This page presents the key requirements related to the preparation, examination and assessment of doctoral dissertations at the Faculty of Health Sciences and gives you an overview of the different stages of the process.
Dissertation requirements and recommendations
Your dissertation must demonstrate that you have gained an in-depth understanding of your own field of research, related disciplines and the general philosophy of science. Your research must also demonstrate your ability to independently and critically apply scientific research methods and to produce new knowledge.
Define the topic and scope of your dissertation together with your supervisors so that it is possible to complete the doctoral degree within 3–4 years of full-time work. At the Faculty of Health Sciences, the following forms of dissertation may be accepted:
Article-based dissertation: consists of scientific publications or manuscripts accepted or intended for publication that address the same research problem, together with a summary.
Monograph: a single, coherent study.
Please note: The chapter-based dissertation has been removed from the accepted dissertation formats. If you have already started a chapter-based dissertation, you may complete it. However, new chapter-based dissertations will no longer be started.
Article-based dissertation
Your article-based dissertation consists of peer-reviewed scientific publications. Please note the following requirements:
Number and quality of individual publications
At least half (50%) of the individual publications must be published or accepted for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
High-quality systematic reviews may be accepted as individual publications.
If the number of original articles is only 1–2, particular attention will be paid to the high scientific quality, the amount of work carried out and the development of your competences. In this case, prepare a written statement together with your main supervisor explaining how the work you have done meets the learning outcomes of the doctoral degree. The director of the doctoral programme will assess whether the justification is sufficient, and the Dean will make the decision based on the director’s proposal.
Authorship
You must be the first author (principal author) of at least half (50%) of the individual publications.
Shared first authorship is considered equivalent to first authorship.
For justified reasons, the same publication may also be used as part of another dissertation, provided that a sufficiently significant and independent contribution by both doctoral researchers can be demonstrated. In this case, you and your main supervisor must prepare a statement on the division of work and separate roles of the doctoral researchers. The director of the doctoral programme will assess whether the justification is sufficient, and the Dean will make the decision based on the director’s proposal.
Summary In the summary of your article-based dissertation, you present the background, objectives, methods, results, discussion and conclusions of your research. Write the summary so that content presented in the individual publications is not unnecessarily repeated. Examine previous research in depth, compare it with your own results and highlight questions related to your research topic. At the Faculty of Health Sciences, the recommended maximum length of the summary of an article-based dissertation is 50 pages (Chapters 1. Introduction – 7. Conclusions), and the recommended time allocation is one fifth of a person-year.
Monograph
A monograph is a coherent work that you write independently, based on your approved research plan. You write the entire dissertation yourself.
Content and structure of the monograph
Provide a comprehensive description of the data and methods used in your research and the results obtained.
Include a discussion and conclusions.
You must have contributed to the production of all results presented in the results sections.
Recommended length: approximately 150–200 pages of finished text.
Previously published material in a monograph
A previously published work cannot be accepted as a monograph. However, you may publish articles related to your research topic before the completion of your dissertation and use their results in the monograph.
You may discuss previously published results in the results section, but you must not use previously published text, tables or figures as such – reference them in accordance with responsible conduct of research.
Do not divide the monograph into separate chapters or sections based on previously published articles. Published articles or manuscripts on which the work may be based are not appended to the monograph.
Use of artificial intelligence in the dissertation
If an AI application is used to assist in the preparation of the dissertation, the doctoral researcher must report in writing which application was used and how it was used. The entire dissertation must not be produced using an AI application. For detailed guidelines, see the following pages:
Research question and research design 1 =A clear research question is missing or it lacks scientific relevance. The research design is incorrectly planned and is unable to answer the research questions. 2 = The research question has not emerged from scientific deliberation or a critical selection process. A typical example is a situation where a particular analytical method or, for instance, a relatively large patient dataset has become available to the researcher more or less by chance, and the research is carried out without an original creative rationale. 3 = The research is based on an original idea that is logical and scientifically meaningful. 4 = The starting point of the research is inventive and scientifically highly meaningful. 5 = The starting point of the research is exceptionally inventive and scientifically very highly meaningful, is based on creative new thinking or boldly challenges previously prevailing views in the field.
Research data and methods 1 = The methods used are unsuitable for the data or provide erroneous or clearly insufficient answers to the research questions. The data is biased and produces misleading results. 2 = The methods used are suitable for investigating the phenomenon in question. However, there is no notable originality in the application of the methods. The data is limited. 3 = A commonly used method has been improved or modified so that it is well suited to the research carried out. The data is of good quality. 4 = Methods have been applied innovatively or substantially developed or improved so that they are well suited to the research carried out. The data is of very good quality. 5 = The range of methods is exceptionally wide or requires a high level of expertise. A new method, novel in concept or implementation, has been developed as part of the research. The data is of exceptional quality.
Personal contribution
Personal contribution includes work carried out personally by the researcher, but also work carried out by support staff, provided that the researcher has an in-depth understanding of the methods, teaches them to the support staff and supervises the execution of the work. 1 = The candidate’s personal contribution to the acquisition of the research data and results has been minor or non-existent. 2 = The candidate has been personally responsible for part of the acquisition of research results. The candidate has gained a sufficient understanding of the methods used. 3 = The candidate has personally produced a significant proportion of the research results. The candidate has familiarised themselves with each research method in such detail that they have practical command of them. 4 = The candidate has personally produced a very large proportion of the research results. The candidate has personally familiarised themselves with each method, and the methods have been implemented by the candidate or as a result of work personally supervised by the candidate. 5 = The candidate has personally produced an exceptionally large proportion of the research results. The candidate has gained an in-depth personal understanding of each method, and the methods have been implemented by the candidate or as a result of work personally supervised by the candidate.
Research results 1 = The results of the dissertation are consistent with previously prevailing views and confirm them. 2 = The results of the dissertation complement and clarify previous views that are uncertain and/or fragmented. 3 = The dissertation brings new perspectives or knowledge to the field of research. 4 = The dissertation contains important and significant findings. 5 = The dissertation contains findings of central importance and significance.
Knowledge of the research field
Knowledge of the research field is evident not only from the dissertation manuscript but also from the expertise demonstrated at the public defence. 1 = There are critical deficiencies or fundamental misconceptions regarding the subject area of the dissertation. 2 = The candidate’s knowledge covers the subject area but is mainly limited to passive familiarity with the literature. 3 = The candidate has a good command of the knowledge and literature in the subject area and has formed a coherent and critical view of the strengths and weaknesses of previous publications. 4 = The candidate’s knowledge of the subject area is so extensive that they are able to modify or supplement prevailing views. 5 = The candidate’s knowledge of the subject area is so extensive that they are able to fundamentally challenge or modify and substantially supplement prevailing views.
Discussion and conclusions
The candidate’s ability to critically examine their own research results in light of previous knowledge is evident both in the written text and at the public defence. The discussion and conclusions demonstrate the candidate’s capacity for critical analysis, scientific integrity and academic insight. 1 = The dissertation lacks a general discussion and/or conclusions, or a section labelled as such proves upon closer examination to be merely a reproduction of the summary or the literature review. The conclusions do not address the research questions. 2 = The general discussion section contains a list-like comparison of the candidate’s own results with previously published research results. The conclusions partially address the research questions. 3 = The candidate compares their own research with the existing literature, considering the reasons for discrepancies and identifying weaknesses and issues in both their own and previous work. The conclusions address the research questions and are scientifically justified. 4 = The candidate is able to carry out a critical comparison of their own and previous research and to provide a synthesis of the current state of the research problem. The conclusions are critically formulated. 5 = On the basis of critical analysis, the candidate is able to produce a creative synthesis of the current state of the research problem and to chart new directions for future research. The conclusions are exceptionally critically formulated.
