Here's my dilemma:

I started my Phd last October and sort of took over from one of the Phd students finishing off. Although he had already written a code which analysed the data, I was placed with the task of producing a new code which ran faster and also to double check his results.

For the past 6 months I've had a constant discrepancy but have always presumed it something wrong with my code. But, today, I thought I'd just ask him to use his current code to reproduce what he has in his thesis.

He couldn't and the results largely matched what I had. Now this could be for a number of different reasons. But the point is, he has just handed in his thesis, and has a viva in a months time.

I have to give a talk next week about my results and how they compare with his. So do I:
a) simply compare them against what his code now says and ignore his thesis results so nobody realises
b) compare them against what his thesis says
c) compare them against both

He thinks, as you can imagine, I should take option a). I don't want to harm his chances of a Phd or anything, especially as he's been a student for nearly 6 years now. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Hi Indoctorate,

I think option a) would be fine as long as you make it clear that your are comparing results from the data gained using your colleagues' with that of your newer code, and thus are talking about differences due to the programming.

Make no mention of the Thesis. If there has been an error at some point then this will need explaining, but if the error is his it is not for you to explain nor to point out.

Dafydd

Thanks for the advice Dafydd. It does seem like the right thing to do. But at the same time I'd like some of the excitement of having 'new' results which could get me a paper as I'm new to Phd and still chasing my first paper. But, if they think they are just the same as what he has, then they think there is nothing new there.

Hello Indoctorate,

I agree with Dafydd. How about solving your dilemma like this: put yourself in the other phd student's shoes, and then honestly tell yourself what you would have wanted the new phd to do.

Regarding the replication of results, then it is good that you have the same, rather than contradicting results. That does not make one paper stronger than the other, but it gives weight to the research you are both adressing.

Goodluck.

I think option A is best. But long term, if the other student can't replicate what he reported in his thesis, that sounds like a major issue. Did the work in the thesis get published? Because you would probably still want to publish your new results because they contradict the previous research.

Just as an aside - do you have the same supervisor? If so, isn't a bit weird that your supervisor hasn't noticed the difference between the previous and current results? Are they going to be at the talk - because surely if you present it as 'this is what I found, and it's the same as what X found', your supervisor will think 'no, this is different from the results in the thesis I read before submission'.

Hi JJJ and Melsie,

I know what you mean about putting myself into the other PhD students shoes. That's why it's a dilemma at all, because otherwise I would have gone straight down the line and went for option c).

That's a good point about the supervisor as well. We don't have the same 'first supervisor', but we do share the same second supervisor. I.e. the one that isn't as involved. He will be at the talk, but I don't know how well he would know the other phd students results off by heart as he is not involved as much.

Maybe I should ask the talk to be postponed by a month, let him get his PhD, then everyone's a winner

(up) wish it was that easy ...