Abstracts on entomology

Community and Forum → Entomological collections → Abstracts on entomology

06.05.2013 13:54, amara

Doctor of Biological Sciences and Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Deputy Director of the Institute of Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, member of the Public Council under the Ministry of Education and Science Mikhail GELFAND:

"Zhuzhelitsa plagiatnaya

— Now the ministry is considering several other councils in various sciences. It is useful to understand that this happens not only in the social sciences. I'll tell you a wonderful story about biology. Now I will "shoot" simply. Wonderful advice on biology at Makhachkala State University. It has a chairman — Professor Gairbek Magomedovich Abdurakhmanov. He is a member of the Higher Attestation Commission's expert council on biology, and was introduced there under Fursenko. There were some very funny defenses on this board. For example, a dissertation was defended, and before that a monograph was written — by a student of Professor Abdurakhmanov and himself. The monograph was arranged as follows: we take a monograph about ground beetles of Moldova (ground beetles are beetles) and rewrite it, but we change Moldova everywhere to Dagestan.

— And the ground beetle is found in Dagestan?

"Ground beetles are everywhere. These are healthy, a few centimeters tall beetles with an ebb and pronounced jaws. If you go outside now, the first beetle you see will probably be a ground beetle. But the circus is that in Dagestan and Moldova ground beetles are different. In addition to rewriting, there is also falsification of results, because you can not observe ground beetles in Dagestan that are characteristic of Moldova. These are different geographical areas, and there are different beetles. In mid-February, an appeal was filed against this dissertation by a student of Abdurakhmanov. The appeal went the standard way — to the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission on Biology. But the decision is not made, the appeal is "pickled". The expert council slows down the work terribly and resists. Apparently, they don't want to get involved and make a scandal. "

And the whole text is also very interesting to read:

http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/57997.html

Likes: 6

Likes: 1

07.05.2013 8:06, Makarov

More than up to date. We have repeatedly written to the Higher Attestation Commission about this and other facts of plagiarism in the works of G. M. Abdurakhmanov and his students. The standard response to previous emails was "Your request from ... received and will be reviewed." Apparently, they will be considered only now.
In the cited case, we are talking about the dissertation of E. M. Gadzhieva, based on the materials of which the monograph was published: Abdurakhmanov G. M., Khalilova E. A., Saipulaeva B. N., Gadzhieva E. M. Ecological and faunal characteristics of ground beetles (Coleoptera, Carabidae) Dagestan, flying into the light. - Makhachkala: ALEF, 2009. -112 p. Data on the dynamics of ground beetle summer in Moldova (including graphs) are copied from a 1990 article by V. E. Karpova and A.V. Matalin published in the collection "Structure and Dynamics of Populations of soil and terrestrial invertebrates". In addition, almost the entire chapter 1 of the mentioned monogoraphy is taken unchanged from the article by G. N. Gornostaev "Introduction to the ethology of photoxene insects (insect flight to artificial light sources) "(Proceedings of the VEO, 1984, Vol. 66), and the first seven pages of the section on life forms are completely rewritten from the book by I. H. Sharova "Life Forms forms of ground beetles" (Moscow: Nauka, 1981), etc.

Likes: 2

07.05.2013 8:36, Makarov

And even "to the heap". To the replica of R.Yakovleva - it is a pity that our esteemed colleagues do not read the journals that publish the materials of Dagestani dissertations. Here is an interesting example: the magazine " South of Russia: ecology and development". The article "Composition, structure of dominance and dynamics of ground beetle activity in agroecosystems of Southern Dagestan"was published in No. 1 for 2007 by G. M. Nakhibasheva and G. M. Abdurakhmanov. In No. 3 for 2008, Nakhibashev G. M., Bagomaev A. A., Musaev R. A. "Composition, structure of dominance and dynamics of ground beetle activity in agroecosystems of the Derbent region"is published. Summary of the first study: "For the first time in the region, 61 ground beetle species belonging to 13 life forms were registered. The composition and ecological structure of ground beetles of agroecosystems are studied. New data on the composition and nature of the biotopic distribution and seasonal dynamics of ground beetle activity are obtained. A phenological change of dominant ground beetles in Southern Dagestan was revealed.", the second - " For the first time, 61 ground beetle species belonging to 28 genera and 13 life forms were registered in the study area. The composition and ecological structure of ground beetles of agroecosystems are studied. New data on the composition and characteristics of the biotopic distribution and seasonal dynamics of ground beetle activity are obtained. Phenological change of dominant ground beetles of agroecosystems of Derbent region is revealed." Similar?
Here is the text of the first article "The family of ground beetles is the most important component of the soil population of invertebrates. Ground beetles are found in almost all land landscapes and respond subtly to changes in soil, plant and microclimatic conditions. These features determined the value of this group of animals as a convenient object for environmental research and as bioindicators for environmental monitoring (Sharova, 1981). There is extensive literature on the composition and structure of ground beetle populations in various landscapes (Vasilyeva, 1971). Special attention has recently been paid to the study of ground beetles in agro-ecosystems (Sharova, 1979). The main attention was paid to the characteristics of the distribution and seasonal dynamics of ground beetle activity in various biotopes. Studies were conducted in 12 biotopes. These are the following: cereals, haymaking, border (haymaking and cereals), vineyards ("Agadai"), vineyards ("Cabernet"), border ("Agadai" and "Cabernet"), vineyards ("Premiere"), vineyards (non-fruiting), border (non-fruiting and "Premiere"), chastnik. "
and the second:" The family of ground beetles is the most important component of the soil population of invertebrates. Ground beetles are found in almost all land landscapes and respond subtly to changes in soil, plant and microclimatic conditions. These features have determined the value of this group of animals as a convenient object for environmental research and as bioindicators for environmental monitoring [1, 2]. The main attention was paid to the characteristics of the distribution and seasonal dynamics of ground beetle activity in various biotopes. Studies were conducted in 12 biotopes. These are the following: cereals, haymaking, border (haymaking and cereals), vineyards ("Agadai"), vineyards ("Cabernet"), border ("Agadai" and "Cabernet"), vineyards ("Premiere"), vineyards (non-fruiting), border (non-fruiting and "Premiere"), private vineyard. When collecting the material, the method of Barber's soil traps and manual collection was used."
And so on - the text is almost identical. It's funny that this is not plagiarism - this is about the fifth publication of the same text.
It is useless to sue, the Higher Attestation Commission is also not an arbitrator. In my opinion, there is only one way - at least to speak out, but not to be silent. However, this was already mentioned.

07.05.2013 8:59, Makarov

I'm sorry, I don't agree:
a) At least somehow - it's not necessarily on the forum, is it? I write to the forum less often than to other instances.
b) The forum is not bad in some ways, it creates (partly) a reputation. M. B., the bearer of a not very hidden reputation will not be made the chairman of the conference and will not be invited to make a plenary report?
C) I clearly understand the difference between plagiarism and "fifth publication". Continuing the example: the cover of the magazine " South of Russia ... By the decision of the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission, the journal is included in the list of leading peer-reviewed scientific journals and publications issued in the Russian Federation, where the main scientific results of dissertations for the degree of doctor and Candidate of Sciences should be published." And to publish in serious journals about 10 serious reviews prepared by sensible experts on the publication of this Vakov edition? M. B., to include it in the next version of the list would not be so easy? Although who knows what will happen to the notorious list

Likes: 5

Likes: 3

Likes: 1

28.05.2013 16:59, amara

Briefly.

"THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE REVEALED NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS IN THE PROCESS OF AWARDING ACADEMIC DEGREES

The Prosecutor General's Office of Russia revealed numerous violations during the verification of legality in the process of awarding academic degrees in the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the press service of the supervisory authority told Interfax on Tuesday.

"The Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, during an inspection of the implementation of legislation in the field of state certification of scientific personnel, found that the Ministry of Education and Science makes gross violations when awarding academic degrees and titles, issuing permits for the creation of councils for the defense of dissertations," the report says.

The Prosecutor General's Office has submitted a submission to the Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in this regard. As a result of its consideration, six officials of the Ministry were dismissed from the civil service, and two were transferred to lower-level positions. At the same time, the Prosecutor's Office has established "the facts of the Ministry's failure to take measures to cancel illegal decisions on awarding academic degrees to a number of individuals, despite the presence of plagiarism in their dissertations."

Only during the inspection of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, the ministry created a commission to conduct an expert assessment of dissertations and attestation cases containing forged documents, the ministry stressed.

According to the Prosecutor General's Office, in 2012, the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission illegally issued 1,323 Doctor of Science diplomas after the entry into force of the decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 20, 2011, which transferred these powers to the Ministry. At the same time, diplomas are issued on old-style letterheads, in the form that was valid until June 2011.

The facts of abuse of authority by officials of the Ministry during the creation and termination of the activity of dissertation councils are revealed. Thus, by orders of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, only on the basis of a request from a commercial organization, the activities of two councils for the defense of doctoral and candidate theses at the All-Russian Research and Testing Institute of Medical Technology were illegally terminated, and the councils themselves were transferred to the specified organization.

In the future, the Ministry awarded academic degrees to persons who defended their dissertations in these councils, after a formal review of their certification files, the Prosecutor General's Office noted.

Numerous facts of "unjustified delaying the terms of awarding academic titles, which may indicate that officials of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation have created administrative barriers and conditions for corruption manifestations" have been established.

Almost all attestation documents for awarding a scientific title were considered for more than six months instead of the required three months, and the deadlines for making decisions on issuing diplomas are systematically violated. At the same time, there are cases of awarding academic degrees in significantly reduced terms, which indicates a possible selective approach.

In violation of the requirements of the anti-corruption legislation of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the deadline for considering appeals against decisions on awarding, revoking, restoring academic titles and re-certification of researchers has not been set. This, according to the Prosecutor General's Office, "allows you to arbitrarily delay the time frame for reviewing decisions taken."

In 2012, the Ministry illegally stopped considering applications for permission to set up dissertation councils.

The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation has late adopted administrative regulations for the provision of services for awarding academic degrees and awarding academic titles, issuing permits for the creation of councils for the defense of dissertations. The relevant orders were signed by the Minister and sent for registration to the Ministry of Justice of Russia only during the inspection of the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia.

The Ministry does not fully provide the conditions necessary for the preservation and recording of attestation files of applicants for academic degrees.

Dissertations and attestation files are stored in common areas, under stairs, in office offices and meeting rooms of expert councils, which may lead to their loss. These violations discredit the Institute of state certification of scientific and scientific-pedagogical personnel, hinder the implementation of state policy in the field of science, lead to the illegal assignment of academic degrees and titles, the illegal provision of various benefits and additional payments at the expense of budget funds.

Interfax "

28.05.2013 17:41, guest2

Exactly.

And what if someone from the discussion sees some gross inconsistencies in the stated conclusions? Study gentlemen, not yet candidates of sciences, and even more so not doctors - you will not dig in. Or maybe some of you will be able to distinguish the Samara Trans-Volga region physiognomically and even more faunistically, for example, from the Bugulmino-Belebeyevskaya Upland or the General Syrt, so that it is useful to object to the fact of the stated conclusions in Popova's dissertation???? Or does one of you work on the lepidopteran fauna in more than 1,450 species from 61 families, like this dissertation student? Unfortunately, there are no specialists of this level among those who discuss this work here. It turns out that all of you need to apologize to this dissertation student for an unworthy attempt to abuse her work, especially without doing it behind her back. Ah rhopalocera.com you should be more objective and more balanced or something, really evaluating other people's work.

28.05.2013 19:22, rhopalocera.com

And what if someone from the discussion sees some gross inconsistencies in the stated conclusions? Study gentlemen, not yet candidates of sciences, and even more so not doctors - you will not dig in. Or maybe some of you will be able to distinguish the Samara Trans-Volga region physiognomically and even more faunistically, for example, from the Bugulmino-Belebeyevskaya Upland or the General Syrt, so that it is useful to object to the fact of the stated conclusions in Popova's dissertation???? Or does one of you work on the lepidopteran fauna in more than 1,450 species from 61 families, like this dissertation student? Unfortunately, there are no specialists of this level among those who discuss this work here. It turns out that all of you need to apologize to this dissertation student for an unworthy attempt to abuse her work, especially without doing it behind her back. Ah rhopalocera.com you should be more objective and more balanced or something, really evaluating other people's work.

I wish I could drink honey with your lips...
Such a dissertation can be written in 2 weeks, of which it will take three days to hammer the primary matrix into SPSS or Statistica for Windows, a couple of days to calculate various parameters and algorithms, and another day to process the resulting graphs, tables, and dendrograms. The rest of the time is spent linking the received data into a single text. You don't need to be a writer. Auxiliary chapters (physical and geographical characteristics of the territory, etc.) in the dissertation are written "for show" and are not used in principle. Zoning is taken from the literature, and the results of research with it, for obvious reasons, perfectly correlate. Operate on fauna of one and a half species? Come on, you can score 30,000 in the program - it's not so difficult.

The problem is not who controls how many species. And it's not even that 1,450 species were collected and identified in 4 years (you can collect even more if you don't get out of the fields). The problem is that the material is not actually used, such conclusions are made in the essays of high school students, from a scientific study of grinding water in a mortar is usually not expected.

Formally, conclusions 3, 4 and 6 are not relevant to the stated topic. Formally, the topic is not disclosed.

GF

The message was edited rhopalocera.com - 28.05.2013 19: 22

Likes: 2

28.05.2013 22:05, guest2

Dear rhopalocera.com ! You are absolutely right and this discussion is very useful. But not in the idle framework in which it began. Thank you for your analysis. According to the formal criteria of the Higher Attestation Commission, judging by the conclusions in this paper, and other preparatory work done, everything is relatively normal. You can ask a simple question: Do you want to equalize the depth of analysis of technically developed material by a 26-year-old girl and a 35-40-year-old mature husband? Apparently, from this point of view, any 26-year-old neophyte will have to rewrite the work of the manager. Maybe we should adopt a restriction in the framework of the Higher Attestation Commission so that 26-year-old girls and boys do not try to defend faunal works in entomology, because...etc., or increase the term of postgraduate studies by at least 10 years for field entomologists. I'm In Favor

The problem here is not a specific person, but rather a victim of institutional imperfection, like the rest of us here. Have you tried to raise a specialist yourself within the framework of this system?
And, somehow gushing, in my righteous anger, about one badly written someone else's opus, a colleague gave me a simple advice:"Write better." What I advise everyone to do.

Likes: 1

28.05.2013 22:15, rhopalocera.com

Dear rhopalocera.com ! You are absolutely right and this discussion is very useful. But not in the idle framework in which it began. Thank you for your analysis. According to the formal criteria of the Higher Attestation Commission, judging by the conclusions in this paper, and other preparatory work done, everything is relatively normal. You can ask a simple question: Do you want to equalize the depth of analysis of technically developed material by a 26-year-old girl and a 35-40-year-old mature husband? Apparently, from this point of view, any 26-year-old neophyte will have to rewrite the work of the manager. Maybe we should adopt a restriction in the framework of the Higher Attestation Commission so that 26-year-old girls and boys do not try to defend faunal works in entomology, because...etc., or increase the term of postgraduate studies by at least 10 years for field entomologists. I'm In Favor
The problem here is not a specific person, but rather a victim of institutional imperfection, like the rest of us here. Have you tried to raise a specialist yourself within the framework of this system?
And, somehow gushing, in my righteous anger, about one badly written someone else's opus, a colleague gave me a simple advice:"Write better." What I advise everyone to do.

I agree in many ways. A dissertation is just a simple formality. In any case, the specialist will be evaluated not by it, but by published materials.

Likes: 1

Likes: 5

09.09.2013 11:08, Seneka

By the way, the applicant defended his work in the specialty "Ecology", and not in the specialty"Entomology". In my opinion, this explains a lot.

Not in defense of or against this work. Works on insect ecology or general ecology with an entomological bias, to be honest, are two orders of magnitude harder to do than purely entomological ones. It seems to me that in ecological work there is not enough qualitative comparison, there should be accompanying quantitative estimates for each of the considered species, and it is extremely difficult to obtain them. For example, for a simple one-step comparison(for monitoring over time, multiply all of the following by the number of periods) of sample populations for each species under consideration, between all the biotopes under consideration, it would be necessary to provide a certain statistical significance (usually at least 95%), which would require... you can ask yourself how many repetitions. To test the most important types of distributions, with a successful combination of circumstances, this is a minimum of 40 non-botched repetitions, or even more. For a person, this is quite harsh physically and mentally! If the task is also to assess the relationship with phytocenotic factors (do the same for plants, or at least do something), climatic (at least a little), physical and geographical(You didn't overlay data on the DEM? Fii!), at least a little mathematical modeling(this is ECOLOGY, eat it), etc. and so on, then the work becomes worthy of a large team of already settled employees and 10-13 years may not be enough, if the mission is feasible at all. However, in order to burn out at work, and the first point is enough.

This post was edited by Seneka - 09.09.2013 12: 39

Likes: 1

Pages: 1 ...11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19