Here are the menus, to organize, and present, the case about copycat82, the un-Ph.D.
Would duplicate keys, ever let own a house? How would that work about a cut-and-paste, such as copycat82 which was granted a "Ph.D." title, with a worse than trivial content?
These pages, suggest wisdom, by contra-position. That is, when I point out the faults of copycat82/83, thereby I also mean to suggest what should not be, and why not.
How much faultfullness would you expect to see in a Ph.D.-granted work, which claims to be a method, to build and, also to "verify/analyze" (i.e: to make sure the thing works)? Meet the copycat82 faultfulness, even at the most central places of it.
copycat82/83 is a plagiarist. Therefore, the readers of this case-study, do not need the text of copycat82/83, to learn about what it contains. It suffices to read the prior art papers, which copycat82/83 cuts-and-pastes. But if the text of copycat82 is already available to the reader, then the page-by-page section is probably convenient, too.
I publish gradually. This is my publishing strategy. This may be optimal, especially because the readers may also have questions other than what I may guess at first.
Asking may also speed up the publishing of further content for this page. This site as a whole, is published this way. The reader requests may influence the launch-timing. (See the "Any Questions?" line at the bottom of each page, for the question-submission links).
And of course, if you think what this site tells, is important, or simply a good-reading, then please keep visiting again, to find out about new content. And you may also tell your friends with similar interests.