KTU rector pledges to appeal against ethics watchdog’s finding

“We are currently drafting answers with my lawyers. I will defend myself in court,” Barsauskas said in a press release circulated by the university.

On Tuesday, the Lithuanian Service of Ombudsman of Academic Ethics and Procedures concluded that Baršauskas’ monograph submitted as habilitation at the Vilnius Gediminas Technical University includes “coincidences with other publications are presented as the author’s ideas or make a reference to works by third authors,” also, the coincidences contained in the summary are not put in quotes or any other distinctive signs that would allow distinguishing them from the author’s ideas.

“The conclusion is that Petras Baršauskas violated the principles of ensuring requirements of academic ethics and intellectual property stipulated in (…) chapters of the Law on Science and Studies, as well as the principle of academic honesty envisaged in the KTU code of academic ethics in the part that stipulates that the academic principle of honesty is based on respect of intellectual property and (…) that plagiarism runs counter to the academic honesty,” read the conclusions.

Baršauskas dismissed the finding as clearly biased.

“I have studied the opinion of Vigilijus Sadauskas on the slander against me. It is nothing that I didn’t expect, nothing came as a surprise – clearly biased interpretations, multiple procedural violations, categorical refusal to accept my answers, which I wanted to submit in writing to avoid any interpretations – it is a clear continuation of urgent political retribution,” reads his comment.

Baršauskas defended his monograph before a joint panel of VGTU and the Vilnius University in 2002.

Artūras Žukauskas, rector of the Vilnius University, said on Wednesday that Baršauskas would definitely lose his degree, regardless of his decision to dispute the unfavorable finding in court.

Before the end of the inquiry, Baršauskas has submitted resignation and will leave the KTU rector’s position on Oct. 25. He had admitted technical errors in his work but denied plagiarism.