Like other universities, the Free University of Berlin (FU) has a Problem with plagiarism-inducing promotions. So recently, a veterinary medical Dissertation from the year 2003, it was agreed that the science of law and the author of the title because of plagiarism deprived. The science platform “VroniPlag Wiki,” had been made in 2014 on the deception to the attention of.
the title of the deprivation of the FU informed, not publicly, but only on request in an E-Mail to FAZ.NET. After the titles deprivation was strong, was confronted the University with the question of how you should inform the academic Public about the plagiarism. After all, the author is not, or not fully stated on more than 62 percent of the pages of text of his sources. The press office of the University claims that a counterfeit note “directly on the printed copy, which can be viewed in the library of the Free University of Berlin”, am. However, this is incorrect. Visiting the library and attends to the work in Hand, above the references on the second page the following handwritten entry: “the withdrawal of the doctoral degree by the decision of the Free University of Berlin, from the 20.3.2018.” Including: signature and University stamp. A note for the reason for the Withdrawal is not found. The plagiarism remain concealed.
such An approach Rolf black man would hold to be unlawful. The head of the Cologne research centre for media law, is also the Chairman of the society for privacy and data security, had, most recently, in a report with the data protection legal admissibility of the busy markings of the withdrawal of a doctoral degree in (Online) library catalogues.
False appeal to the data protection
This report was commissioned by the Board “Ombudsman for research” and is available on their web sites fully accessible.
black man, writes that General Information of the title of withdrawal without specifying the exact scientific misconduct – spent even in the remit of a University. The reason: such A notice does not fulfill the purpose to serve the “clean” and maintaining the credibility of science. A note was just then, if it included a reference to the scientific reason for the withdrawal of the degree. As this note would be, specifically, to formulate, not black man. For the protection of the personality rights it is advisable, however, to divide it into two of the possible grounds for Withdrawal in such a way that the notice must specifically designate whether or not the deprivation of “due to academic deficiencies or for other reasons (no academic deficiencies)”.
The FU, however, has not given any reason to. Below, this is a label in your online catalog: “This method,” the FU press Secretary “was matched with the data protection.” However, this approach is legally, at least, controversial. So black man writes: “in The informational note on the withdrawal due to academic misconduct in an online catalogue is related to the final withdrawal of the doctoral degree, as a necessary consequence of action without the intervention content. The information regarding the withdrawal of only one kind of ‘elimination’ of the wrongly conferred doctoral degree is to act rather. The already publicly made false note, it is a scientific work, is, in turn, corrects also open to the public.“