am for the first time. And I am grateful to Konstantin Georgievich that, thanks to this situation, I was lucky enough to speak to you. It seems to me that a respected opponent from the dissertation is not very familiar with the procedure for passing laws, preparing draft laws and preparing decisions of the constitutional court. Somehow it happened that there was not a single convocation of the State Duma, no matter where I worked either as an expert, or as an adviser, or as an assistant, ...<нрзб>... and in the current convocation. Therefore, this procedure is very well known to me. In the same way, I often have to visit the Constitutional Court. I must say that Konstantin Georgievich cannot be called a prophet, but that those provisions, those ... in 2010 could well form the basis of some regulatory legal acts, including laws or decisions of the Constitutional Court, which were accepted later. In particular, he is reproached: how, literally, some novels in the decision of the Constitutional Court ended up in his manual. Yes, very simple. After all, the topic of his scientific research is a very resonant topic. And this is the topic that excites everyone. And a simple layman, and the scientific community, and, of course, specialists who prepare certain regulatory documents. Therefore, when, most likely, two years later or how much, the corresponding decision of the Constitutional Court was being prepared, the specialists who prepared this decision took the material that was prepared by a specialist, in particular Konstantin Georgievich, who is professional in terms of dissertation, it is assumed deeper, than anyone else has studied this problem. Therefore, this is a normal situation. The same is true for draft legal acts. I just recently worked for the chairman of a committee of the State Duma. I came across a book that was in his bookcase, dated 2011. …<нрзб>…in particular. It contains all the speeches that Patriarch Kirill made in 2011. I asked him with pleasure, took it, I think it will come in handy for me. And when I began to rummage through this bookcase with his permission, I saw books, including those published under my editorship much earlier. Among other things, I recall the book that Lydia Alexandrovna Nikolaeva and I, you probably know her very well, released already in 2004. She ended up in the State Duma in a bookcase, with those specialists.
Most likely, the book that Prokofiev published in 2010, he gave it to anyone. And to the Constitutional Court, and to the State Duma, and to colleagues, and to the library. Someone revered it, someone looked at it, someone just put it down. And of course she lay until someone needed her. In this regard, I recall an interesting, I apologize for such a digression, the moment when 20 years ago, probably, I published a book on the legal culture of police officers. I asked Vladimir Alexandrovich Tumanov to hand over this book to Vladimir Nikolaevich Kudryavtsev. He brought it, handed it to him, put it on top of the pile of books that Kudryavtsev had on the table, said: “Vladimir Nikolaevich, please read this book.” He says: “Why should I read it? You see how many books they gave me. When it's her turn." He says: “She is thin. These are fat and she is thin, so read her.” So here is Prokofiev's book, a scientific and methodological manual, not so voluminous. It's not very big, it's thin. Therefore, maybe someone read it and leafed through it. And when drafts of certain legal documents were being prepared, in particular, a law or a decision of the Constitutional Court, the novelty, which is connected, among other things, with the size of the administrative fine for individuals and legal entities, well, who better to believe than a specialist in this field. They took it and included it as a novel. The fact is that in this manual there is no reference that this is from a decision of the Constitutional Court. There, the text coincides with the one that was most likely taken by specialists preparing the decision of the Constitutional Court from the corresponding methodological manual. This is a normal situation. Another small example. I remember that in 2004 I worked as a member of a commission that was preparing a project to reform the law enforcement agencies of our country. The commission was headed by Dmitry Nikolaevich Kozak. And we worked very hard every day. Kozak constantly reported to the president the results of our recommendations. In 2004, this draft law was prepared. It was agreed with the President. It was supposed to create a criminal police and municipal police, create a single investigative committee that would unite all the investigative bodies of our country, and the prosecutor's office, and the FSB, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and then there was an investigation in customs. It was supposed to create troops of the national guard, return state drug control to the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the issue of the migration service was decided. This was in 2004. I say again, the project was agreed with the President. It was planned to pass that law in 2006. It was only in 2010 that the militia was renamed the police, the thesis about the criminal police was lost in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, it did not reach the title of the law itself. It was only in 2016 that the National Guard troops were created. At the same time, the state drug control was attached to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. And it's the same with the immigration service. Look how many years have passed. But speeches, reports, articles, manuals, wherever they were, whoever wrote about it. And nothing, okay. And that is the only reason why we can call all those authors who wrote about it prophets. But the commission was large, and everyone who worked in this commission wrote about it. So the prophet is not a prophet, but it is very good and pleasant when the scientific positions formulated in the publications of certain scientists are paid attention to by legislators, the parliament, the lower house of the parliament in particular, and, say, judges of the constitutional court. This is a normal practice of the civilized scientific community. And here, in general, one should not be surprised. And one more small moment. You and I are resolving the issue, in any case, you are resolving the issue of a PhD thesis. That is, Prokofiev defended his dissertation and became a candidate of science. He does not pretend to any global research as the only specialist in this field. Yes, he generalized, yes, he analyzed, yes, he expressed his respective position. Well, thank God, and great.
Another small example from my rather long life lived. At one time, a doctoral dissertation of a respected person from Saratov was defended at St. Petersburg, then still Leningrad, University. She was devoted to legal relations. And there were a lot of questions, there were a lot of discussions, and there was a danger of getting a sufficiently large number of black balls, so-called. And the same Vladimir Alexandrovich Tumanov, a well-known scientist, chairman of the Constitutional Court, acts as an official opponent. He, addressing the members of the dissertation council, said: “Dear colleagues, a dissertation was presented to us by a man from the wilderness, from Saratov.” He referred to the classic, Saltykov-Shchedrin. “Even the fact that he came to these thoughts there, we must support him for this.” The dissertation council supported him. In this case, not a doctoral dissertation, but a candidate's. And not from the wilderness from Saratov, but from the wilderness even more. So big that they used to send Decembrists there during the period of imperial Russia. Not to Kurgan, but to Tobolsk, 250 km from Tyumen and 200 km from Kurgan, but how far it is. And a man went there, and he works there. Will any of us sitting in this hall go there to teach, in this distant Kurgan? I'm sure none of us will go there with you. And he went, he works there. Well, that's great, that's great. And, probably, all the same, we need people, a country who is not afraid to take responsibility, make a decision, bring it to the end and fight for this decision. It seems to me that Konstantin Georgievich is just such a person. He is in his place. He is doing a great, significant work for our Russia. And it's good that he takes the initiative. And the fact that his scientific research is being tested and implemented in legal practice and legislation, well, that's wonderful. For some reason he didn't say anything about it. But he has answers, there are letters from those scientists who are mentioned in the materials of the statements from whom he allegedly borrowed these materials. They have no claims against him. Moreover, they assume that it is he who has priority in those ideas, in those provisions in which he is reproached. Thank you, dear colleagues. Excuse me, please.
(A.Z. raises his hand).
Chairman A: Let's do this. You are turning from an examiner of all speakers into one of the participants in the meeting. Okay? We will give you the floor, of course, you will express everything, you will express all your questions. Okay? And that's how it works. Whoever speaks, you bombard everyone with questions and clarifications. It seems to me that this is not a very correct practice of conducting scientific polemics.
Now I'd like to ask the supervisor...
Barabanova Svetlana Vasilievna: Good afternoon, dear colleagues. I would like to say that when I met Konstantin Georgievich, he immediately impressed me as a person who clearly understands what he wants, who knows how to express his thoughts, and my task, strictly speaking, was to help him teach him works that were available by that time, his work and bring it to the format in which scientific research is usually submitted for defense. I want to remind you that almost any candidate, when he defends himself in a legal discipline, uses the templates that exist in jurisprudence, and each branch of legal science has its own set of legal terminology, I will not say clichés, we teach students this, we give their answers in a certain direction. And the same is true in the scientific work of a dissertation student who is really included in science. By the way, it rarely happens that one or another applicant did not propose, for example, some changes to the law. The Soviets have an ambiguous attitude to this, so Konstantin Georgievich was initially recommended not to get too carried away with this. But due to the fact that he was immersed in the topic of his research, he knew what was happening, what was written in the sources, so he could well offer his vision of resolving this issue. And as a person who systematically carried out scientific research, I have no complaints about Konstantin Georgievich. I think he did a good job on defense. And I think that, of course, those technical errors that the dissernet noted can probably be clarified in many works, and you can probably scold the supervisor for not carefully subtracting everything from beginning to end and checking every comma. But my idea is that the scientific consistency of this work is still that a certain institution of administrative law was investigated, which had a certain value and all the scientific characteristics of the work were present, which was confirmed by the dissertation council at the Moscow University for the Humanities.
Chairman: Does anyone else have something to say on the topic under discussion?
Zaluzhny Alexander Gavrilovich: On this occasion, I want to give two arguments from my own life experience, which, in general, fit into what Viktor Petrovich said. Once, one of my friends called me in the morning and said: “Listen, last night they showed on TV how our president instructed the prosecutor general with your words.” And I say, “God forbid Ustinov finds out about this. Then I can't live. Whose words he was instructed. Well, most likely they reported it, because I was not appointed executive secretary of the coordinating council of prosecutors of the CIS countries, knowing that it was Ustinov who did it. That is why our life is so complicated. In 2007, in exactly the same way, we were invited to the Security Committee of the State Duma, experts in cases related to countering extremism. The guys who worked in this committee approached this event very carefully. They collected absolutely everything that could be collected then, including what happens and I came into their field of vision. But it turned out that the chairman of the committee spoke, and 70% of his report consisted of what I had published at different times. I only had time to cross out and cross out in my report, and it only took 10 minutes to say something. But Vladimir...<нрзб>... came up and said: “Listen, I'm sorry, we used your report here. Are you mad at us?" I say: "How can I be offended by you, if all this sounded very convincing and, probably, will be somehow implemented in legislative activities." Life is really complicated. And it's hard to say good or bad when some ideas that are useful for practice are born in the scientific community. Therefore, as a conclusion of my speech, I would like to say that the judges in this matter can be the same professionals or a higher level. Plus, there are purely legal issues that are very alarming to me in this situation, because tomorrow someone will come up with, we need to redo all dissertations another 30 years ago, then 50 years ago, and in this way we will simply turn normal scientific life into beating babies. Remember where and how it all ended. I would not like to repeat these biblical stories in the life of the modern Russian Federation. Thank you.
Chairman: Do other members of the dissertation council have other opinions? No. OK then. Andrei Viktorovich, I see your impatience. Say your opinion.
A.Z.: Can I ask Viktor Petrovich a question?
Chairman: Yes.
A.Z.: Viktor Petrovich, please tell me, are you aware of the difference between a legislative proposal and already ...
Chairman: Stop! I do not allow you to ask questions in this form. This is not a question, this is a scientific controversy. Therefore, do not stand in the pose of a prosecutor... You are participating in the discussion, not... Participate in the discussion. Did you find something fuzzy, inaccurate? Say exactly what you disagree with. But why do you shut up each of the speakers here, respected people, into a corner with some questions of your own? It is not right. Please speak up.
A.Z.: Excuse me, can I use the freedom of speech and thought that is guaranteed to me by the constitution?
Chairman: Freedom of speech, please. But if you continue to speak in the same way, turning your speech into a kind of beating, as Professor Zaluzhny said, not of babies, but of professors, I will not let you speak. And this has nothing to do with restricting your constitutional right to freedom of speech.
A.Z.: Yes. Dear Viktor Petrovich, are you aware of the difference between the legislative proposal and the amendments to the legislation that have already taken place?
Chairman: Do you even know who Viktor Petrovich Salnikov is, fir-tree sticks. Excuse me for such an informal expression. Do you have any idea who you're talking to? You ask him the question "Do you understand the difference between a legislative proposal and a legislative code?" Andrei Viktorovich, well, pull yourself together, well. You are talking to a person who probably became a doctor before you were born into the world. Who led scientific institutions, I will not list all his positions. And you ask him this question. Well, it's just a shame, dear comrade.
A.Z.: Can we hear Viktor Petrovich's answer?
Chairman: Tree sticks.
Salnikov V.P.: Oh sure.
A.Z.: And why in this case, my second question, you talk about the statements in the book that you edited as proposals, while in the book they are clearly formulated as statements about the facts of the already taken place change in legislation.
Salnikov V.P.: The author of this scientific and methodological manual expresses his scientific thoughts, states his position. You evaluate it this way, I evaluate it differently, someone else evaluates it in a third way. This is his view, this is his position, this is his interpretation of the relevant position, that's all.
Chairman: Controversy, but not questions of the prosecutor's court to the participants of the meeting.
A.Z.: Question from the applicant is it permissible?
Chairman: Please.
A.Z.: Yes. Good. Let me specifically quote page 56 from the book. “In the current year, taking into account the changes made to the federal law.” Do you agree that “introduced” is a past participle, it refers to an event that has taken place? This is item 3 on page 44 of the Application for the deprivation of a scientific degree, we quote a paragraph from the book of Konstantin Georgievich under the general editorship of yours. The phrase sounds like this: “In the current year, taking into account the amendments to the federal law on political parties, the number of organized public events of newly registered political parties will increase.” Here "introduced" is the past tense?
Salnikov V.P.: Dear colleagues.
Prof. Mammadov: Viktor Petrovich, I want to interrupt you, and Vladimir Vasilyevich, and interrupt you. Please lead our meeting. We will now discuss the scientific and methodological manual, right? We are discussing specifically the statement, yes, and not the scientific and methodological manual of Mr. Prokofiev. We'll be done with it by next morning.
Salnikov V.P.: Yes, one literal phrase, if you will. The fact is that the number of political parties that were in a certain year, which are now and which will be tomorrow, cannot be counted. They then stop their activity, then reappear. Even during the recent presidential elections, the number of parties also changes very often. Therefore, the applicant, candidate of sciences, counted as many games, I can count more, you - the smallest number. This cannot be clearly defined. Political Party. He does not speak with reference to the relevant legal act or to the decision of the Ministry of Justice on the number of registered political parties. He says that there are so many parties in our country. As for the trend, as for simplifying or complicating registration, this is his scientific position. He, as a person working on this problem, understanding its resonant nature, he expresses fears that it is impossible to simplify the order. It is necessary, perhaps, to aggravate this order. That's all.
A.Z.: Viktor Petrovich, you evaded the answer.
Chairman: I have a question for you, Andrei. Tell me, please, do you have these publications now. Present them.
A.Z.: This little book? I can present a scan because I scanned it at the Russian State Library.
A.Z.: She enrolled in 2017. I can publish in any publishing house.
Chairman: I wanted to ask you. Can I ask you to somehow contribute so that we can review, hold this publication in our hands.
A.Z.: The answer is this. The Russian State Library does not have a subscription. Unfortunately, I cannot borrow this book. But I held it in my hands.
Chairman: This is not an answer…. View this book live. Printed, in a cardboard or some other cover, I don’t know.
A.Z.: Yes. Answer: I cannot help you with this because I kept this book in the public library, how can each of us go there.
Chairman: You know, as old as the world rule - proves the one who claims.
AZ: Quite right.
Chairman: Please, in this case, please, prove it. I don't want to deprive you of any freedom of speech. Please, good health. But you must prove what you claim. And the fact that you refer to the scan, I'm sorry, I can't absolutely trust this. This is stated in your statement, I do not want you to reproach me for not trusting you, but, excuse me, this is your statement. And, I repeat, the one who claims, he proves. So please. We may not make a decision today, we will now consult with colleagues. Maybe we will postpone the decision until the moment when we can familiarize ourselves with this book and look at it, see for ourselves what is written there, see those moments that you call contradicting dating, ...<нрзб>…, I do not know common sense, legislation, and then it will be possible to make a decision. Now, based only on what is written in your application, I am even afraid to offer the members of the dissertation council a solution, whatever it may be. Neither to agree with you, nor to disagree with you. We don't have enough evidence. We are lawyers after all. This is not a court, but we must work with materials that prove your statements and the statements of, say, Konstantin Georgievich Prokofiev. Here we go, let's take a look. Are you ready for this?
A.Z.: Dear advice, I am ready to provide the council with a certified copy of the quoted pages of the book.
Prof. Mammadov: I can go up to fetch a copy. But why is this necessary?
A woman in a b&w sweater (?): Can I say?
Chairman: Please.
Chepurnova: Dear colleagues, if you will. I express my position, based on my everyday experience, on the basis of those regulatory documents that regulate the procedure for recognizing a document as invalid. That is, in order to recognize it, it is necessary to conduct an examination, various types of examinations, to evaluate this evidence. We are now moving to a slightly different plane. Instead of considering the question of the legitimacy of using the points of view of other authors, the legitimacy of citing, the scientific independence of the proposed research, the significance of the scientific research contained in the dissertation under consideration, we are invited to consider the question of the reliability or unreliability of the publication, which is stored in the RSL. I will offer an analogy that is very common in practice and regulated by the law of 2002, which concerns the procedure for recognizing the unreliability of documents that form the basis for making decisions, in particular, on citizenship. That is, those who made a decision on citizenship are canceled, but the unreliability of documents is proved on the basis of a court decision. Therefore, in this case, by virtue of these procedures, if we are asked to question the reliability of the source that is stored in the library, then I believe that this is beyond our limits. This time. And secondly, since we are considering scientific research, I believe that we have different approaches. Pay attention, there are biologists, physicists, mathematicians, and there are humanities, which are almost impossible. These are our requirements. You and I must express our position by examining the approaches expressed by our predecessors and evaluating them. Therefore, in this regard, we have different criteria that determine scientific character. If for a physicist this is an independent study, then for us, we cannot discard the previous scientific baggage that was presented by these authors. Therefore, let us still decide: either this is the scientific significance of the study, scientific novelty and the use of the positions of authors who do not dispute and do not make claims in terms of the frequency of the positions expressed, or if this is a question about the reliability of the source, then I suppose that this is outside the scope of our competence. It requires some more expert opinions, research. In any case, they can be republished by different authors in one form or another, and we also face this. Everyone considers it necessary to update, but at the same time, in general, refers to the primary edition. Therefore, I believe that here we were somehow taken to another plane, to an unscientific plane. This is how we will begin to check each book with you, the authenticity of the publication of the book, the source of the book. Well, let's then carry out examinations, handwriting examinations, for example, on the date of publication.
Chairman: then we will reach the place where Alexander Gavrilovich warns us.
Chepurnova: Yes. Therefore, we proceed from the fact that there is a source. Your arguments are based on some kind of digital ones, these are your arguments. This is the subject of discussion. It is debatable and unambiguously established by nothing. Therefore, this is my position.
: Natalya Mikhailovna is right, and the commission proceeded precisely from this position. This is not the competence of the commission. It is a completely different procedure, a different process. …<нрзб>... proposes a decision to support the conclusion.
Chairman: Understood. Thank you. Who else… So what decision are we going to discuss today?
Chepurnova: I propose to take the decision recommended by the commission. Only the only thing, I wanted to draw attention to some visible fallacy. Here we are talking about the application for the deprivation of the degree of Doctor of Law. As far as I understand, we are still considering a PhD thesis. The rest, I think, should be supported.
Professor Nemytina M.V.: There are some nuances in the conclusion. For example, it says "academic degree"
Discuss what is written on which page.
Chairman: In any case, we will instruct Andrei Alievich, and the entire commission, to thoroughly finalize this matter editorially. But so that no one will reproach me for violating the freedom of speech guaranteed by the constitution, I give you another word, Andrey Viktorovich.
A.Z.: Dear colleagues, I will summarize once again. So, when I said that the book is a falsification, I used this word not in the sense of the criminal law. We are talking about scientific falsification, which is necessary, dear colleagues ...
Chepurnova: I'm not talking about the criminal law. I spoke about the procedure established by law, about establishing the falsification of documents that form the basis of some decision. We have a special procedure for awarding academic degrees. We do not just consider administrative complaints. A clearly established procedure, ... procedure ... procedure and grounds for canceling the decision of the dissertation council. Therefore, let us still say that we have both substantive norms and procedural, procedural norms. Procedural procedures are a guarantee of the legality and validity of decisions made by all bodies.
A.Z.: Dear colleagues, when we talk about falsification in our statement, we mean, of course, not falsification in the criminal-legal sense of the word, but falsification in the scientific sense. Such falsifications are not uncommon, and there are thousands of articles that have been retracted from the very best journals in the natural sciences simply because a negligent lab assistant invented his measurements on his knees instead of doing an experiment. You can look at sites like retraction watch. This is a very common procedure, and now the association of scientific editors and publishers in Russia is pursuing such a policy of retracting just badly written articles.
Falsification is a purely scientific fact. In our statement, the fact of scientific falsification is proved textually. Not criminologically, not within the framework of the judicial process. We prove textually that the dissertation in a book allegedly published in 2010 uses, mentions as an already accomplished change in the legislation of 2012-2013 (again, colleagues have this book, I have a copy of this book, and disputes about the text of the book No). Not as a legislative proposal, which Viktor Petrovich spoke to us about here, but precisely as about changes that have actually taken place, have already taken place. He is making a statement about a fact, that is his scientific statement. And this statement, being made in 2010, would be false. It's the same as if I published a book, for example, about the great October Revolution in 1916, when there was a whole year before the revolution. So, the applicant in his book makes scientific statements that could not be reliable if they were made in 2010. Thus, we prove by purely textual methods that this book could not have existed before 2012-2013. Therefore, I repeat again, this is not about the need to conduct an examination of the age of paper, printing ink, write requests to the publisher. We are talking about what we proved purely textually, we fully described it in the application for deprivation, we attached all copies of all the indicated pages, the commission, unfortunately, simply ignored these arguments of ours, which was announced today under the protocol. It's all been laid out.
Chairman: Very often, unfortunately, a not very honest technique is used. You said "the commission ignored this, which was stated under the protocol." So I'm talking on the record, yours and ours. It was not stated that the commission ignored any of your allegations. Don't change your mind. We are in the legal community, not in the physical, not in the biological, where laboratory assistants are on their knees ... Please, be kind, use the terms correctly in relation to the people present here, who are hardly better versed in jurisprudence than you.
A.Z.: Yes. In total, the book, with the indicated statements about the facts, could not have been in 2010, because the author claims them as accomplished, and the facts themselves took place in 2012-2013. This is contrary to all fundamental physical principles that there is a cause first, and then an effect, and not vice versa. I have everything, thanks.
Chepurnova: May I ask one question. I am very grateful to you that you have stated your position. But I wanted to ask you one question. Please tell me, when challenging the award of a scientific degree, based on your position, reliability, proof of your position, how much does it detract from the scientific novelty and theoretical significance of the dissertation research? That is, there are your formal physical foundations that you indicate, and there are foundations that make up the whole scientific novelty. From your point of view, the fact that you presented us and prove us today detracts from the scientific significance and theoretical significance, the reliability of the conclusions contained in the dissertation as a scientific and theoretical study as a whole.
A.Z.: Yes, I answer. Our findings indicate that the novelty and theoretical, practical significance, whatever they may be, we fundamentally try not to judge this, belong to other people, Savchishkin, Gorin and others like them.
Chepurnova: The fact is that scientific significance is indicated in the conclusions that are submitted for defense. Please tell me, what are you referring to, are these the conclusions of the dissertation research or are these the research itself? That is, these are the processes of analyzing the study or is it already the final result that was presented to the dissertation council, as ... submitted for defense, substantiating its theoretical significance and scientific novelty. In what part of your dissertation did you take this section, about which you tell us so much and at length today with reference to your biological experiments, so to speak.
A.Z.: In this case, it does not matter which part of the dissertation is written off. Because there are instructions from Arister, Tedeev, Shakhrai, and it is said that plagiarism is not allowed anywhere, never, in any part of the dissertation. Look, please, there is a book recommended by the decision of the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission, published ...
Chepurnova: You are avoiding the answer. I'm only interested in conclusions. Is this contained in the scientific conclusions that were submitted for defense and which are precisely the criterion for the theoretical significance and scientific novelty of the work. I do not dispute the recommendation ... It is precisely this that interests me in the end, whether it casts doubt on the scientific significance and theoretical significance of the study and the independence of the conclusions that it contains, this is the position that you presented to us and to which you refer.
A.Z.: The answer is I don't know. Because we do not, in principle, not being lawyers, go into the essence of the dissertation.
Hawks: ... <нрзб>...
Chairman:... <нрзб>... the decision of our today's meeting. Because, in fact, is this our business. The more I listen, the more I doubt whether this is our business. Then how do we formulate a solution? It is generally accepted that this is ... at the wrong address?
Chepurnova: In this case, it is evident. Received in the prescribed manner of evidence.
Chairman: We will have to formulate in our decision ... What should we put in the decision of our dissertation council today.
Chepurnova: Are there any grounds or no grounds to recognize the dissertation, cancel the degree. Based on the submitted documents, materials that the commission studied. Based on the statement that they are not included in the discussion about what affects or does not affect the degree of independence of the conclusions, the designation of the theoretical significance of the work, and the general scientific nature of this study. We are changing concepts with you.
Chairman: Then we'll put it like this. We will clarify this, but I want you to agree with me on what idea we will put in this decision. Having listened and discussed the report of the expert commission, the head of the expert commission Andrey Alievich Mamedov, as well as the speech of one of the applicants, Zayakin Andrey Viktorovich, and having discussed the question put before us by the Department of the Ministry of Education, the dissertation council comes to the conclusion that the materials presented and discussed do not give sufficient grounds to resolve the issue of depriving Prokofiev Konstantin Georgievich of the degree of candidate of legal sciences. Am I understanding your reasoning and opinions correctly?
Answers: Yes.
Female voice: We've been talking for so long. Members of the public also come for a reason. And so in words it turns out yes, what is in your position. After all, this is a state institution, the Peoples' Friendship University. I believe that any state institution, if it sees some other logic in the circulation ...
Chairman: the truth is not quite state.
Female voice A: It's public for those who apply. In essence, this is so. I believe that if the state body. We have been discussing this for so long, we have agreed on this, and by the way, I would also like … conclusions that there is something else, despite the fact that a decision is being made, there must be some kind of reservation. This is somewhat out of place, something like this should be.
Chairman: You see, I had such words in my head “a little to the wrong address”, but we cannot write in the decision of the dissertation council like this, it would be incorrect.
Chairman: Good. I beg you, let's do this. ...<нрзб>... to put this in our decision, but not with the words "at the wrong address", because it is simply disrespectful to ...<нрзб>... But we must state it in such a way that, firstly, we state our legal position, and secondly, the position of a representative of the scientific community, and thirdly, we would not offend anyone with our own…
Chairman: I agree with you. Well, let's do this. Of course, we will correct this conclusion, the draft conclusion, and I think we will take it as a basis. Nobody minds? As a basis, we accept and instruct, if you do not mind, Mr. Andrey Alievich Mamedov and Valery Vasilyevich Grebennikov, with the participation of Konstantin Georgievich Prokofiev, Candidate of Sciences, to prepare an updated draft decision.
Chairman: without the participation of Prokofiev, good, good. So, then the expert group and the chairman. We will instruct them to clarify the draft conclusion, and I would still suggest later, after we clarify it, given the importance and sensitivity of the issue, I would ask you to agree that we then familiarize you all with the prepared draft in working order, and this it must be done quickly, within 3-4 days, and this decision must be signed and sent for study to the Ministry of Education. No objections? That is, we believe that we do not have sufficient grounds to make a decision to deprive Prokofiev Konstantin Georgievich of the degree of candidate of legal sciences. Does everyone agree with this fundamental decision? I verbally stated it, but it will be fixed on the record. So let's vote. Does everyone agree with this? We vote. Is there anyone against? There is not. ….. For this, I asked that we give us 2-3 days so that we can clarify all this thoroughly and give it to you for final reading, so that we take into account as much as possible all the opinions that can be expressed or have not yet been expressed, but will be born in implementation process in this topic. Do you agree, colleagues? So, no one voted against my proposal.
On September 28, Dissernet visited the Political Science Discussion Council 212.203.20 at RUDN in connection with the consideration of the cases of two of our wards. The Ministry of Education and Science sent a complaint to this council about plagiarism in the dissertation of the “best municipal deputy” of St. Petersburg in 2013, Ekaterina Zinovkina (“United Russia”), since the “native” council where she defended herself was dispersed. As usually happens in such cases, when the complaint is not considered by those who awarded the original academic degree, the work of the commission created by the dissent council turned out to be objective and of high quality, and the best deputy Zinovkina, having familiarized herself with the conclusions of the commission, voluntarily renounced the degree without waiting for the meeting.
The second item on the agenda was the dissertation of the former applicant for this council of RUDN University, a citizen of Mali Konate Modibo Mamadou. We came across him in the course of a systematic study of RUDN University political scientists. In total, we have seven examinations from the political science council at the RUDN University in our warehouses, but only Mamadou passed the statute of limitations, which is why he was chosen to write an application for the deprivation of his academic degree.
After the speech of the members of the commission, which boiled down to the fact that, although they found large-scale incorrect borrowings in their work, this is not a reason to deprive a person of a degree, the floor was taken by Mamadou's supervisor, Professor Edward Nikolayevich Ozhiganov. He pretty much surprised us with the following maxim: “The question arises whether it is sufficient ( for deprivation of degree. — A. Z.) when evaluating a thesis, in which there are undoubtedly violations, only an indication of plagiarism. ... In the social sciences, this is not the case. If we were talking about the behavior of microbes, it would be possible.” Professor Ozhiganov did not tell us where exactly in the regulation on awarding scientific degrees the legislator prescribed such a difference between political science and microbiology that plagiarism is allowed in the first and not in the second.
Professor Ozhiganov expressed regret that during the last six months of his postgraduate work he did not control him, and the late professor Nikolai Dmitrievich Kosukhin was doing his dissertation. (“Dissernet” here draws the reader’s attention to the fact that Professor Kosukhin was also the supervisor of Hena Anthony Lombeh’s 2009 work, from which several dozen pages were written off in Mamadou’s dissertation. In turn, about forty pages found their home in Hena Anthony Lombeh’s dissertation from the work of Dmitry Polikanov in 1999.) And then Professor Ozhiganov completely shocked us, stating verbatim the following: “There is now a military coup in Mali, the seizure of half of the country by the Tuareg, Boko Haram, terrorist attacks and ISIS cells. Suppose: we, referring to our scientific formality, deprive this person of this academic degree, he is removed from this part of the ideological front, and who will win? The answer is known." This is something new in the life of Dissernet: we have not yet been accused of working for ISIS!
It's funny that in order to justify Mamadou, the members of the dissolution council, while recognizing that there are borrowings, nevertheless stated that the borrowings were made from a dissertation in a different specialty - history.
When one of the dissernetists called Mamadou a “poor African,” meaning that we do not want to ruin the career of a young teacher from Bamako, the member of the dissertation council, who presented the conclusion of the commission, remarked: “He is not a poor African, this is a man who spends our time there. politics!"
It was amusing to hear from the chairman of the dissolution council, Professor Yuri Mikhailovich Pochta, addressed to us: “You do not look as if you have come to a nest of plagiarists, we are counting on constructive cooperation.” We wouldn't call this advice a whole "nest." This is a nest, which I told Yuri Mikhailovich about after the meeting: what is only Evgenia Kushtavkina’s dissertation, which was defended in his dissent council, completely written off - from the first to the last word - from the work of Abdul-Khakim Sultygov. The work of a certain Irina Livanova, defended there, differs from the work of her supervisor Olga Plotnikova, also only in the title page. A graduate of the RUDN University Political Science Council Shagen Aghababyan defended again, practically only changing the title page, the work of Hovhannes Hovhannisyan. Curious readers can also find other papers from this discouncil: Olga Savushkina - 87 pages, Levon Etimyan (Romanov) - 115 pages, Oksana Morozova - 69 pages.
So Mamadou will not be deprived of his academic degree. Otherwise, who will pursue our line in Mali and fight Boko Haram? Without the title of candidate of sciences, as you know, it is impossible to defeat the Islamists, they are afraid of Vakov crusts like fire.
* The organization is prohibited on the territory of the Russian Federation.
Konstantin Prokofiev KSU press office
The RUDN Discussion Council refused to deprive I. about. Rector of Kurgan State University Konstantin Prokofiev. The commission did not study the arguments of the Dissernet community and came to the conclusion that Prokofiev in his dissertation was based not on other people's works, but on his own book. That's just one of the founders of "Dissernet" Andrey Zayakin declares that in fact this book is a fake, otherwise Prokofiev can be considered a prophet who can predict the future.
The Dissertation Council of RUDN University on the eve, March 28, refused to deprive and. about. Rector of the Kurgan State University Konstantin Prokofiev, PhD in Law. As Andrei Zayakin, co-founder of the Dissernet community, reported from the pages, the commission voted to leave Prokofiev with a degree. In a conversation with Znak.com, he expressed his opinion on the situation: “I see such frank spitting in the eyes and calling black white, perhaps, after all, not so often. There hasn’t been such a disgrace lately, because people still began to be afraid of Dissernet and not lie in the face like that. ”
Konstantin Prokofiev defended his Ph.D. thesis on "Administrative responsibility for violating the law on meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and picketing" at the Moscow University for the Humanities in 2014. In the summer of 2017, Dissernet analyzed this work: out of 180 pages of the content of the dissertation, incorrect borrowings were found on 163. They were taken from sources in 2011.
After the publication of these data, Prokofiev presented his book, allegedly published before his dissertation - in 2010: "Administrative responsibility for violating the law on meetings, rallies, demonstrations, processions and picketing: Scientific and methodological manual." It was on this basis, as the head of the university stated, that he wrote his dissertation.
In "Dissernet" the book was called a later falsification made on the basis of a dissertation. First of all, for some reason Prokofiev himself did not include the book in the abstract of 2014, and the stamp of the Russian State Library on receipt of this work was 2017. The Book Chamber also received the book only last year. In addition, Prokofiev, justifying himself on charges of plagiarism, for some reason did not first mention this book himself.
It is curious that in the book we are talking about the existence of "now" 53 political parties, while in 2010 there were only 8 parties. Also in the book, Prokofiev writes about the increase in fines for rallies to 300 thousand rubles, which in fact was put into effect FZ-65 dated June 8, 2012. “And being a prophet of absolutely unimaginable power, he predicts the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of February 14, 2013, a whole paragraph of which ends up in Prokofiev’s book,” writes Zayakin.
Andrey Zayakin/ Novaya Gazeta
However, the RUDN Discussion Council, according to him, proposed not to analyze the evidence that the book did not exist in 2010 at all. Instead, the commission came to the conclusion: there is a book of 2010, the dissertation is identical to the book, so they did not deprive Prokofiev of his degree, writes the co-founder of Dissernet in Novaya Gazeta.
Prokofiev himself, who was present at the dissent, told Zayakin “that he brings such excellent legislative initiatives that he does not see the strangeness that the legislator then picks them up,” he did not answer the question with the prediction of the parties. “A disgrace, a complete disgrace for (RUDN University Rector Vladimir) Filippov and for RUDN University,” Zayakin summed up.
He clarified to Znak.com that after 10 days, the discouncil should send its decision to the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission, which will issue its opinion. This can happen within a few months or a few years.
Get comments from RUDN Rector Vladimir Filippov, as well as. about. KSU Rector Konstantin Prokofiev failed today: both of them will return from a business trip only next week.
We add that Konstantin Prokofiev has been heading KSU in the status of acting rector since June 2016. In January 2017, he announced that he would not participate in the rector's elections when they were announced. At the same time, the election of the university rector has not been held since 2012.
