Definition of the research problem and the research plan
1 = The topic has not been defined clearly or it has no scientific relevance. The research setting has been planned erroneously and it cannot provide answers to the questions asked.
2 = The topic has not been defined as a result of scientific consideration or critical selection. Typical examples of the above include situations where the doctoral candidate has, somewhat accidentally, gained access to an analysis method or extensive patient data and the study is carried out without a creative, original consideration and selection.
3 = The study is based on an original idea, which is logical and scientifically relevant.
4 = The starting point of the study is innovative and scientifically very relevant.
5 = The starting point of the study is particularly creative and scientifically very relevant; the study is based on innovative thinking or it bravely challenges the prevailing ideas in the field.
Material and methods
1 = The methods used are not suitable for studying the material or they provide erroneous or clearly insufficient answers to the questions asked. The material is selective and provides misleading results.
2 = The methods used are suitable for studying the topic. However, the use of the methods does not involve any particular uniqueness. The research material is not very extensive.
3 = A generally used method has been improved or modified, as a result of which it is well suited for the study in question. The material is of a high quality.
4 = The methods have been applied innovatively or they have been significantly developed or improved, as a result of which they are well suited for the study in question. The material is of a very high quality.
5 = The selection of methods is particularly extensive or requires high professional skill. A new method as regards its concept or implementation has been developed in connection with the study. The material is of an exceptionally high quality.
Own contribution
Own contribution means work that is carried out by the researcher in person, but also work carried out by auxiliary staff, provided that the researcher has in-depth knowledge of the methods, introduces them to the auxiliary staff, and supervises the implementation of the work.
1 = The doctoral candidate’s own contribution to acquiring the research material and obtaining the results is insignificant or non-existent.
2 = The doctoral candidate has been personally responsible for obtaining some of the results. The doctoral candidate has become sufficiently familiar with the methods used.
3 = The doctoral candidate has personally produced a significant part of the results. They have familiarised themselves with each method in such detail that they practically master them.
4 = The doctoral candidate has personally produced an extremely large part of the results. The doctoral candidate has familiarised themselves with each method used, and the methods have been used by the candidate or under the personal supervision of the candidate.
5 = The doctoral candidate has personally produced an exceptionally large part of the results. The doctoral candidate has become deeply familiar with each method used, and the methods have been used by the candidate or under the personal supervision of the candidate.
Research results
1 = The results of the study are consistent with earlier conceptions and verify them.
2 = The results complement and specify previous findings which have been uncertain and/or scattered.
3 = The doctoral dissertation provides new viewpoints into or generate new information about the field of research.
4 = The doctoral dissertation includes important and significant observations.
5 = The doctoral dissertation includes essentially important and significant observations.
Familiarity with the field of research
The knowledge of the doctoral dissertation’s field of research is evident not only from the manuscript, but also from the expertise demonstrated at the public examination of the doctoral dissertation.
1 = The doctoral candidate’s discussion of the topic of the dissertation contains significant shortcomings or essential misunderstandings.
2 = The doctoral candidate’s knowledge covers the topic of the dissertation, but the nature of the knowledge is, for the most part, passive and based on literature.
3 = The doctoral candidate masters the knowledge and literature related to the theme of the dissertation well, and has formed a consistent and critical view of the merits and weaknesses of previous publications.
4 = The doctoral candidate’s knowledge of the topic of the dissertation is so extensive that they can change or complement the prevailing ideas in the field.
5 = The doctoral candidate’s knowledge of the topic of the dissertation is so extensive that they can disprove or change, in an essential manner, and significantly complement the prevailing ideas in the field.
Discussion and conclusions
The doctoral candidate's ability to critically examine their own research results in the light of previous knowledge is demonstrated by the text written by the candidate and at the public examination of the dissertation. The discussion and conclusions show the doctoral candidate's ability for critical analysis, scientific honesty and academic insight.
1 = The dissertation lacks a general discussion and/or a conclusion section or a closer examination of the above reveals that they are merely a repetition of the summary or the literature review section. The conclusions do not provide answers to the questions asked.
2 = The general conclusion section contains a list-like comparison of the candidate’s own and previously published results. The conclusions provide some answers to the questions asked.
3 = The candidate compares their own findings to previous literature and considers the reasons behind possible differences by recognising weaknesses and both in their own study and previous studies. The conclusions made provide answers to the questions asked and they are scientifically justified.
4 = The doctoral candidate can critically compare their own study to previous studies and summarise the current state of the research problem. The conclusions have been made using a critical approach.
5 = The doctoral candidate can make an innovative synthesis of the current state of the research problem by using a critical approach and point out novel approaches for further research. The conclusions have been made using a particularly critical approach.