Refine your search

Doctoral student

Faculty of Health Sciences' instructions on requirements and examination of a doctoral dissertation

Last modified: 22.04.2025

Requirements for Doctoral Dissertation

The doctoral dissertation shall demonstrate that the doctoral researcher has in-depth knowledge of their field of research, related disciplines and the general theory of science. Moreover, the dissertation shall demonstrate the author’s skills in applying scientific research methods independently and critically in their field of research and their skills in producing new scientific knowledge independently. The dissertation must demonstrate the author’s ability to carry out independent research and be a coherent entity, be based on an original idea and goals, and present new results/concepts.

According to the Recommendation of the Finnish Council of University Rectors (7 December 1998), a dissertation shall:

show the doctoral abilities in independent research work,
form a coherent whole
be based on original idea and aims; and
present new results or ideas.

In the Faculty of Health Sciences, a dissertation can be:

Monograph
Article-based dissertation, which comprises a sufficient number of publications, or manuscripts accepted for publication dealing with the same set of problems. In addition to the articles, the dissertation includes a summary (article-based dissertation).

The faculty’s working group of doctoral programmes has made a decision that the chapter based dissertation (compilation dissertation) is no longer an accepted form for a dissertation. If you have already started writing a chapter-based dissertation, you can finalise your dissertation in that format. New chapter-based dissertations should no longer be started.

An article-based dissertation consists of peer-reviewed scientific publications. If the number of original articles is small (1–2), particular attention must be paid to high scientific quality, the amount of work carried out and the importance of the doctoral researcher’s own contribution in the publications. In such a case, the doctoral researcher and the main supervisor must draw up a written report justifying the sufficiency of the doctoral researcher’s contribution to the original articles. The director of the doctoral programme will assess the adequacy of the justifications. The Dean of the faculty will make a decision in the matter based on the proposal of the director of the doctoral programme. High-quality systematic reviews can be accepted as articles. At least half of the articles (50%) must have been published or approved for publication in scientific peer-review series.

The doctoral researcher must be the first author (main author) in at least half (50%) of the articles included in the dissertation. Shared first authorship is interpreted as the first authorship. For justifiable reasons, the same publication can be used as a part of another doctoral thesis if a sufficiently significant and independent contribution of each doctoral researcher in the publication can be demonstrated. If the same article is used in more than one dissertation, the doctoral researcher and the main supervisor must draw up a report on the division of the doctoral researchers’ work in the publication justifying their separate and independent roles. The director of the doctoral programme will assess the adequacy of the justifications. The Dean of the faculty will make a decision in the matter based on the proposal of the director of the doctoral programme.

The Faculty of Health Sciences has outlined length and time recommendations for doctoral dissertation. The recommended maximum length of a summary part of an article dissertation is 50 pages (chapters 1. Introduction – 7. Conclusions) and the recommended time is 1/5 person-years.

The summary part of article based thesis presents the background, aims, methods, results, discussion and conclusions of the study. It’s important to avoid unnecessary repetition of content already presented in publications. Additionally, the abstract should engage in a deeper examination of previously published research, compare it with the author’s research data, and raise questions related to the research topic.

The recommended maximum length of a monograph is 200 pages (produced text). A monograph is a coherent and independent work written by the doctoral researcher about their own research. It should contain a comprehensive description of the data, methods and research results used in the study. Additionally, monograph contains discussion and conclusions.

If any AI application is used in thesis preparation, the application used and the manner in which it was used must be specified in writing. Writing of the thesis must not be done entirely by using an AI application. See the Rector’s decision for more detailed guidelines on the use of AI.

Evaluation criteria for a doctoral dissertation in the Faculty of Health Sciences

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.

Permission for public examination and proposal of examiners for the dissertation

Plagiarism detection

Once the doctoral candidate and the supervisors agree that the doctoral dissertation is ready for the pre-examination, the doctoral candidate will submit it to the plagiarism detection.

Plagiarism detection

Applying for a permission for public examination

Once the doctoral dissertation has passed the plagiarism detection, the doctoral candidate applies to the faculty for permission for public examination.

The attachments for the application are as follows:

a complete and corrected draft of the manuscript of the dissertation with its accompanying publications (pdf). Unpublished manuscripts must also be attached to the file
a clarification of the applicant ́s contribution to the publications (pdf) (model base for the clarification) Note: Please prepare a clarification in English if your preliminary examiner(s) or the opponent is foreign
an approval by the first author of an joint publication or in case of a shared first authorship, if other than the PhD researcher (pdf)
a free-form specification on the use of the publication used or intended to use in another dissertation, if relevant, including an approval from the other dissertation’s author (pdf)

The doctoral candidate can also deliver main supervisors propose for opponent, and a custos separately to the faculty. The doctoral candidate can express her/his potential objections against the selections.

Preliminary examination

The Dean shall appoint two persons from outside their own university as the preliminary examiners of the doctoral dissertation, who must hold at least a doctoral degree. The supervisor of the doctoral dissertation cannot be appointed as its preliminary examiner. The preliminary examiners are appointed based on a proposal from the main supervisor. The Dean’s decision on the appointment of the preliminary examiners is sent to the doctoral researcher, the main supervisor and the preliminary examiners for information. In addition to the decision, the faculty sends the dissertation manuscript, evaluation instructions for the dissertation and the clarification of the candidate’s contribution to the joint publications for the preliminary examiners.

Maximum time for the preliminary examination is two months (for holiday times or some other particular reasons evaluation may occasionally last longer). Preliminary examiners give their statements to the faculty from where they are delivered to the doctoral candidate. Examiners may contact you for any notifications before writing their statements. You have the opportunity to submit a free-form rejoinder to the preliminary examiners’ statements to the faculty.

Dissertation evaluation instructions for preliminary examiners (pdf)

Dissertation permission and appointing the opponent and custos

After the preliminary examination, the Dean decides whether permission for public examination is granted based on the statements of the preliminary examiners, and appoints the opponent(s) and the custos based on the main supervisor’s proposal. The opponent must be a professor of another university or have the scientific merits required from a docent. The opponent may not be employed by the University of Eastern Finland.

The custos of the public examination of a doctoral dissertation represents the university. A person who holds the qualification of a docent may act as a custos. The faculty recommends a professor or an associate professor of the University of Eastern Finland as the custos, but also the main supervisor who holds the qualification of a docent can supervise the public examination of the doctoral dissertation.

Dissertation evaluation instructions for opponents (pdf)

On the disqualification of the preliminary examiners and opponent

The Degree regulations in the Faculty of Health Sciences (appendix 5, valid from August 1 2023) outlines the pre-examiner’s and opponent’s disqualifications as follows:

Disqualification of preliminary examiner's and opponent´s

Approval of doctoral thesis

Opponent must send a written statement to the faculty within two weeks after the public examination of a doctoral dissertation. In the statement, the opponent presents a proposal to accept the doctoral dissertation on the grading scale of ‘approved’ or ‘approved with distinction’.

The Faculty will hear the doctoral candidate on the statement. If the doctoral candidate has no remarks to the statement, the doctoral thesis evaluation will be processed in the next Faculty Council. The Faculty Council decides the grade of the doctoral thesis on the basis of the opponent’s grade proposal (if thesis is submitted to the preliminary examination on 1 August 2024 or later). The Faculty Council has delegated to the Dean the right to grade dissertations between the last Faculty Council meeting of academic semester and the first meeting of next academic semester.