Guidelines for the examination of doctoral dissertation

A doctoral dissertation must consist of peer-reviewed scholarly publications or manuscripts accepted for publication, as well as a summarising report on the said documents (an article-based dissertation); or it must be a scholarly work in the name of the doctoral candidate alone and based on previously unpublished research results (a monograph). The doctoral dissertation may also take the form of another work that meets the appropriate scientific criteria, provided that the doctoral candidate’s independent contribution to it can be verified.

All doctoral dissertations should meet the following scholarly criteria and they must:

• contain new scientific knowledge,
• demonstrate critical thinking on the doctoral candidate’s part,
• demonstrate profound familiarity with the field,
• demonstrate mastery of research methods and their application,
• be scientifically convincing,
• contain justified results, and
• demonstrate scientific integrity and adhere to the ethical norms of research.

The doctoral dissertation must have a brief abstract of one to two pages, providing a summary of the dissertation and its key results. The abstract must outline the doctoral candidate’s objectives or research questions as well as the core research methods, results and conclusions.

Article based dissertation

Article-based dissertations consist of scholarly publications discussing a single group of issues as well as a summarising report written by the doctoral candidate. The summarising report of an article-based dissertation must present the background, objectives, methods, material, results, discussion and conclusions of the research. The summarising report must be a balanced work based on both the publications included in the dissertation and the research literature.

A doctoral dissertation may include not only articles that have been previously published or accepted for publication, but also articles that have not yet been accepted for publication. In such cases, the preliminary examiners must be instructed to pay particular attention to the unpublished articles. The number of articles required depends on their a) scope, b) scientific quality and significance and c) publishing forum as well as d) the author’s independent contribution. The number of articles may vary between disciplines, but the number must be determined by taking into account the equal treatment of doctoral students and the target duration of four years for completing the degree. Typically, the number of articles ranges from three to five.

Article-based dissertations may include co-authored publications. The doctoral candidate’s input in these must be clearly demonstrable. One co-authored publication may be used in several dissertations by different authors. To determine the doctoral candidate’s independent contribution to co-authored publications, the doctoral candidate and his or her supervisor must draft a statement on the doctoral candidate’s contribution to each publication. If the co-authored publication has been used in another dissertation, this must be mentioned in the report. The doctoral candidate should deliver the draft of the report on his or her contribution also to the other authors of the publication. The doctoral candidate must deliver the report to the faculty when submitting the dissertation for preliminary examination and to the preliminary examiners, opponent and custos at a later date. The report may also be included in the summarising report or an article included in the dissertation.

At the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine an article-based dissertation consists typically of 3 - 5 articles. The doctoral candidate must be the first author in at least two of the articles. Furthermore two of the articles should be published or accepted to be published in peer-reviewed journals The rest of the articles included in the dissertation have to be submitted.

Monograph

Previously published texts cannot be accepted as monographs. Before completing the dissertation proper, however, the author of a monograph may publish articles on related topics and refer to these in the dissertation. The maximum recommended length of a monograph is 250 pages. Supervisors must take particular care to ensure the quality of a monograph manuscript before it is submitted for preliminary examination.

The Faculty Council decides on granting permission to defend the dissertation in a public examination based on the preliminary examiners’ statements. The Faculty Council will appoint a minimum of two preliminary examiners, who must have the qualifications of at least a docent or equivalent academic qualifications.

The doctoral candidate's responsible professor will prepare a proposal for the preliminary examiners (e-form). The proposal must be signed also by doctoral candidate to confirm that he or she does not have any objections to the proposed pre-examiners. Responsible professor must ensure that the preliminary examiners have agreed to their appointment.

When choosing the preliminary examiners, particular attention should be paid not only to their expertise but also to their impartiality regarding the dissertation in question.

Pre-examiners must be from outside the doctoral candidate’s faculty and generally from outside University of Helsinki.

A pre-examiner can not be:

• A person, who has or has had collaboration with the doctoral candidate during the dissertation project
• A person, who has had close research collaboration with the supervisor, e.g. co-authored/published articles with the supervisor in the past three years
• A close relative of the doctoral candidate
• The immediate superior or subordinate of the doctoral candidate or the supervisor
• A member of the thesis committee

The disqualification principles specified in section 28 of the Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003) will be taken into consideration in the examination and grading of doctoral dissertations.

Before the preliminary examiners are appointed, the doctoral candidate submits the dissertation manuscript and other required documents to the Viikki PhD study services: viikki-phd@helsinki.fi or P.O.Box 65, 00014 University of Helsinki. The instructions for doctoral candidate are on web site Instructions for Students.

The preliminary examiners should determine the merits of the manuscript, propose corrections and suggestions for improvement, and submit a reasoned written statement to the Faculty recommending that permission to defend the dissertation be either granted or denied within two months of accepting the assignment.

The preliminary examiners must submit to the faculty a separately or jointly written statement in which they either
a) Recommend that the doctoral candidate be granted permission to publicly defend the dissertation in its current manuscript form or with minor corrections that the supervisor can approve
b) Find that the manuscript contains deficiencies that are serious enough for them not to be able to recommend that the doctoral candidate be granted permission to publicly defend the dissertation

A preliminary examiner may also require that the doctoral candidate make corrections to the manuscript which the preliminary examiner then approves before providing a statement recommending the granting of permission for the public defence. After approving the corrections, the preliminary examiner must submit to the faculty his or her final statement on the manuscript. The doctoral candidate’s report on the corrections made must also be sent as additional information to the other preliminary examiner and be appended to the preliminary examiners’ statements when permission for the public defence is granted. In such cases, the preliminary examination may take up to six months in total. However, even then the status of the preliminary examiner is not equal to that of the supervisor.

Cancellation of preliminary examination. If one or both examiners give a negative statement, the preliminary examination process is cancelled as a rule. The faculty council must be informed of cancelled preliminary examination. In the event of the cancellation of a preliminary examination, the doctoral candidate may request a new preliminary examination once the changes recommended in the preliminary examiners’ statements, or other changes, have been made in the dissertation manuscript and the supervisor and the responsible professor recommends that the preliminary examination procedure be restarted.

The preliminary examiners must submit to the faculty a separately or jointly written statement in which they either

a) Recommend that the doctoral candidate be granted permission to publicly defend the dissertation in its current manuscript form or with minor corrections that the supervisor can approve
b) Find that the manuscript contains deficiencies that are serious enough for them not to be able to recommend that the doctoral candidate be granted permission to publicly defend the dissertation

A preliminary examiner may also require that the doctoral candidate make corrections to the manuscript which the preliminary examiner then approves before providing a statement recommending the granting of permission for the public defence. After approving the corrections, the preliminary examiner must submit to the faculty his or her final statement on the manuscript.

The Faculty Council decides on granting permission to defend the dissertation based on the preliminary examiners’ statements. Hence, it is vital that the preliminary examination be thorough and that the author be required to make the necessary corrections and additions before the statement on the permission to defend the dissertation is prepared. However, the preliminary examiners are not dissertation supervisors. In the case one of the publications is a finished manuscript and not submitted for publication, the preliminary examiners should pay particular attention to the quality of this article in their assessment. If the preliminary examiner proposes corrections or additions to the dissertation, the Faculty policy is that the preliminary examiner also verifies that they have been made. The preliminary examiner may outline or summarise the corrections and additions required in his or her statement. The dissertation should not contain any significant deficiencies in the theoretical premise, methods or empirical section.

After the preliminary examiners have been appointed, Viikki PhD study services inform the pre-examiners and doctoral candidate  of the decision. The pre-examiners are delivered instructions on the examination and dissertation manuscript.

The preliminary examiners must submit a written statement within two months of accepting the assignment. The statement may be written either jointly or separately, explicitly recommending that the doctoral candidate be granted or denied permission to defend the dissertation in a public examination.

The preliminary examiners’ and the opponent’s statement must include a detailed assessment of at least the following:

• Formulation of the research problem: The theoretical background of the research and the doctoral candidate’s familiarity with the field. The originality and scientific significance of the topic. The research approach, the theoretical basis of the study and its suitability for the topic at hand.
• Material and methods: The selection of material and methods. The applicability of the material to the examination of the research problem and the feasibility of the methods in terms of the material and problem-solving. A sufficiently detailed description of the material and any measurements to enable the relevant parts of the research to be repeated. An analysis of the material using an appropriate, efficient method that supports and is compatible with the research problem and approach.
• Research results and their presentation: A report of the results obtained and their scientific significance. A clear and concise report of the results, including any reservations.
• Discussion and conclusions: The rigorousness of the consideration of the results and their relationship to other research in the field. The scientific justification of the conclusions made. A critical and extensive section analysing prior literature and the results at hand.
• Knowledge of the research field: The doctoral candidate’s knowledge and use of literature in the field as well as the scope of the literature covered.
• The independence and maturity of the author: In the case of article-based dissertations, attention should be paid to whether the publications form a cohesive entity and to whether the doctoral candidate’s independent contribution to planning and implementing the research can be verified. Maturity refers to the author’s scholarship, mastery of the research approach and ability to analyse scientific problems as demonstrated by the dissertation.

The pre-examiner has to recommend explicitly whether the doctoral candidate is granted or denied a permission to defend the dissertation in a public examination. E.g. "I recommend that the candidate is granted a permission to defend her/his dissertation in a public examination."

The Faculty Council appoints a dissertation grading committee for the public examination on the basis of the proposal of the responsible professor.  The proposal for the grading committee (e-form). The proposal must include a written statement by the doctoral candidate confirming that he or she does not object to the appointment of the Opponent.

Members of the committee include the Custos, the Opponent(s) and if needed, one or two Faculty representatives. Faculty representatives must be professors or docents of the University of Helsinki, or members of the university's teaching and research staff with the academic qualifications of a docent. The faculty representative(s) must be well acquainted with the grading criteria and regulations related to the examination of doctoral theses in use at the University of Helsinki. If the Custos has not acted as a supervisor, he or she can also be appointed to the task of faculty representative.

The Custos is responsible for communicating with the dissertation grading committee.

The grading committee must propose to the faculty council a grade for the dissertation. The proposal must take into account not only the scientific value of the dissertation, but also the doctoral candidate’s ability to defend the dissertation at the public examination, which is why all members of the grading committee must attend the public examination. The proposal must also consider the preliminary examiners’ statements. The grading committee sends the grade proposal to Viikki PhD student services (viikki-phd@helsinki.fi) within two weeks of the public examination.

Opponent

When selecting the Opponent, particular attention should be paid not only to his or her expertise but also to his or her impartiality in relation to the dissertation in question. The Opponent must have the qualifications of at least a docent or equivalent academic qualifications and he or she must be from outside the doctoral candidate’s faculty and generally from outside University of Helsinki. A preliminary examiner of the dissertation may not act as the opponent.  Same principles of disqualification apply to the Opponent and pre-examiners.

Custos

A Professor or an Associate Professor at the faculty is appointed to act as the Custos in the public examination. The primary supervisor of the thesis who holds the title of docent and is employed by the faculty could also be appointed as a Custos. If Custos has served as one of the dissertation supervisors or has co-authored one or more of the publications included in it, he or she may not participate in proposing a grade for the dissertation. However, he or she will serve as the administrative chair of the grading committee, who assists the committee in its work and ensures that the committee has sufficient operational resources.

The Opponent should pay attention to the same issues as the preliminary examiners in his or her statement. In addition, he or she should assess the doctoral candidate’s performance in defending the dissertation in the public examination. The Opponent should clearly indicate in his or her statement whether he or she recommends that the dissertation be approved or rejected.

The Opponent’s statement must be submitted to the Faculty within two weeks of the public examination to Viikki PhD study services (viikki-phd@helsinki.fi).

More detailed information of The public examination on the web site of University of Helsinki.

The grade Pass contains no significant deficiencies in the theoretical premise, methods or empirical section. The research conducted for the dissertation must relate to a well‑founded complex of problems which has scientific importance. Moreover, the research must produce new, important knowledge for theory building in the field or for practical application. No serious deficiencies can be apparent in the phrasing of the research questions, the presentation of the theoretical background, the selection of material and methods, and the presentation of results and conclusions.

The grade Pass with distinction is given for pioneering dissertations of exceptional quality. The research topic must be scientifically important, and the theoretical foundations, the methods used and the empirical section must meet the highest academic standards. In addition, the results must have considerable scientific importance, and the observations and conclusions must be novel and significantly promote theory formation or practical applications in the field. A dissertation approved with the grade of ‘pass’ with Distinction shows commendable scholarly maturity and independence on the part of the author and demonstrates his or her originality and exceptional innovation as a producer of scientific knowledge. In addition, the doctoral candidate must defend the dissertation successfully in the public examination. This grade is usually awarded to approximately 10-15% of all dissertations passed annually in the Faculty.

Grounds for rejecting the dissertation Fail may include, e.g., the following: The research problem has been formulated vaguely or incompletely. The research materials are particularly brief or biased in terms of the nature of the problem and the objectives of the research. The methods used are not suited for examining the problem at hand, but yield erroneous or insufficient answers to the questions posed. There are serious shortcomings and inconsistencies in the structure and title of the work. In addition, the dissertation may be rejected during the preliminary examination or grading process due to research ethical reasons (such as academic fraud).