Ultimately, Yes, of course it depends on the causes and the case sensetivity. Some difficulties and complications might happen. However if it goes to courts, results and compensations may be obtained within a period of 2 years In average.

Dear @Demetris, as I can see, you have not solved your problem with Ph.D thesis. It is a long time. If you do not see the solution, if yu are unable to overcome this long lasting problem, change the Institution.

In my country such cases happen, but there is a procedure at the University which offer the way to the solution.

Dear @Demetris, let me remind you about our discussion about this issue on the following thread:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_to_do_if_you_believe_that_your_supervisor_is_wrong

You should not wait so long!

Dear Ljubomir,

Thank you for your advises now and long years ago from now.

Yes I have not resolved my problem yet and as I know there is no formal way to transform my work to another institution in Greece.

Maybe exists a way which personally I do not know, so if somebody has an idea, then he/she is welcome...

Dear Najib ,

I think two years is an ideal time interval, here in Greece it is 10 years...

My sister had a similar problem at Oxford, UK and moved to Athens where she awarded the degree from your institution. But she had other problems with supervisors at Democritus Lab before. Yes, a bunch of strong-minded profs in Greece would not change their minds for ever! They think they are the best, but actually we could live better without them.

I would say find a more open-minded department to welcome you. They would be fortunate and honoured to have you and your contribution.

They will accept thesis in English almost anywhere today.

The problem that presented itself to me during the obtaining of the degree of master in sciences, was when I did not obtain the retroinfomación or motivation or sufficient support of the institutional administrators of this master's degree. Fortunately, with the support of my master thesis tutors, I took the project forward and therefore fulfilled the necessary requirements for the master's degree.

If you have a conflict with your PhD advisory committee, there should be a way for trying to convince them.

Dear @Demetris, If you do not can find a possible solution you must, I m afraid, change your supervisor or your Institution.

Students have the right to change their supervisors if the conflicts ensuing among the PhD student and the supervisor cannot be settled amicably.

Dear Michael,

The cost for changing Department is three year plus for an already finished work, since you start as a 'newbie' and you have to offer work for all that time interval (exams surveillance or other work)...

Dear Ioannis,

Since we are in the same Institution I have to testify here that the so called 'advocate of the student' is a clear joke ... please cancel that option.

Of course I can change Institution or Department, but why should I spend three more years of my life in order to present a work already finished in 2014?

Are professors 'more equal' (aka Orwell) than other equal academic entities?

1) Eφ όσον έχετε κάνει, αγαπητέ νέε συνάδελφε, ικανοποιητική πρόοδο στο έργο σας, τότε δύνασθε να εξετάσετε το εξής ενδεχόμενο: ο νέος επόπτης σας από ένα άλλο Τμήμα (προφανώς) να εισηγηθεί στην γενική συνέλευση ειδικής συνθέσεως του Τμήματός του την αναγνώριση όλου ή μέρους του ερευνητικού σας χρόνου. Φυσικά, για να συμβεί αυτό, είναι απολύτως φυσιολογικό ο νέος επόπτης σας να είναι σύμφωνος για την ποιότητα του έργου σας και να την αποδέχεται επιστημονικώς.

2) Το ζήτημα να μην έχετε, όντως, ικανοποιήσει από επιστημονικής απόψεως τον προηγούμενο επόπτη σας, το έχετε εξατάσει νηφάλια με τον εαυτό σας?

3) Δεν τίθεται θέμα «ισότητος» όπως την τοποθετείτε. Τίθενται όμως τα εξής ερωτήματα:

i) μελετήσατε καλά τον κανονισμό εκπονήσεως διδακτορικής διατριβής πρίν επιλέξετε τον συγκεκριμένο επόπτη?

ii) Ποιά ήσαν τα κριτήριά σας για την επιλογή του επόπτη αυτού?

iii) Εξεταζόσασταν μία φορά τον χρόνο με παρουσίαση της προόδου σας ενώπιον της -κατά νόμον- προβλεπομένης τριμελούς επιτροπή?

iv) Και έαν ναί, τότε ποιές ήσαν οι εκθέσεις προόδου σας, μετά την εξέταση αυτή?

v) Εάν ήσαν θετικές, τότε δεν ευρίσκεσθε εσείς εν αδίκω αλλά η altera pars.

vi) Eάν όμως ήσαν αρνητικές, από την πρώτη φορά, έπρεπε να κάμετε μια συζήτηση -σοβαρή- με τον επόπτη σας και τα μέλη της τριμελούς επιτροπής σας. Εάν δεν το εκάματε εξετάστε τους λόγους γιατί.

Ελπίζω να σας βοήθησα.

Αγαπητέ Ιωάννη,

Σας ευχαριστώ για την αντικειμενική απάντησή σας.

Πράγματι βοηθάτε στην ταξινόμηση του προβλήματός μου.

Υποθέτω αντιλαμβάνεστε ότι δεν μπορώ να υπεισέλθω δημόσια σε λεπτομερέστερη εξιστόρηση.

Μπορώ όμως (εάν κι εσείς συμφωνείτε) να επικοινωνήσω μαζί σας ιδιωτικά και να σας ενημερώσω αναλυτικότερα.

Ευχές

Dear Ioannis,

Thank you for your objective reply.

You help indeed in classifying my problem.

I suppose you understand that I cannot enter publicly in a detailed storytelling.

I may (if you also agree) contact with you privately and inform you for more details.

Best

Dear @Ioannis and @Demetris, please, give us the English translation of your posts. Thanking you in advance.

Dear Ioannis,

As I read your post under a second view I realized that:

• objective function of a PhD procedure in our Institution is not the creation of prototype and novel knowledge but the satisfaction of the supervisor professor

I think this is the core of my suffers, since my objective was to create something novel and I succeeded on that task.

So -probably- that is a not forgiven success...

Of course I could add here a list of names of colleagues that received their PhD diploma without even a formal publication or with just a citation from a friendly neighbor-professor, but then I'd face many problems.

So, details only in private mode, unless there exists a major reason.

Best wishes.

Hi Demetris. Since your objective was to create something novel... You suffer for years. Sorry. Here, there and everywhere.

Best,

The optimist.

Dear Ljubomir ,

The non translated post of Ioannis Mazis had to do with details of PhD process in Greek universities.

However I can assure you that I have followed the Law in its entire detailed version, so it was not necessary to answer those questions.

The trilateral committee is the part that has not followed the Law.

Best,

Demetris

Dear friends,

I don't know if I'll find my personal right on my (also) personal conflict.

However I opened this thread and invited many PhD candidates to participate in order to exchange experiences and views.

As you may have already observed there exists a remarkable absent of candidates.

So we can formulate some hypotheses about that absent. Maybe silent candidates:

• have a so harmonic relation with their advisors that they never felt the possibility of a conflict
• just feel a kind of fear in order to express negative issues regarding their academic status (they fear that they will lose the academic paradise)
• don't care about details like novel work versus professor satisfaction...

Who knows?

I wish to all of them to re-think about the seemingly majestic of academics...

The following two options are possible with minimum energy:

You can offer acceptable proof (if you publish your text(s) in a prestigious international magazine, for example) that your ideas are fruitful; or

You must find another mentor and another institution to realize your ideas.

I REPEAT MY PROPOSITIONS IN ENGLISH:

1) Given that your research features significant progress, you could examine whether a new supervisor from another Department could accept after a memorandum to the general assembly of his Department that part or the whole of your research time could be recognized. The new supervisor should accept the quality of your academic and scientific work. 2) Have you actually soberly examined the possibility that you did not meet the academic requirements of your previous supervisor? 3) A question of equality', is not raised. Still, the following questions arise: i) Did you study thoroughly the dissertation guide before you chose your supervisor? ii) Under which criteria did you choose your supervisor? iii) Did you perform annually an oral presentation of the progress of your research before a 3-member committee according to the relevant provisions? iv) In that case, what were the results of the evaluation by the committee? v) If the results of the evaluation were positive, then your claim is grounded and your supervisors are wrong. vi) Still, if the evaluation by your Supervisor was negative, you should have conducted a thorough discussion with your supervisor and the members of the 3-member committee. If you did not, then you should consider the reasons.  I really hope that I have helped you on this matter.

Dear Demetres, I THINK, YOU MUST address questions i)-vi). What is most important is that you answer these questions to yourself; in that case you shall have really helped yourself.

After all, I think a good answer is the answer of Daniel Romano.

Dear Daniel,

You can read by yourself my published ideas in my other academic profiles that are listed below:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=loxA7dkAAAAJ&hl=en

https://academic.microsoft.com/#/profile/DemetrisChristopoulos

My PhD related work has been cited 7 times from other researchers who work in a broadband scientific field.

Additionally my R Packages 'inflection' and 'RootsExtremaInflections' that are implementations of my PhD work had next acceptance all around the work until 31 May 2017:

• More than 12000 R Studio installations for 'inflection'
• More than 7000 R Studio installations for 'RootsExtremaInflections'

(See attached World distribution for each of them, see also my institution web page for more: http://users.uoa.gr/~dchristop/ )

So dear Daniel:

• Are my ideas fruitful for scientific community or not?

Dear Ioannis,

My answers to your questions:

2)The answer is quite simple: Given that my guides and task were described an already solved problem and given that I wanted to present a novel scientific contribution, I followed my scientific intuition and established my new theory (see

Article Developing methods for identifying the inflection point of a...

https://www.veltechuniv.edu.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Paper-04-2016.pdf

)

Other questions:

i)Yes, I did, including the Laws about dissertations

ii)By the existence of common mathematical background

iii)The Law demands a yearly Progress Report which I wrote and formally sent to trilateral committee and to the PhD Program Secretary with cc to Department Secretary and PhD Program Director (too much bureaucracy, trust me I had informed everyone for my progress).

The committee never asked and never did an oral examination of me.

Keep in mind that I had problems even my mails or phone calls to be answered and I asked Director from early times about that non suitable collaboration.

Additionally there exists no written evaluation from committee for my formally submitted annual Progress Reports.

So dear Ioannis, what is your view now?

My view? I can not accept the behavior of your committee! Is unacceptable! But do not generalize! Change supervisors!

I wish you Good luck with better criteria of "choosing" the next time!

Dear Demetris,

I can offer you no solution. In my case, all the professors in the physics faculty at the University of New South Wales and the professors on the Academic Committee conspired to have me removed from the PhD. I reported the affair, with evidence, here:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html

By and large, professors are no different to any other organised criminals.

I hope to can find a satisfactory solution to your situation.

Kind regards,

Steve Crothers

Dear Stephen,

I admire your strength to fight formally in a Department with religion-like 'scientific' issues of relativity theories.

I think that you deserve from another University a PhD for your excellent mathematical skills.

Try to find a not mainstream physics related problem, solve it, present it and get your Diploma.

Unfortunately humanity is not mature enough to take the big step forward: They all prefer to use carbon for space travels instead of building theory from scratch and truth.

Thank you for encouraging me.

Fortunately I was not accused as a kind of 'heretic scientist', my suffers had their origin with me not being a good guy and not following the one man's ego...

Dear Demetris,

Thank you for invitation…

Without free time (working on daytime, writing in night) to respond to query, only now I will respond to you.

I have experiences in two country: In Roumania and Hungary.

In time of writing my MsC project… I had to falsify some geological interpretation, to made concordant with geology of Bucharest. I made (but I had a total original discovery of the agate from Techereu) I did not written down.. Perhaps I will make a article about it.

In Hungary after writing my philosophical book the social-liberalist leaders of the Hungarian oil company made me unemployment. From that time I do not have possibility to work in my profession… No problem… This freely 22 years me made to develop an original understanding of physical world… That’s why I am able to concur to the leader of mainstream science.

When this year my son made BsC in geology… I had to help him, because he had possibility to not finish in time his work. Get my help. In one week I made a original geological concept of all Hungary… His helping teacher gave back the because my son has no reference… Again we need to lie…

After observing your critical papers in European ‘democracy’ you do not have change. Try to make your PhD in Moscow or Beijing.

Regards,

Laszlo

P.S.

Do not give up to live freedom spiritually is better than live accepted with all time against to our conscience.

Independent critical thought was my sin and nearly derailed my whole Ph.D. Finally, I read between the lines and did what I was told and created what results were expected. It is crap and I learned academia was not for me and not where I wanted my tax dollars spent. Strange journey.

Dear László,

Thank you for the support!

I'll check your suggested options.

Best wishes,

Demetris

Dear Clifford,

If academia had as its main purpose the truth finding then you would not had been characterized as a 'sin man'.

On the contrary you would had been given attention, funding and promotion.

However academia is a Power Game and actually nobody cares about novel approaches, truth and other daemons.

They only care for Power.

That seems like a lot of it. To be fair, many people have created a necessary delusion about their work to keep going. They could be very nice unless you confronted them with the truth. Then they rapidly throw you in the bin of "cranks" or get angry. The stakes are really pretty small in academia. Maybe that's why its so vicious.

The matter can be discussed at better platform. In India, there are high level regulatory bodies to resolve such sensitive issues in academia like UGC/MHRD/AICTE etc.

Dear Arvind,

I am happy to read that -at least somewhere else- there exist regulatory authorities for resolving such kind of academic conflicts...

Dear all,

In my opinion, it is an interesting issue to be discussed thoroughly. The root cause of conflict between PhD students and their supervisor will be the key in order to solve it. Such conflict may be because of misunderstanding and proper discussion. Such conflicts are dangerous to the students as it is the students who have to suffer after all. There should be an executive committee at each university which can form a panel of experts of the concerned area. After thoroughly discussion (individually and collectively) with the concerned student and supervisor a new path to be formed. Such suggestion may be fruitful not only for the student or supervisor, but also for the university.

Regards

M. N. Alam

PhD Student

Here in Nigeria, PhD advisory committee is always rigth. There is always one rule to the game. Do what you are asked to do and Be Loyal to your supervisor.

Dear Emmanuel,

I realize that we are brothers in suffers!

What To Do When Your Academic Advisor Mistreats You?

This is fine article.

You deserve to be treated right while pursuing your degree...

https://cheekyscientist.com/academic-advisor/

I am afraid that everyone must fight alone in our country (Czech republic).

You do not have rights when it comes to your supervisor! Just learn from him or her. most supervisors will not be unreasonable when dealing with their student. in a few cases where there is unfairness, plead with your supervisor to see your point of view

Dear Demetris

From my point of view, you have to discuss the ongoing with your supervisors, view the results and the experiences of other researchers are able to solve this problem, I advise you to insist on achieving your goal and not insist on your convictions because it may be wrong really

Good luck

Yes in India every student secured by law.

Dear Josef,

I find Czech also too close to Greece...

Dear José Carlos,

I think that you can present your work now, here in RG and get a DOI for it.

Then let it flow...

Thank you for your interest,

I see now that there exist worse cases,

My kind regards,

Demetris

Dear @Demetris, I was just alerted by this, related Quora discussion.

My PhD advisor is abusing me. I have published as many first author papers as they had initially asked. Many more co-author papers too. Yet my workload keeps increasing. I feel powerless being a foreign student in USA. What can I do?

https://www.quora.com/My-PhD-advisor-is-abusing-me-I-have-published-as-many-first-author-papers-as-they-had-initially-asked-Many-more-co-author-papers-too-Yet-my-workload-keeps-increasing-I-feel-powerless-being-a-foreign-student-in-USA

Dear Dimitirs

The “solidarity” is a major property of biological and non-biological entities. A shape of solidarity is the compartmentalization of the objects. The nepotism is a particular acquired property of “compartmentalized objects”. This is why; molecules may express distinct biochemical and biological properties. The environment (micro-macro) has a coding-property.

If, you cannot compartmentalize yourself with your PH committee means you or the committee have completely different properties. Then best for you is to defend your PhD and say goodbye. If, the conditions are very offensive then it will be offensive elsewhere. So, impose your PhD with you very good papers.

My advice, offer to your PhD committee as gesture of kindness and pray the “World in Fragments, Writings on Politics, Society, Psychoanalysis, and the Imagination”, CORNELIUS CASTORIADIS.

Dear Vassilis,

I'd agree 100% with your arguments if we had considered a private London Club:

• then yes, if mine and their interests did not align, I should go away...

But now we do not talk about a club but we have a Public University:

• which is being paid by Greek taxpayers
• it has the monopoly of existence (private universities are prohibited)

So, unless we'll accept that each Department is a "little store" of a few "professors", then I'll not abandon my rights.

Dimitris, I never said to abandon your rights. I said impose your PhD, if this was the question.

When the system or the applicant for the PhD degree is well controlled, the degree will be obtained.

Mechanism: - The research plan will be approved by an accredited committee for each department according to the exact specialization. - Approval of the research seminar submitted by the candidate to the degree by the council Section by decisions submitted to the Supreme Councils with the approval of the budget: - Compliance with the rules and principles of the scientific publication of the degree, - Seminars every six months in front of scientific committees to keep up with and verify the conduct of research in the right field, a final seminar if approved and was named the Committee means that the candidate will get a ruling and there may be some disagreement about The mark or final grade, but gets a doctorate