On the Irrationality of some "experts" (Part 5: the culprits)

Go to the first part: On the irrationality of some "experts" (Part 1)

Anatomy of an Institutional Blockade: The "Manual" for Halting a Doctoral Thesis

The path toward a doctorate is usually an intellectual long-distance race. However, at the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC), the obstacle has not been the complexity of aerodynamics, but a network of arbitrariness and a concerning lack of teaching and administrative ethics.

Below, I dissect the actors and actions that have transformed a research project into a criminal case, currently supervised by the second instance, the Provincial Court of Barcelona, which has ordered the start of a judicial investigation within the university (see fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Translation: THE COURT AGREES TO GRANT the appeal filed by the legal representation of JESÚS CARLOS PIMENTEL GARCÍA against the order dated October 23, 2025, issued by the Instruction Section of the T.I. of Barcelona, Plaza No. 7, and to REVOKE said resolution, nullifying the dismissal previously granted and proceeding with the proper investigation of the case; all while declaring the costs of the appeal ex officio.

I. Thesis Direction: Technical Abandonment

The conflict germinated at the core of the research, where technical instruction turned into dismissal without scientific basis.

Enrique Ortega Agodino (Former Director): He instructed the doctoral candidate to explore a three-dimensional "multiple-wake" method, even providing a computational code (see fig. 2) for its analysis as a basis for a more elaborate model. However, upon reaching the final phase, he changed his stance: he labeled the model as "theoretically unjustifiable" and refused to review and sign the first article intended for an international peer-reviewed journal. That article was subsequently published in a Q1 journal (the highest credibility and scientific rigor in the field). Since then, three more articles have been published as a consequence of the first, and also a patent (pending).

Roberto M. Flores LeRoux (Former Co-director): After eight months of developing the multiple-wake method—during which he was practically absent—he criticized it, claiming he "did not know of anything similar" and suggested "stop wasting time with that." He even went as far as suggesting the doctoral candidate was manipulating results. Notably, his specialty is in structures, not aerodynamics.

Fig. 2 Did the structural engineer's opinion carry more weight than the aerodynamicist's?

II. The Academic Committee: Authority Bias

Far from acting as an impartial tribunal, those in charge closed ranks around the hierarchy.

Juan C. Cante Terán (Former Head of the Aerospace Engineering Section): Due to his closeness with the director, he maintained a biased position. To him, the director is always right simply by virtue of being the director, attempting to establish an insurmountable hierarchical distance with the doctoral student.

Robert Castilla López and Pedro Gámez Montero: They opted for absolute silence, leaving the doctoral student’s requests to resolve the conflict with the directors unanswered.

Jasmina Casals Terré (MFA Program Coordinator): Upon the request to present the thesis by "compendium of publications" (two published and one accepted), she claimed the case had been "elevated" to the Doctoral School (ED). After five months of silence, and just two days before the summer holidays, she sent an unsigned Word document notifying the student’s dismissal for non-payment of tuition fees! This was done without prior notice, violating internal regulations and even a Royal Decree. Currently, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has described this document as "effectively apocryphal".

III. The Doctoral School (ED): Omission of Duties

Josep M. Font Llagunes (Former Director of the ED): Although not initially named in the complaint, his role is key. Under his direction, the ED refused to carry out a technical-scientific report mandated by its own regulations. Instead, an administrative "report" was issued that avoided the core of the matter, evading the responsibility of evaluating the doctoral research.

IV. The Rectorate: Protection and Continuity

The conflict escalated to the highest authorities of the UPC, where politics seemed to take precedence over academic justice.

Daniel Crespo Artiaga (Rector 2021-2025): He issued an administrative resolution attempting to close the complaint filed before the regional Research and University Council, ignoring the pointed out irregularities. His resolution was based on the apocryphal report from the ED, pointing toward alleged cover-up and malfeasance (prevaricación).

Francesc Torres Torres (Current Rector): He ordered the withdrawal of a criminal complaint against the doctoral student filed by his predecessor for "damages to honor" after the situation went public during the election campaign. However, his administration has maintained the blockade. Despite delegating the case to Vice-Rectors Pedro Díez Mejía (Research) and Jordi Romeu Garbí (Personnel), the official position remains based on the same report already deemed effectively apocryphal.

V. Other Irregularities: The Architecture of Obstruction

"Ad hoc" Manipulation of Regulations: The program coordination flagrantly modified the requirements for thesis by publication compendium. While the regulations in force at the time of the request required two publications, the report used to deny the student's right currently demands three.

Fig. 3 This can be clearly seen by visiting the following official link: doctorat.upc.edu/es/escuela/legislacion-y-normativas/compendios/normativa_td_compendio_pd-ing-mecanica-fluidos-i-aeron-_cp_12-01-2017_es.pdf/

• The evidence: The online document exhibits a change in chromatic tone (gray lettering) in the modified subsection (2 a.), suggesting a subsequent edit made to a text supposedly approved in 2017. The program's historical records following that year confirm the existence of approved theses with only two publications. This manipulated requirement is intended to serve as one of the foundations for the apocryphal report and the fraudulent resolution issued by the previous administration and accepted by the current one.

Industrial Property Blockade: The UPC Patent Office refused to protect the developed computational method due to the tacit refusal of the former thesis director. Faced with this paralysis, the method was registered personally via an international application. It is currently in the national phase before the United States and Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), having successfully passed the three patentability criteria.

Opacity and administrative silence: The Doctoral School’s (ED) ticketing service kept a request for critical information open for five (5) months without a response. The ED only reacted after being prompted by the regional Research and University Council. For her part, the University Ombudsman, Anna Serra Tort, also failed to provide a response within a reasonable timeframe, evidencing a breakdown in internal control mechanisms and a flagrant institutional opacity—one that has been inherited and maintained by the current administration.

Improper use of identity in European projects (Horizon Europe): The doctoral student's full name was found linked to a project funded by the European Union (for 365,500 euros) without his knowledge or participation. This has been reported to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which currently has an open investigation.

Conclusion: Institutional Protection or Impunity?

This case reveals a structure where teaching errors or arbitrariness are protected by a chain of false documents and office resolutions. Under normal conditions, this graduation process should have concluded in July 2022. Today, it is an active criminal investigation seeking to determine how far a university will go to protect those who refuse to comply with their own regulations and ethical duties.

Legal Notice: This article constitutes an exercise of freedom of information and citizen whistleblowing. All information provided is based on facts documented within the framework of criminal complaint 2267/2025-E filed before the Instructional Court No. 7 of Barcelona. The principle of presumption of innocence is respected until a final judgment is issued.