MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115706402 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17954070

Clarification Decision by the University of Potsdam on Statements Regarding King's College London in the Homolka Plagiarism Case (11 December 2025)

2025· report· de· W7115706402 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typereport
Languagede
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyInstitutionSubject (documents)MisconductContradictionCorporate governanceAcademic institution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This document is an official administrative decision (Bescheid) issued by the University of Potsdam on 11 December 2025 in response to an application under the Brandenburg Act on Access to Files and Information (Akteneinsichts- und Informationszugangsgesetz, AIG). The decision must be read against the background of publicly known allegations of extensive plagiarism concerning the doctoral dissertation of Rabbi Professor Dr. Dr. Walter Homolka. It has been alleged, on the basis of detailed comparative analyses, that approximately one third of the dissertation consists of unacknowledged translation plagiarism from another scholarly work. These allegations have been the subject of sustained public, journalistic, and academic scrutiny since 2022. Professor Homolka has been employed by the University of Potsdam, where he played a central role in the institutional development of Jewish Theology. While the University of Potsdam is not the degree-granting institution for the doctorate in question, it is the employing institution and therefore bears responsibility for addressing allegations of scientific misconduct insofar as they concern its academic staff and the integrity of its governance procedures. The University of Potsdam has consistently stated that it is awaiting a report from King’s College London, the institution that awarded the doctoral degree, before concluding its handling of the matter. This reliance on an external institution has resulted in a prolonged delay in the overall resolution of the case, extending over several years, during which the University has repeatedly characterized the matter as ongoing. The present decision clarifies an apparent contradiction between a press statement by the University of Potsdam and assertions made in an earlier Widerspruchsbescheid dated 12 September 2025. In Widerspruchsbescheid the University stated that it had received a report that it is in the process of interpreting: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17715690. In the press statement it stated it did not receive such a report: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17724557. In this document it confirms that it had not received a final or closing report from King’s College London. Instead, it had received only a purely informational, preliminary communication regarding an “outcome,” which was transmitted on 11 August 2025. The decision further clarifies that references to an “Ergebnis” (result) in earlier administrative correspondence referred exclusively to this preliminary communication and not to a formal investigative report, contrary to what the wording in the Widerspruchsbescheid dated 12 September 2025 strongly suggested. The document is published for purposes of transparency, documentation of administrative practice, and scholarly analysis of academic integrity governance, institutional responsibility, and cross-institutional accountability in cases of alleged scientific misconduct involving public universities. Provenance Statement This document is an official administrative decision (Bescheid) issued by the University of Potsdam on 11 December 2025. It was obtained by the uploader through a formal request under the Brandenburg Act on Access to Files and Information (Akteneinsichts- und Informationszugangsgesetz, AIG) and subsequent administrative correspondence with the University of Potsdam. The document is published here in its original form, except for minimal redactions limited to personal contact details and handwritten signatures of administrative staff, where applicable, in accordance with data protection requirements. No substantive content, factual statements, or legal reasoning has been altered. The uploader has no institutional affiliation with the University of Potsdam in relation to this matter and publishes the document solely for purposes of documentation, transparency, and scholarly analysis of academic governance and integrity procedures.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptResearch integrity
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.013

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)CategoryResearch integrityFrench-language works237,207