25

Suppose a person got PhD degree by properly submitting his/her thesis on a particular topic. Assume that neither the student nor the doctoral review committee including supervisor knows that the proposal is not a novel.

Later at some point of time if it comes to know that the student got PhD without any novelty. Then does the PhD degree get withdrawn?

hanugm
  • 7,779
  • 9
  • 43
  • 79
  • 38
    "Novelty" is in the eye of the beholder. If your committee signed off, you are good. – Jon Custer Jan 31 '19 at 17:39
  • 19
    It is not even unheard of for PhD theses to be found out to be wrong but they retain their degrees anyway (as long as they did not attain a wrong result by e.g. faking experimental results). – xuq01 Jan 31 '19 at 19:37
  • 7
    If some work was legitimately deemed novel at some point, it is understood that this was in the context of reasonably available information at that time. – copper.hat Jan 31 '19 at 20:52
  • 3
    @JonCuster Strictly speaking the comittee, at least at some institutions, gives a non-binding recommendation. They don't decide the outcome of the doctorate. Practically speaking their recommendation is usually rubber-stamped, of course. – Konrad Rudolph Feb 01 '19 at 09:20
  • 5
    Useful results being discovered simultaneously, or re-discovered after some time, happens all the time in research; it isn't remotely unusual, and it certainly isn't a problem. If the student's useful, field-advancing work was performed independently and the committee was satisfied with it, there is no issue here whatsoever. The only way this could possibly be a problem would be if academic dishonesty were involved - if the student knew about the other/previous work and did not disclose it. – user73076 Feb 01 '19 at 14:30
  • 1
    @JonCuster: Committees can make mistakes. – einpoklum Feb 01 '19 at 21:53
  • 2
    @einpoklum - of course committees (of all kinds) make mistakes. But generally there isn't some huge national quality control board second-guessing every single decision in annual reviews. The occasions that decisions are scrutinized are driven by gross academic or legal misconduct, not some nitpicker claiming a thesis isn't 'novel' enough for them. – Jon Custer Feb 01 '19 at 22:17
  • 1
    @JonCuster: You did use the word "usually" there... – einpoklum Feb 01 '19 at 22:18
  • 2
    @einpoklum - Please give a documented example of a passed thesis being retracted based on non-novel grounds. – Jon Custer Feb 01 '19 at 22:20
  • @einpoklum it is an unreasonable expectation for the committee to be aware of absolutely every piece of work that is relevant in their field, especially with the modern increase in the number of journals and pubishing academics (for a start just because something is published in a predatory peer-reviewed journal doesn't mean its incorrect. Do we all really have to check evey journal - do we have the time?) – Dikran Marsupial Feb 05 '19 at 17:18
  • @DikranMarsupial: The committee should not be aware of "every piece of work in the relevant field", but it should be aware of the work that's in the extremely near vicinity of the candidate's. Otherwise, they don't really have the relevant expertise. Now, ok, if someone published something in the East Saharn Journal of Applied Philosophy and General Studies (no offense to the Saharawi's), then fine, nobody's to blame for not having noticed that. But that's not the case OP is describing. OP said the research was simply "not novel". – einpoklum Feb 05 '19 at 18:40
  • @einpoklum you have contradicted yourself. If the committee has to be sure the work is novel, then they do have to search every journal, as that is the only way to be sure. Nobody has the time to do that. If someone has published the result in ANY journal, then the PhD work is not novel. Consider the case of Georges Lemaître, who first noted the expansion of the universe, but published in a Belgian journal, so Hubble (initially) got the credit. This sort of thing happens all the time. – Dikran Marsupial Feb 06 '19 at 08:20
  • @DikranMarsupial: Your "then" clause doesn't follow from your "if" clause. Also, being "sure" is not binary. – einpoklum Feb 06 '19 at 09:09
  • @einpoklum If a finding being later shown to be non-novel means that a PhD needs to be retracted, then "sure" has to be binary. A more reasonable approach is just to accept that things do get re-invented from time to time, as in the examples I have given you (but which you appear to have ignored). If it was Hubbles PhD, should it have been retracted when Lemaitre's paper was "discovered"? – Dikran Marsupial Feb 07 '19 at 16:13
  • @DikranMarsupial: "needs to" is not binary either. And - your approach is not reasonable if a Ph.D. candidate tries to present previous research findings by others as his/her own novel results. The question of good faith and additional circumstances would be of critical importance in these cases, IMO. – einpoklum Feb 07 '19 at 16:14
  • @einpoklum Sorry, I have no time for this sort of on-line rhetorical pedantry. I note you didn't answer the example about Hubble. – Dikran Marsupial Feb 07 '19 at 16:19
  • @DikranMarsupial: I'm not an astronomer nor a physicist, so I wouldn't know about that. – einpoklum Feb 07 '19 at 16:32
  • @einpoklum if you were actually interested in my point of view, rather than just trolling, you could have looked it up on Wikipedia. FWIW I'm not an astronomer or a physicist either, I am a computer scientist working on machine learning, but like most STEM academics I have an interest in science in general. – Dikran Marsupial Feb 07 '19 at 16:37

7 Answers7

45

It would be very rare for such a thing to happen. However, it might depend on the circumstances behind it. If it was nothing more than a misjudgment by the candidate and the committee or some missed (but relatively obscure) information that wasn't included, probably nothing would happen. People would just say "oh well..." and let it go.

However, if some misconduct occurred, such as hiding information or plagiarizing other work, then it could result in withdrawal. But then, it wouldn't be for lack of novelty, but for the misconduct.

Novelty is a judgement call in any case. Looked at in hindsight something may appear to be not-novel when, at the time, it was. Even at the same moment, different people might judge it differently.

If you are the candidate in question, I recommend that you rest easy. Likewise if you were the advisor.

Buffy
  • 363,966
  • 84
  • 956
  • 1,406
  • 2
    +1, but what if the committee failed to notice something which the candidate should have, and others easily notice? – einpoklum Feb 01 '19 at 21:55
  • 2
    @einpoklum I still think revoking the degree would not be contemplated as it is now a shared mistake. Mistakes happen. There is more to the degree than this. – Buffy Feb 02 '19 at 00:10
  • Right. If you vandalized or stole books from the library, or orchestrated fake DMCA take-down notices in order to prevent the committee or your advisor from finding prior research, that's a problem. If someone later finds an coded footnote in a recently-rediscovered medieval manuscript evincing a prior finding, that's just life. – Robert Columbia Feb 09 '19 at 18:24
  • @RobertColumbia, I doubt the library stuff would be enough. Just the usual legal consequences. – Buffy Feb 09 '19 at 18:52
24

No. While perhaps the committee erred by approving such a thesis, the decision would not be overturned. The same is true for novel work that is later found to have errors. Withdrawing a PhD is very rare, and typically only done in response to academic misconduct (or public relations problems...).

cag51
  • 67,924
  • 25
  • 181
  • 247
  • 1
    Errors are not the same as non-novelty. It depends on the context, and I don't believe a definite "No" is correct. – einpoklum Feb 01 '19 at 21:54
  • 2
    Don't think I claimed that they were the same, just that neither would normally in itself be cause for degree revocation. And of course there could always be some weird edge case, but I think revoking a good-faith PhD approved by a committee is so extremely rare that we can go with the the non-wishy-washy answer. – cag51 Feb 02 '19 at 02:38
14

No. Retracting degrees after the fact is a grave undertaking. If there is no question of acting in bad faith it would be pretty unthinkable. Even if there was question of foul play, in practice it's very unlikely anything would happen.

Clearly for something severe enough this might be on the table but lacking novelty: no.

It's worth considering how difficult/unreasonable it would be to, ten years after the fact say, reassemble all of the relevant parties and revisit such a claim. And that's all it is, a claim. Especially with something nuanced like novelty, until the parties involved have made their cases and some fairly serious thought put in: it's just conjecture, upon which none would strip a degree. If it was simple, it wouldn't have been gotten wrong at the time.

drjpizzle
  • 502
  • 2
  • 5
  • 1
    Good point about the unreasonableness of a later investigation. Occasionally, I've wondered on sleepless nights whether I could possibly have somehow cheated on ordinary undergraduate coursework 20 years ago, and then reflected that not only is what remains of my memory of specific classes very unreliable, but that the entire text of said assignments or exams are probably lost forever to the world. Many were handwritten and some were on disks that have since been erased or developed read errors. Even I couldn't figure out the whole truth, so the idea of my alma mater doing so is absurd. – Robert Columbia Feb 09 '19 at 18:30
4

No. A PhD is basically an apprenticeship in research in some field, and the thing that gets you your PhD is the demonstration that you have acquired the skills needed to be an independent (journeyman) researcher in that field. Ideas are constantly being reinvented again and again in many fields, so it often happens that you later discover that someone else has published the same idea. If your examiners were satisfied that you were sufficiently diligent in your literature review, then that is demonstrating that skill. We all miss something occiasionally.

Dikran Marsupial
  • 5,538
  • 20
  • 27
  • 1
    In most/all universities, part of the requirements for being awarded a Ph.D. is making a meaningful/significant research contribution; demonstration of skill is insufficient. -1. – einpoklum Feb 01 '19 at 21:57
  • If a student is unable to do that, and gets as far as a viva, then the fault lies with the supervisor for assigning a project where those skills will not produce a meaningful/significant research contribution (a bit like a competent cabinet maker should be able to produce a good apprentice-piece, provided the specifications were within reasonable capacity). Besides, as I have already pointed out, things get reinvented all the time, and meaningful research contributions often get made more than once. – Dikran Marsupial Feb 05 '19 at 07:52
  • 1
  • Regardless of who that fault lies with - such a candidate cannot be recognized as a Ph.D. 2. A Ph.D. candidate does not simply get "assigned" projects; if that is an established custom, that's a failure of the academic institution as much as it is the supervisor. A Ph.D. candidate must make a conscious choice of direction(s) for his/her research, albeit influenced by the supervisor and research group or lab's needs.
  • – einpoklum Feb 05 '19 at 08:40
  • 1
  • Agreed, but that is not what happened in this case. 2. This is something that I suspect varies from one country to another (and perhaps by subject). In the U.K. it was common for studentships to be tied to specific projects, especially if funded by the research councils (I was given a choice of two projects - in hindsight, I didn't pick the right one! ;o). The point remains that a finding having been previously published and not noticed by the student, supervisor or examiners does not nullify a PhD, and quite rightly so.
  • – Dikran Marsupial Feb 05 '19 at 08:57
  • I'll retract the -1 if you edit your answer to restrict its relevance to the context you describe in point #2 in your last comment. – einpoklum Feb 05 '19 at 13:53
  • @einpoklum I don't think that is necessary. Generating a meaningful research contribution is part of demonstrating the skills for research. Finding out in hindsight that the contribution was not as novel as you (and the examiners) thought doesn't change that. As I said, it happens all the time, even for experienced researchers, e.g. http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/who-invented-backpropagation.html – Dikran Marsupial Feb 05 '19 at 17:08