PennState ‘The Graduate Schoo! INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: February 29, 2018 To: Graduate Program faduate Faculty and Graduate Students FROM: Jean Vasiatos-Younkgh, Vice Provost for Graduate Education & Dean of the 6 Physios and Chair, Graduate Council Commit ‘Academic Standards SUBJECT: Revocation of Research Doctorate (Ph.D.) We are writing to you a this time to share information regarding a series of events that have culminated, regrettably and significantly, n the revocation of a research doctorate (Ph 0.) that ‘was previously conferred at Penn State. This is only the second time in the history of the ‘Graduate Schoo), based upon all known records, that a graduate degree has been revoked, and in both cases the degree was a research doctorate. With this nate we wish to inform you ofthe facts suroundng the revocation and ask that yu discus thoughtful th reasons forthe revocation within your graduste programe, ‘The Graduate School was noid a Ite over a year ago about possible research misconduct involving a former student's doctoral dissertation. As appropriate for any concem or alegation regarding possible research misconduct, the Offee for Research Protections was noted, and it was determined that an investigation was necessary. A formal investigative committee was ‘appointed under Unversity Policy RPO2 - ADDRESSING ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT. This investigative committee found that the former student had deliberately and substantially plagiarized the dissertation of a scholar from another institution to such a pervasive degree that enti chapters were copied verbatim. The committee's report was submitted to Dr. Nell Sharkey, Vice President for Research, who accepted the findings. As Dean of the Graduate School | was noted by Dr. Sharkey and provided wth the investigative report. Preparation ofa dissertation that represents a significant contribution to knowledge in the fied, and demonstrates the abit to do independent research of high quality and competence in scholarly exposition, is the seminal requirement forthe research doctorate. Correspondingly, based upon the findings of the Investigative Committee, (Dean Vasilatos.Younken) wes Compeled to rule that the individual had not met the requirements forthe Ph.0. Following my rotfcaton to President Barron that | had withdrawn certification ofthe individual as having {ulfled the requirements forthe Ph.D., and his own careful review of the investigative report, President Barron revoked the doctorate. These events culminated at the very end of Fall, 2016, and in early January the individual was noted and has returned the Ph. diploma tothe Office of the University Registrar. In an effort to remove the plagiarized dissertation from a bibliographic sources to the greatest extent possible, the plagiarized dissertation has been withdrawn from the University Libraries and from Dissertation Abstracts/ProQuest Dissertationsland Theses (PQDT) database (published by University Microfilms international (UmnProauest). On behalf ofthe Graduate Council Committee on Academic Standards and ofthe Graduate ‘School, we felt it was important to share ths information with the Graduate Facuity and students, and ask that you discuss this thoughuly within your graduate programs. In that conversation we suggest you emphasize the core philosophy behind scholarly research, which isthe pursuit of new knowledge and understanding, and ultimately, the search for rut, and that if we compromise these for any reason then we fail atthe very core of what it means to be scholars. (This, and not the punitive consequences of research misconduct, isthe important lesson to communicate.) As faculty, we have very high expectations for aur students, and ‘ightly so. Itis important, however, that our expectations never be imposed in such a way that places students, unintentionally or otherwise, in untenable situations for meeting those ‘expectations. Students, on the other hand, might never imagine a situation that would lead them to take shortcuts in thei research, despite cicumstances that do occur at times such as the pressure fo procure data to meet a grant proposal deadline, or limited remaining support {unding, or a commitment to begin @ new job witha rapidly approaching start date that is Contingent upon the conferral oftheir degree. When such tensions arse, as they may for individuals within our scholarly community, we must all remember thatthe work we do as researchers and scholars represents a public trust, and across the spectrum of disciplinary fields we offer at Penn State, has the potential to meaningfully impact communities ata local, national, and global level. We must never forget the responsiblity we carry as scholars and, Violate that trust. We recognize that Graduate Facuity members who serve on thesis/issertation committees take their responcblties in this role seriously, and understand that serving asa member carriea with ita considerable and important obligation to apply due diigence in assuring the integrity ofthe research and final thesisicissertalion product. Engagement throughout the program of study of the student, and especialy with respect to careful review and examination ofthe final document, uitimately rests wth each committee member. We ask that you always place this asa highest priority, andi serious concerns withthe dissertation are identified, the inal defense should be ‘delayed until the concems are addressed. Both the committee chair and student are ‘responsible for providing a copy ofthe final daft ofthe dissertation to the committee atleast two Weeks prior to the scheduled date of the final examination. If ths ead time isnot provided, and {3S a consequence your ability to conduct a thorough review otherwise is constrained, then the final defense should appropriately be delayed. “The seriousness of the revocation ofa Ph.D. cannot be overstated. With this in mind we ask that programs engage in discussions of ths in a meaningful way (e.g, the college and respective graduate student organization might co-sponsor a conversation wit the facully; as @ focused topic in a SAR! lecturelactivly, by reserving time at an upcoming retreat or other event) such that leads to thoughtful and positive reflection, and contributes to reinforcing the shared values of the scholarly community we represent and of which we are justifiably proud Co: Nicholas P. Jones Erie J. Barron Neil Sharkey