I would talk to the chair of the thesis committee first. The entire committee should discuss the best plan before I would refuse. If the committee is willing to overlook the dishonesty, then I would refuse and report the abuse.

Discard it outright

If you are an external examiner of a master's thesis or doctoral dissertation, and the research is not characterised by scientific honesty and integrity, do you refuse to discuss the student absolutely, or do you give him another chance?

Since I'm an external examiner, I will hi-light this to the chairman of the university's exam panel to seek their opinion on the next step.

Refuse it.

If am an external examiner of a master's thesis or doctoral dissertation, and the research is not characterised by scientific honesty and integrity, I would dircet reject the thesis.

I would keep a record of the scientific misconduct, and verify whether there exist previous instances of such misconduct by the student, if this is the first time then I would call up the student and talk to him/ her at length, and recommend to submit the revised thesis with suitable corrections such that it conforms to modern standards of scientific ethics and integrity.

There are many reasons that could be in the background of academic misconduct. I noticed that some of our students (especially those at the master level) don't know that they are working something wrong when, e.g. plagiarise a part of someone's work or when they need to explain validity or reliability of the research. They, sometimes, don't know well enough the rules of research methodology, academic writing and ethics in research. In that sense, you may talk to that person and try to understand his/her position. If he/she is trying to cheat, you will see that easily. But, there is possibility that he/she doesn't try to cheat but doesn't deal well with research methodology.

"If you are an external examiner of a master's thesis or doctoral dissertation, and the research is not characterized by scientific honesty and integrity, do you refuse to discuss the student absolutely, or do you give her another chance?"

1. Internal and external examiner roles are specified by the institution, but usually their role is to review, report, and comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the thesis / dissertation against the criteria of the institution and make a recommendation.

As members of a profession, examiners have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of their discipline, and internal examiners also have a duty to maintain the integrity of their specific institution, but as members of the academic profession, examiners also have an academic role to act in the best interests of the student.

2. In addition to reviewing, reporting, and commenting on the the thesis / dissertation, the examiner may participate further - for example in the oral defense - if the candidate moves forward, so there may be an opportunity to followup on reports and comments.

However, examiners do not have a role to act as 'police' or 'judges' for their discipline. Their role is to review, report, and recommend.

3. What exactly do you mean by "the research is not characterized by scientific honesty?"

One person's opinion 'scientific dishonesty' as worthy of dismissal maybe another's view of a teachable moment. It depends on the nature of the offense.

While scientific dishonesty may be grounds for dismissal in professional settings, in the context of university studies, it may also be an indication of inexperience or lack of discipline on the part of the student, and/or poor supervision and training on the part of the institution/department.

4. What determines the type of reporting?

If, in the examiner's opinion, others are in danger (i.e. a research study that puts subjects at risk) , then there is an immediate duty to report to the institution, AND to other authorities as well.

If the 'scientific dishonesty' appears to be deliberate, endemic, misrepresentation or blatant or obvious theft, graft, or corruption then that would be reported and recommendations made to not proceed.

More commonly, if the 'scientific dishonesty' appears to be typical student inexperience, correctable errors in paraphrasing and attribution, honest misunderstanding or misinterpretation, OR incorrect institutional teaching or leadership, then recommendations for amelioration and revision should be made so the student can attempt correction.

Of course, the above is only my opinion,

Leo

You need to follow university policy or refer the matter to higher authority

I would talk to the chair of the thesis committee first. The entire committee should discuss the best plan before I would refuse. If the committee is willing to overlook the dishonesty, then I would refuse and report the abuse.

I would document the extend of dishonesty, try to establish if it is caused by improper work (e.g. not quoting correctly) or if it is the attempt to cheat. In both instances I shall report my assumption to whoever is in charge to administer the examination of theses with recommendations. If scholar was not fully aware of generic academic skills (how to quote) I also would ask questions towards the supervisor, as he/she needs to make sure that such generic skills are there. He/she also make a decision that the work is ready for submission and such errors need to be highlighted at this level.

I agree with Dr. Ali A. Al-Homaidan.

If I am a researcher outside of a master's thesis or doctoral dissertation and the research is problematic in terms of scientific honesty; I reject this thesis first.

Then I evaluate the details (depending on the type and size of the ethical defect) about reporting the problem to the higher ethical committees/authorities or giving the student a new opportunity to correct the problem.

There are many reasons that could be in the background of academic and research misconduct. Students, sometimes, don't know well enough the rules of research methodology, thesis writing and ethics in research. In that sense, you may talk to that person and try to understand his/her position. If he/she is trying to cheat, you will see that easily. But, there is possibility that he/she doesn't try to cheat but doesn't deal well with research methodology. After that I will talk to the chair of the thesis committee first. The entire committee should discuss the best plan before I would refuse.

In this case: I would direct reject the thesis.

I will refuse the Master or Doctoral Thesis from the first time I Discover it

is not characterized by scientific honest, Indicating the position by an official letter addressed to the College and the Department.

It is better to give the M.Sc. or PhD student an additional six months to correct or repeat the practical or theoretical questionable part of the thesis