Doctoral student

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

Requirements for Doctoral Dissertation

The doctoral dissertation demonstrates the doctoral candidate’s in-depth knowledge of the field of research, related fields and the philosophy of science. Furthermore, the dissertation demonstrates his/her ability to apply the methods of scientific research into practice both independently and critically in his/her field of research as well as independently to generate new information.

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).

At least 50% or a minimum of two of the articles shall be published or accepted for publication in international, peer-reviewed scientific series. If an article-based dissertation contains co-authored publications, your independent and sufficiently significant contribution to these will be demonstrated in a written free-form clarification signed by your principal supervisor. For a well-justified reason, one of the publications may also be used as a part of another dissertation.

In the summary of the dissertation, you present the background, aims, methods, results and conclusions of the research. A name is given to the dissertation. The purpose of the article-based dissertation is not to unnecessarily copy sections of the articles included in it but to arrange and interpret the information introduced in those publications. In addition, you look at new problems that are to be solved.

The UEF working group for 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.

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

Definition of the topic 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 research problem.

2= The topic has not been defined as a result of scientific consideration or critical selection. Typical examples of the above include situations in which the doctoral candidate has somewhat accidentally gained access to a definition method or extensive patient data and the study is thus 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 creative and scientifically very reasonable.

5= The starting point of the study is particularly creative and scientifically very reasonable; the study is based on innovative thinking or it bravely challenges the field’s existing ideas.

Material and methods

1= The methods used are not suitable for studying the material or they provide erroneous or clearly insufficient answers to the research problem. 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 high quality.

5= The selection of methods is particularly extensive or requires high professional skills. 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.

Doctoral candidate's own contribution

The doctoral candidate’s own contribution refers to the work carried out by the candidate himself or herself. However, similar work carried out by the candidate’s supporting staff may also be regarded as the doctoral candidate’s own contribution, provided that the candidate is profoundly familiar with the methods, s/he teaches the supporting staff how to use them, and supervises the execution of the work.

1= The doctoral candidate’s own contribution to the acquisition of the research material and to the obtaining of the results is insignificant or non-existent.

2= The doctoral candidate has self been responsible for the obtaining of some of the results. The doctoral candidate has become sufficiently familiar with the methods used.

3= The doctoral candidate has self produced a significant part of the results her-/himself. S/he has become familiar with each of the methods in such a detail that s/he practically masters them.

4= The doctoral candidate has self produced an extremely large part of the results her-/himself. The doctoral candidate has familiarised her-/himself with each of the methods used, and the methods have been used by the candidate or under the personal supervision of the candidate.

5= The doctoral candidate has self produced and exceptionally large part of the results her-/himself. The doctoral candidate has become deeply familiar with each of the methods used and their functioning 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 they verify them.

2= The results complement and specify earlier findings which have been regarded as uncertain and/or scattered.

3= The doctoral dissertation yields new viewpoints into or 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 doctoral candidate’s familiarity with the field of research of the dissertation is demonstrated not only in the manuscript, but also as his/her expertise demonstrated in the public examination of the 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 passive and based on literature.

3= The doctoral candidate masters the knowledge and literature relating to the theme of the dissertation well, and has formed a consistent and critical view of the merits and weaknesses of earlier publications.

4= The doctoral candidate’s knowledge of the topic of the dissertation is so extensive that s/he can change or complement the field’s existing ideas.

5= The doctoral candidate’s knowledge of the topic of the dissertation is so extensive that s/he essentially can disprove or change and significantly complement the field’s existing ideas.

Discussion and conclusions

The doctoral candidate’s ability to critically reflect on his/her own results in relation to earlier findings is demonstrated both in the dissertation and in the public examination. The discussion and conclusion sections demonstrate the candidate’s abilities in critical analysis, scientific honesty and academic discovery.

1= The dissertation lacks a general discussion and/or conclusion section or a closer examination of the above sections reveals that they are merely a repetition of the summary or the literature review section. The conclusions do not provide answers to the research problem.

2= The general conclusion section contains a list-like comparison of the candidate’s own and earlier results. The conclusions made provide answers to the research problem.

3= The candidate critically compares his/her own findings to earlier literature and considers the reasons behind possible differences by recognising weaknesses and contributing factors both in his/her own study and in earlier studies. The conclusions made correspond to the questions asked and they
are scientifically justified.

4= The doctoral candidate can critically compare his/her own study to earlier studies, and make a summary of the current state of the research problem. The conclusions have been made using a critical approach.

5= The doctoral candidate can make a creative synthesis of the current state of the research problem 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

The doctoral dissertation must be checked with the plagiarism detection tool before submitting it to pre-examination. In the case of an article-based dissertation, only unpublished parts (Abstract and manuscripts of scientific articles) will be checked. Plagiarism detection will be carried out with Turnitin, which is integrated in online learning environment Moodle.

Supervisor delivers the name of the Moodle course to the doctoral candidate.
The doctoral candidate uploads the manuscript of the dissertation to Turnitin assignment as a single file (.doc or .docx)
The doctoral candidate informs the supervisor when the report is ready.
The supervisor reviews the plagiarism detection report and discusses it with the doctoral candidate if necessary.
The supervisor informs the Faculty on the result.

The doctoral candidate may independently check the previous versions of the dissertation and the manuscripts of the scientific articles in Student Turnitin. It will be possible to save the manuscript to the Turnitin database for future purposes.

Turnitin Guide for Students (in Wiki, requires login with UEF credentials).

If Moodle course is not available, it can be created in the following way:

When doing it for the first time, the creator must accept the terms and conditions by logging in Turnitin-system using HAKA login.
Moodle course will be created by filling in a Moodle course requests- form with course specifics.
When the course has been added on Moodle environment, the Turnitin assignment will be added by clicking "Add an activity or resource".

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)
a clarification of the applicant ́s contribution to the publications (pdf)
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 principal supervisor may also propose an opponent, and a custos to the faculty. The doctoral candidate can also express her/his potential objections against the selections.

Pre-examination

The dean appoints two examiners based on a proposal from the supervisor. Once you have received the dean’s decision, you must send the manuscript of the dissertation to the examiners. The Faculty will provide them with the evaluation criteria.

Maximum time for the preliminary examination is two months (for holiday times or some other particular reasons evaluation may occasionally last longer). 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 examiners’ statements to the faculty.

The dean decides whether permission for public examination is granted, and appoints the opponent(s) and the custos based on the principal supervisor’s proposal. The Faculty recommends that the custos be a professor or an associate professor at the University of Eastern Finland, but a principal supervisor holding a docent’s qualification can also act as a custos.

On incompetence of pre-examiners and opponents

The Committee for Research and Postgraduate Education of the Faculty of Health Sciences has given the following instructions regarding the incompetence of reviewers and opponents of doctoral dissertations due to the likelihood of bias (24 Oct. 2013):

Pre-examiners

When appointing the pre-examiners, issues challenging their impartiality due to the likelihood of bias listed in the Administrative Procedure Act (i.e.,434/2003, §27-28), are taken into consideration.

The supervisor of the doctoral dissertation may not be appointed as its pre-examiners.
The pre-examiners may not be a co-author in any of the publications included in the doctoral thesis.
The pre-examiners may not have been involved in close or recent collaboration with the supervisor or the doctoral researcher in the field of the research topic.
A person who has had joint scientific publications or research projects in the field of the research topic with the doctoral researcher or his/her supervisor within the past five (5) years or who is otherwise considered incompetent due to the likelihood of bias, may not be appointed as a pre-examiners of the doctoral dissertation.

According to the Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003, 28§), an office-holder is incompetent if confidence on his/her impartiality is endangered for some other specific reason. If there is a possibility that the proposal is open to interpretations, a further clarification must be submitted to the Dean.

Opponent

When appointing opponent, the issues challenging their impartiality due to likelihood of bias listed in the Administrative Procedure Act (i.e., 434/2003, §27-28), are taken into consideration.

The post of the opponent must be outside the University of Eastern Finland.
The opponent may not be a co-author in any of the publications included in the doctoral dissertation.
The person appointed as the opponent may not have been involved in close or recent collaboration with the supervisor or the doctoral researcher in the field of the research topic.
A person who has had joint scientific publications or research projects in the field of the research topic with the doctoral researcher or his/her supervisor within the past five (5) years or who is otherwise considered incompetent due to the likelihood of bias may not be appointed as an opponent.

on must be submitted to the Dean.