'Its quite clearly difficult to do in the UK. What about the rest of Europe?'

Wouldn't it be easier just to buy a PhD ala Dr. Gillian McKeith. Thats the easiest option, which is what said party appears to be looking for.

If that is the case, my recommendation is clearly:

http://www.belforduniversity.org

The just have the Winter Sales on..

i was wondering how long it would be until someone brought up belford

"Wouldn't it be easier just to buy a PhD ala Dr. Gillian McKeith. Thats the easiest option, which is what said party appears to be looking for."

What Gilian McKeith has can't be termed a phd in the true sense and suggesting that the "said party" is after the easiest option is nonsense.

The "said party" worked his ass off on his Msc. Managed to get papers published from it. Worked on other problems and was lucky enough to publish from those as well (all whilst still working fulltime).

The phd represents unfinished business; he just doesn't want to waste 3 years of his life. The "said party" has done the work. The aim is to defend it.

The UK system doesn't offer a clear way to this that is all. If anything the "said party" has taken the most difficult option.

Okay, if we go back to the original request, I think there is a slight contradiction. It doesn't matter if the "said party" worked hard during MSc, that's what most of us did as well, otherwise we wouldn't be PhD students. Nevertheless, a PhD itself is different from publications. That's an important point. Whereas ideally a PhD results in publishable material, the task of doing a PhD is fundamentally different.

That's why I explained that even acknowledged scholars with many publications sometimes struggle to get a PhD by publication or are enrolled for traditional PhDs but don't really make any progress. Doing a PhD is not a waste of lifetime. It's a task. Publications are a different task. Just to clarify things...you don't get a PhD as a bonus for your publications!

You dont do research unless your (hopefully successful) results can be aired in public. Publications are a bonus to a successful phd. In physics (I dont know what subject you are doing Otto) even more so. You dont slave for 3 years and hope all you get out it is a certificate; no matter how well earned.

A traditional phd is a luxury for some. Publishing is the only option left to you in this case. I cant think of anyone out there who doesn't associate a publishing record with the ability to do a phd.

Could I just ask how many papers this person has had published, and over how many years? It may cut to the chase far quicker.

"said person" has 4 peer reviewed publications 2 pending.

Without wishing to sound like the Council for the prosecution, over how many years since finishing his MSc?

2 years.

I can't work out how someone with 4 (possibly 6) first author publications (presumably in high quality journals) is having difficulty with getting a phd by publication? Surely they can just go back to the university where they did their MSc and ask old supervisors/tutors?

Bringing us all back.......

He isn't having difficulty; he's looking at the possibility. His old supervisors know him (they still write his references and check his papers) and he gets on wonderfully with them.

He just doesn't want to spend 3 years learning a lot of what he already knows.

Two years and four papers sounds [in all honesty] a bit thin to me re a PhD by publication. If I was a betting man I wouldn't back him to get one. No offence intended, but based on my knowledge of the subject matter it doesn't sound anything like enough.

Thanks for all the replies.

Thats your opinion and thats fair.

We've established there isn't a direct route to this in the UK. The question is what about the rest of Europe?

Being a UK based forum thats very unlikely to get reply. No ones ever asked that question in my 14 montghs of reading. You're best bet is to do the leg work on some foreign University sites or email a few. Difficult email to phrase all things considered though.