When my friend discovered a similar study (even more extensive) was almost completed, she rushed to complete her thesis within weeks...

Otherwise, her findings will be considered obsolete and she could even be suspected of plagiarism.

Good point! Here is summary of action plan for questionable viva outcome…
1. Supervisor privately negotiate with the examiner
2. Proceed with Appeal
3. Contact the ombudsman

Meanwhile establish the following:
1. The examiner has gap in knowledge?
2. Other postgraduates have used similar research methods and passed with PhD?
3. Possible rivalry between the supervisor and the examiner? Competition for funding?
4. Compile a list of citation for your papers.

Oh yes. You could consider to apply this algorithm to many kinds of images: nature, satellite images, micrographs, astronomy photos etc...

A short story on my paper which is titled W:

When W was first submitted, the editor provided one reviewer's comment and suggested me to present it in a conference.
Of course, this paper was rejected for publication, but the editor still suggested "revise and re-submit".

When W was submitted again in the same journal, there are three reviewers' comments.
1. First reviewer's comment is the paper is very well written, but there are a few grammar mistakes etc. Actually, many of which were considered wrong because this reviewer is likely an 'american'... (The paper W would become partly british style, and partly american style. :-) Anyway, he suggests publication with minor corrections.
2. Second reviewer's comment is essentially "major revision".
3. Now, the third reviewer has made over 100 comments on my paper... This is quite unusual. The reviewer seems over-reacted. There are simpler ways to reject a paper. However, if you trust this reviewer, it may suggest my paper have great number of flaws or i should be blacklisted...

However, i am not surprised. It is because if W is published, the reputation of one professor could be affected. This is why he need to go the extra mile to criticize my paper. But i do feel that my paper should be improved, but not to that extent. There are still several possible journals!

My main point is "do not be affected by the reviewers' comments." (american style)
My main point is "do not be affected by the reviewers' comments". (british style) :-)
(Some reviewers may not be aware of the differences between british and american style...)

Yes. It can be very dangerous to share in viva that "We just won funding worth $2m..."
You need to act fast. Just in case, the examiner is also looking for funding and telling the industry the new method fails in the viva. The examiner could be doing some damage when he is telling whoever he meets about this "failed viva". There could be political reasons for the whole thing; but we may never know.

You may want to ask your sup if this examiner also works with the same industry partners...

It should be good to check all the papers that cited your work. Then find out how many have graduated by looking for their thesis. Maybe also how many are still postgraduates. There could be many more who are lucky who passed with this new method... :-)

Waiting for your good news.

Hi brit27

One possibility your supervisor forbids you to even mention another method is that you may criticise all other methods? Actually, there seems no necessity to criticize traditional methods. It appears that you confronted the examiner? Perhaps you should have a reflection.

Perhaps you have emphasized achievements such as 3 paper publications, 80 citations, one award, $2m funding during the viva? However, it is possible that some examiners are simply not impressed and feel the need to let certain postgraduate to learn a lesson through “revise and re-submit”… Even some folks in this forum do not feel sympathetic about this case… Perhaps it is because the idiot examiner was really intimidating?

Anyway, your supervisor may consider telling the examiner that you’ve learnt a lesson first. Then check if he was really against of the new method or unhappy with your defence?

The revision could be simply the inclusion of a table which compare traditional and modern methods in the appendix…

i have spoken to some Nobel Prize winners, but i feel that they are quite humble…

There are a few more things that your supervisor can share with the examiners:
1. If possible, establish that the new method has similar findings as the traditional.
2. Count the number of researchers that cite your papers which mention the new method.
3. The postgraduate felt that he was over defensive during the viva (well, postgraduates tend to be nervous during viva); it may be good for you to make an apology for attacking the traditional method.
4. The postgraduate need to graduate and earn a living… any other compassionate reasons related to family…

Hopefully, the revise and re-submit decision can be changed to minor revision. If not, many other postgraduates who have no publications and citations will be shivering when they go for viva exam…

It is also possible that the supervisor 'approved' or 'guided' certain research method for some "political reasons".
Postgraduate students may not be aware or informed why certain equipment should 'also' be used, for example.

Therefore, it depends on whether the supervisor tries to explain more details to the jury under the table...

Your PI and supervisor may receive NO-dan Prize...

In a sense, it is true. Jocelyn Bell, discovered the radio source which was ultimately recognised as the first pulsar. However, her supervisor, Antony Hewish, received the Nobel Prize.

One possibility is to discuss with this examiner and try to establish if there could be any misunderstanding or miscommunication on your research method. (Of course, your research method is unlikely the best approach from current point of view, but it is possibly reasonable say three years ago.) So, if possible, try to convince him that this research method is reasonable when you proposed your research initially. But time has changed, there are other discoveries now. One year later, the so-called “new research method” may be obsolete again.

Alternatively, you could convince the examiner that there was miscommunication such that “it is your fault” that you did not completely elaborate and justify the research method. (Say limited time, limited funding and resources etc) But your research method is still reasonable. Unless you agree that there was better research method and this was not a good decision, from the perspective of three years ago.

Otherwise, in pursuit for a new research method, this examiner should be acknowledged as national hero? You may have to thank him for more papers published with the new research method? But this possible new research method could be done as post-doc?

You may consider to inform Janet Bohrer about your viva? Last resort? :-)

Suppose you follow the recommendations of this examiner...
What if this examiner asks whether your three papers have been retracted because of the flawed research method, in the next viva? (The examiner should be aware of your publications?)

Assuming all the 45 citations for your first paper, for example, are positive, you may want to "cut and paste" them for appeal. Meanwhile, there could also be private meeting with the examiner? (Some examiners only have a glance at the thesis and the PhD candidate only have limited time to present the thesis; thus the incomplete understanding...)

You should have a strong case to appeal against examination decision (one or more of the Examiners was unreasonably prejudiced or biased).

1. You have published paper in peer reviewed journal. Better still, it is based on the research method mentioned in your thesis?

2. Your 3 year old paper has 45 citations. Better still, if you have more papers. Try to publish more papers?

3. Your supervisor is a full professor. (To modify your thesis may suggest your supervisor did not guide you properly. Or it implies the examiner is smarter than your professor.) Your supervisor should be defending you now…

You should find out more about the appeal process and discuss with your supervisor…
However, it may still delay your graduation.

Your thesis supersedes the examiner's research work?
Perhaps you should read the examiner's papers?

Sometimes examiner becomes an "idiot" because his papers were not cited.

Anyway, it depends on your supervisor now.
Hopefully, he is a full professor or at least a firm associate professor.