37601 Philosophical faculty Doctoral Dissertation evaluation

At minimum, three months is required for the examination and grading of a doctoral dissertation, and often more time is needed.

Instructions for revising the manuscript for pre-examination

• It is advisable for the author of a doctoral dissertation to obtain oral permission from supervisors to submit the manuscript for preliminary evaluation.
• Plagiarism detection must be carried out before submitting the doctoral dissertation for assessment. The primary supervisor provides the doctoral candidate with the title of the Moodle course and the course key, enabling them to find the Turnitin plagiarism detection tool. Supervisor(s) check the plagiarism detection report and, if necessary, go through the results with the doctoral candidate.
• The cover sheet of the manuscript must bear the title of the doctoral dissertation, the author's name and student number, the major subject, and the date of submission for examination (e.g., January 2024).
• The manuscript must include an abstract approximately one page in length.
• The table of contents should correspond to the manuscript’s main chapter and subchapter numbering as well as titling and manuscript pagination.
• Text settings: Page margins 2–2.5 cm; Font of a readable size, e.g., Times New Roman 12 or equivalent; Line spacing recommendation 1.5 (line spacing 1 is also possible if the manuscript is long).
• The recommendations of one’s own scientific field can be used in references and bibliographies. It is important that the notation style is logical and similar throughout the entire manuscript.
• An article-based research must include a list of articles or manuscripts contained within the thesis. Articles must be attached to the manuscript. Articles are usually attached to the manuscript in their original form. In this case, the appearance of the article and the text with page numbers will be in accordance with the original publication.
• N.B! The manuscript submitted to the preliminary examination is usually not on the accessible layout template of the faculty series. The faculty pays for the basic layout done by a professional in the printing house after permission to defend the doctoral dissertation has been granted and the dissertation has been finalized for printing.

Pre-evaluation process and permission for a public examination

• Author of a doctoral dissertation submits the manuscript for evaluation in one PDF document to the postgraduate amanuensis, e-mail: FiloDoctoralstudies@uef.fi. At the same time, s/he applies for permission for a public examination with the form.
• Head of the department and the supervisor present the pre-examiners.
• Dean decides on the pre-examiners.
• Amanuensis delivers the decision, the PDF manuscript, and pre-examination instructions to the pre-examiners. The paper copies of the manuscript will be asked from the author of the doctoral dissertation if needed. The PDF file and the paper copy of the manuscript must match.
• Doctoral candidate is not permitted to be in contact with the pre-examiners during this process.
• Pre-examiners write statements in which they recommend either that permission for a public examination of the dissertation be granted or refused. The pre-examiners have approximately two months to write the statements (for holiday times or some other particular reasons evaluation may occasionally last longer).
• Amanuensis delivers the pre-examiners’ statements to the author of the doctoral dissertation.
• Author reports if s/he has any remarks on the statements.
• Dean either grants or denies permission for a public examination.
• Please note that if the pre-examiners’ statements are negative, the pre-evaluation may be interrupted once by a decision of the dean upon written request by the author of the doctoral dissertation.

Examination and grading of the doctoral dissertation

• After having received permission for a public examination, the doctoral candidate makes the possible corrections to the manuscript.
• Doctoral candidate is responsible for arranging the publication and delivery of the doctoral dissertation.
• The doctoral dissertation can be published under the faculty's publication series or by an external publishing house. Distribution lists for printed dissertations can be requested by e-mail: FiloDoctoralstudies@uef.fi
• The supervising professor and head of school make a proposal on the date of the public defence, place, opponent(s), and custos.
• The Dean makes the decision on the date of the public defence, place, opponent, and custos. The decision also mentions the final title of the dissertation.
• The doctoral candidate ensures that the examination hall is reserved and, if necessary, that network connections have been agreed with the Service Desk, servicedesk@uef.fi. Department secretary Tuula Nissinen looks after the hall arrangements on the defence date as well as the examiners’ travel and accommodation arrangements.
• The doctoral candidate is responsible for communications together with the university's Communications and Media Relations. Please see instructions.
• Coffee service after the public examination and the post-doctoral party, karonkka, are arranged and financed by the doctoral candidate.
• After the public examination, the opponent(s) writes a statement with a proposal for grading. The Custos writes a statement about the proceedings of the public examination.
• Amanuensis delivers the statements to the doctoral candidate.
• Doctoral candidate reports if s/he has anything to remark on the statements.
• On the basis of the statements, the Faculty Council assesses the doctoral dissertation with a grading fail-pass-pass with distinction.
• The doctoral researcher applies for a doctoral degree using an electronic degree application form after the Faculty Council has made a decision on the grade of the dissertation.

The University of Eastern Finland uses an electronic plagiarism detection system, Turnitin. In addition to verifying the originality of a thesis, the system can also be used to guide doctoral candidates towards the correct quotation and referencing practices required in high-quality academic texts. The Turnitin system has been integrated into the Moodle online learning environment.

• The principal supervisor provides the doctoral candidate with the title of the Moodle course and the course key, enabling him/her to find the Turnitin plagiarism detection tool.
• Doctoral candidate submits his/her texts to the Turnitin tool as a single doc or docx file. Doctoral candidate should note that one of the Turnitin tools will save the doctoral candidate's work and the other one will not.
• Doctoral candidate must inform their principal supervisor once the Turnitin report is completed.
• Plagiarism detection must be carried out before submitting the licentiate thesis or the doctoral dissertation for assessment. If the authors of licenciate theses or doctoral dissertations wish, they may save or archive their work in the Turnitin database at this stage.
• In the case of doctoral dissertations and licentiate theses consisting of articles, only previously unpublished texts will be checked, i.e., the summary and any previously unpublished articles. They must be submitted in the Turnitin tool as a single file!
• If significant changes are made to the doctoral dissertation after the preliminary assessment, the author should run the plagiarism check again before publishing the work.
• The principal supervisor checks the plagiarism detection report and, if necessary, goes through the results with the doctoral candidate. The principal supervisor must check the report within two weeks of its completion and the notification received from the doctoral candidate.
• The doctoral candidate will make corrections to his/her work according to any feedback given. After corrections, the work can only be submitted for plagiarism detection only one more time.
• Before the assessment process, the principal supervisor will inform the faculty administration in writing of whether, in his/her opinion and based on the plagiarism detection report, the work is acceptable.
• The reports are stored for one year.
• If s/he wishes, doctoral candidate may run the Turnitin tool on their texts at various stages of the research process. We recommend that authors of licentiate theses and doctoral dissertations check any articles intended for the thesis in students' Turnitin before sending the work to publishers.

For more information you may turn to Amanuensis, FiloDoctoralstudies@uef.fi

Definition of a doctoral dissertation

A doctoral dissertation is defined as a coherent scholarly presentation based on independent research and producing new knowledge in the field. It may be a monograph or a collection of research articles.

A collection of research articles refers to an entity consisting of the following parts: 1) a sufficient number of scientific publications or manuscripts, which examine the same set of problems. The number of articles required is determined by the Philosophical Faculty. 2) An independently compiled summary based on them. An article-based dissertation contains at least three peer-reviewed articles, two of which must have been accepted for publication, and the third accepted for the review process. Peer review refers to the practice of the scientific community in which an independent reviewer prepares a preliminary review of an article or part of a compilation. That assessment shall be verifiable. The summary must present the background of the research and its aims, methods, and results. If the publications include collaborative works, the doctoral candidate must attest to his/her independent contribution either in the summary or in a separate appendix. The doctoral candidate must be the first author (responsible author) of at least three articles. A collaborative publication may be included in no more than two person’s licentiate theses or doctoral dissertations.

An article-based dissertation may not include material from any previous dissertation by the candidate. The pre-examiner must present his/her evaluation of the scholarly level of the dissertation as a whole, regardless of whether the articles have been previously published. The report should take a stand on whether the compilation of articles forms a sufficiently broad and complete entity that meets the definition of a doctoral dissertation. The candidate is not expected to rewrite published articles in order to create a consistent monograph. Repetitions and overlap between the articles dealing with the same topic should not, therefore, be judged too harshly.

Examination process

The examination process of a doctoral dissertation is divided into two stages: the preliminary examination and the public examination.

Each manuscript is appointed with two pre-examiners who are expected to submit an individual report on the manuscript. In their written statement, the pre-examiner must clearly recommend that permission for a public examination of the dissertation be either granted or refused. S/he should state whether the manuscript in its current state, or after minor corrections, meets the minimum requirements of a doctoral dissertation. The pre-examination is, thus, a process of acceptance or rejection. The pre-examination statement should not be conditional, i.e., state that permission for public defence can only be recommended after certain corrections. It is possible for a dissertation to be rejected at its public examination, but this is extremely rare and should be avoided. The pre-examiners play an important role in ensuring that a manuscript with serious shortcomings does not get as far as the public examination.

The following dissertation evaluation criteria should be taken into account in the preliminary examination:

• Compliance with research ethical practices
• The topic and research problem of the research project and narrowing the research problem
• Conceptual clarity
• Research methodology and methods
• Material
• Reporting the results and conclusions
• The dissertation in general and its presentation

If an article-based dissertation includes a manuscript of an article that has not been reviewed or published, special attention must be paid to its evaluation.

The pre-examiner must recommend that permission to defend the dissertation be denied if it is clear that the work does not contain new scholarly knowledge based on original, independent research. Other major shortcomings that would be expected to lead to a negative report include:

• the research has clearly problems with ethical principles
• the theoretical framework of the manuscript is clearly inadequate
• the research material is too insubstantial for a doctoral dissertation
• there are significant gaps in the candidate’s familiarity with the relevant literature
• there are other indications of incomplete work.

On the other hand, a positive report need not be withheld on account of defects that can be relatively easily corrected by simple editing, supplying additional material, or filling minor gaps in references to the literature and so on.

A negative report generally leads to the examination process being temporarily halted at the request of the candidate. After the manuscript has been corrected and the supervisor of the dissertation recommends that it is ready for a new preliminary examination, the Dean appoints the same or new pre-examiners. A doctoral candidate may discontinue the assessment of his/her final thesis only once.

The report of the pre-examiner should be from three to five pages long. The time taken to produce it should not, without good reasons, exceed two months. It is requested that the deadline for the report be observed, so that the examination process may continue without unreasonable delay. The report may contain recommendations for correction and improvement. If the pre-examiner wishes to point out minor errors, s/he may append a list of corrections and return the manuscript with annotations to the faculty, which forwards the list or the returned manuscript to the candidate.

Dissertations written in other language than candidate’s native language

When a manuscript is submitted for the preliminary examination, it may still lack a professional language check. It is the candidate’s responsibility to ensure that the dissertation is corrected by a competent expert of the language after the preliminary examination. The pre-examiners need not, therefore, make corrections to the language. However, if the pre-examiner feels that the language used has some effect on the scholarly value of the work, s/he may comment on it.

Ethical instructions

The faculty pays particular attention to the impartiality and transparency of the preliminary examination process. The pre-examiner is an expert appointed to the task by the faculty, and in order to avoid any legal problems concerning the dissertation, s/he should therefore deliver the report directly and exclusively to the faculty. The faculty will send a copy of the report to the candidate. The candidate has the right to send comments on the report to the Dean before s/he decides whether to grant permission to defend the dissertation.

After the preliminary examination, the pre-examiners no longer have the right or duty to ensure that the suggested corrections have been made. Responsibility for implementing the corrections belongs to the candidate and his/her supervisor, and ultimately to the opponent.

The dissertation receives its final approval and grade from the Faculty Council after the public examination.

Time limit for delivery of statements

According to the degree regulations of the University of Eastern Finland, the preliminary examination of a doctoral dissertation may not last longer than two months from the date on which the manuscript has been submitted to the preliminary examiner without a special reason. The Dean decides on granting permission for public examination based on the preliminary examiners' statements.

Please, send your signed statement to:

E-mail: FiloDoctoralstudies@uef.fi
Postal address:
University of Eastern Finland
Philosophical Faculty
P.O. Box 111
FI-80101 Joensuu, FINLAND

Should you have any questions, please contact amanuensis Salli Anttonen
FiloDoctoralstudies@uef.fi
Tel. +358 50 367 0127

In matters relating to the payment of your fee, please contact:
Human Resources Secretary Lea Pulli
lea.pulli@uef.fi

Definition of a Doctoral Dissertation

A doctoral dissertation is a coherent presentation of new scientific knowledge, which is based on the doctoral candidate’s independent research. A doctoral dissertation may be published either as a monograph or as a collection of research articles.

A collection of research articles refers to an entity consisting of the following parts: 1) a sufficient number of scientific publications or manuscripts, which examine the same set of problems. The number of articles required is determined by the Philosophical Faculty. 2) An independently compiled summary based on them. An article-based dissertation contains at least three peer-reviewed articles, two of which must have been accepted for publication, and the third accepted for the review process. Peer review refers to the practice of the scientific community in which an independent reviewer prepares a preliminary review of an article or part of a compilation. That assessment shall be verifiable. If the publications include collaborative works, the doctoral candidate must attest to his/her independent contribution either in the summary or in a separate appendix. The doctoral candidate must be the first author (responsible author) of at least three articles. A collaborative publication may be included in no more than two person’s licentiate theses or doctoral dissertations. The summary of the article-based dissertation is written independently by the author of the dissertation. An article-based dissertation may not include material from any previous dissertation by the candidate. The evaluation should take a stand on whether the compilation of articles forms a sufficiently broad and complete entity that meets the definition of a doctoral dissertation. The candidate is not expected to rewrite published articles in order to create a consistent monograph. Repetitions and overlap between the articles dealing with the same topic should not, therefore, be judged too harshly.

Examination and Grading of a Dissertation

A doctoral dissertation is examined in two stages, of which the first is the preliminary reading and the second is the public examination. Based on the statements of the preliminary examiners, the Dean shall give the doctoral candidate permission to defend the dissertation in a public examination, after which the Dean will set a date and venue for the public examination. The Dean shall also appoint one or two opponents, and the custos.

The custos is usually the principal supervisor or supervising professor working at the University of Eastern Finland and their task is to guide the course of the public examination. The opponent must come from outside the University of Eastern Finland and be at least a docent or a doctor with scientific merits corresponding to the title of docent. A person cannot be appointed as an opponent if s/he has written publications or participated in research projects with the doctoral candidate during her/his doctoral studies or if s/he is otherwise disqualified.

The Custos writes a statement about the proceedings of the public examination. After the public examination, the opponent(s) submits a written statement about the dissertation and the public examination, where they propose one of the following grades to the approved dissertation: fail, pass, pass with distinction. The statements must be submitted to the faculty within two weeks of the public examination. Before the dissertation is graded, the doctoral candidate must be reserved the opportunity to write a rejoinder to the statements. The Faculty Council will grade the dissertation on the basis of the statements of the opponent(s), and the custos.

Evaluation criteria of the doctoral dissertation

The topic and research problem of the research project and narrowing the research problem:
The topic has significant information value and generates new information in the field of research or opens a new line of research. The research tasks and questions have been appropriately narrowed down. The research project has a meaningful connection to earlier research.

Conceptual clarity:
The concepts used in the research project are clear and justified. They have been analysed and assessed critically and extensively with the help of high-quality scientific literature.

Research methodology and methods:
The research project is methodologically justified. The researcher demonstrates his/her knowledge of earlier theoretical and methodological discussion. The methods employed in the research project are described and their choice is explained. The researcher demonstrates that the methods can be used to solve the research problems which have been set.

Material:
The material used in the research project is of high quality. It is relevant and sufficient in light of the research topic.

Reporting the results and conclusions:
In light of the research tasks, the results have been reported in a logical way from multiple viewpoints. The significance of the results to the field has been assessed in a relevant manner. The research report lists the most important questions for future research. The social and international significance of the research project is assessed.

The dissertation in general and its presentation:
The research project is a logical entity both in terms of structure and argumentation, and the language is clear and readable. The text focuses on essential questions. The research project has been completed independently and it demonstrates independent critical thinking towards earlier research, research methods and research concepts.

Grading scale of an approved doctoral dissertation

Pass: The dissertation meets the evaluation criteria satisfactorily and complies with research ethical practices.

Pass with distinction: An exceptionally high-quality and meritorious dissertation may receive a grade of pass with distinction. The dissertation has an ambitious topic and in light of the evaluation criteria its merits are exceptional, and it complies with research ethical practices.

Please send your signed statement to:

E-mail: FiloDoctoralstudies@uef.fi

University of Eastern Finland
Philosophical Faculty
P.O. Box 111
FI-80101 Joensuu, FINLAND

Should you have any questions, please contact the custos or Amanuensis Salli Anttonen
FiloDoctoralstudies@uef.fi
Tel. +358 50 367 0127

In matters relating to the payment of your fee, please contact:
Human Resources Secretary Lea Pulli
lea.pulli@uef.fi

• The examination shall begin 15 minutes past the hour.
• The persons involved in the examination shall enter the hall in the following order: the candidate, the custos (moderator) and, finally, the opponent(s).
• The candidate, custos and opponent shall wear formal dress or a dark suit. The form of dress shall be agreed together before the examination. The custos and the opponent(s) may wear or carry the appropriate regalia of their academic status.
• When all have arrived the custos shall begin the examination as follows: “Having been appointed by the Philosophical Faculty custos of these proceedings, I now declare the examination open.”
• The candidate shall stand to present his/her lectio praecursoria to the custos, the opponent(s) and the audience, and this shall not exceed 20 minutes. A foreign opponent shall receive a translation of the lectio praecursoria if it is presented in Finnish. The candidate shall begin: “Madam/Mr Custos, Madam/Mr Examiner, Ladies and Gentlemen.”
• The candidate shall conclude the lectio praecursoria with: “I now ask you, Professor X (Doctor X, etc.), as the opponent appointed by the Philosophical Faculty to present those criticisms which you feel is justified concerning my dissertation.”
• The opponent shall stand to present a short statement, in which s/he details the content of the dissertation and its scholarly significance. The candidate shall remain standing, facing the opponent, to hear this statement. Following this statement both the candidate and the opponent shall be seated.
• At the beginning of the actual examination, the opponent shall direct his/her attention to the methods and general questions, after which s/he should begin a detailed examination.
• The correction of typographical errors should be avoided in the examination. The candidate may provide the opponent and the audience with a written list of errors s/he has noted, which the opponent shall attach to the statement s/he submits to the Faculty.
• The opponent may not exceed four hours in his/her examination, including the time allowed for a possible second opponent. If the examination lasts longer than three hours, the custos shall declare an interval.
• At the conclusion of the examination, the opponent shall rise to present a final statement which the candidate shall rise to hear (facing the opponent). If the opponent considers that the dissertation fulfils the requirements, s/he should conclude his/her final statement with the following words: “I will be happy to recommend to the Philosophical Faculty that this dissertation be accepted with respect to the fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree”.
• The candidate shall remain standing and express his/her thanks to the opponent.
• The candidate shall turn to the audience and say: “I now invite those members of the audience who wish to question the content of my dissertation to ask the custos for the floor.”
• The custos shall recognise speakers and ensure that the candidate has an opportunity to respond to each question and that the discussion remains germane.
• The custos shall rise to say: “I now declare the examination concluded.”
• The persons involved in the examination shall leave the hall in the following order: the opponent(s), the custos and, finally, the candidate.

Evaluation criteria of the doctoral dissertation

The topic and research problem of the research project and narrowing the research problem:
The topic has significant information value and generates new information in the field of research or opens a new line of research. The research tasks and questions have been appropriately narrowed down. The research project has a meaningful connection to earlier research.

Conceptual clarity:
The concepts used in the research project are clear and justified. They have been analysed and assessed critically and extensively with the help of high-quality scientific literature.

Research methodology and methods:
The research project is methodologically justified. The researcher demonstrates his/her knowledge of earlier theoretical and methodological discussion. The methods employed in the research project are described and their choice is explained. The researcher demonstrates that the methods can be used to solve the research problems which have been set.

Material:
The material used in the research project is of high quality. It is relevant and sufficient in light of the research topic.

Reporting the results and conclusions:
In light of the research tasks, the results have been reported in a logical way from multiple viewpoints. The significance of the results to the field has been assessed in a relevant manner. The research report lists the most important questions for future research. The social and international significance of the research project is assessed.

The dissertation in general and its presentation:
The research project is a logical entity both in terms of structure and argumentation, and the language is clear and readable. The text focuses on essential questions. The research project has been completed independently and it demonstrates independent critical thinking towards earlier research, research methods and research concepts.

Grading scale of an approved doctoral dissertation

Pass: The dissertation meets the evaluation criteria satisfactorily and complies with research ethical practices.

Pass with distinction: An exceptionally high-quality and meritorious dissertation may receive a grade of pass with distinction. The dissertation has an ambitious topic and in light of the evaluation criteria its merits are exceptional, and it complies with research ethical practices.