phd thesis opponent

A guide to the procedure for the public defence of a doctoral thesis

A doctoral thesis at a Swedish university must be defended in public in the presence of an expert in the field from another university. This is a guide to the procedure at Halmstad University.

It takes four years of full-time studies to obtain a doctoral degree. However, in practice, it takes longer, as doctoral students tend to participate in other work such as teaching. The research programme culminates in the submission of a doctoral thesis. A doctoral thesis at a Swedish university must be defended in public in the presence of an expert in the field from another university, known as the opponent. The opponent is officially appointed by the Faculty Board. The Faculty Board also appoints a chairman of the public defence and an examining board (usually three people). The examining board evaluates the thesis and the candidate’s defence of the thesis. Based on their evaluation, the Board assigns a grade of “Pass” or “Fail”. The thesis defence is a formal event for which the procedure is explained below.

The doctoral thesis

The doctoral thesis may be presented either as a monograph or as a compilation thesis.

The participants at the defence

• The opponent: A distinguished researcher, who is a specialist in the relevant field, is selected to oppose the doctoral thesis at the public defence.
• The candidate: The candidate is the author of the doctoral thesis. During the defence the candidate (in Swedish “respondent”) may be addressed either by his or her first name, or more formally as Mr. X, Ms. X.
• The chairman of the public defence: The chairman of the public defence is often a professor or associate professor from the candidate's department
• The examination board: The examination board is appointed by the Faculty Board, and consists of three to five members, normally three. At least one board member must be from another university. The grade for the thesis is to be decided by the board.
• The audience: The audience will include the candidate's friends, relatives, and colleagues, and can be addressed simply as “Ladies and Gentlemen”.

The outline of a public defence of a doctoral thesis

• The chairman of the defence welcomes everyone, and presents the candidate, the opponent and the members of the examination board. The chairman continues to present relevant information about where the research has been performed and the other persons involved. Furthermore, the chairman will present the outline for the defence.
• The chairman leaves the floor to the candidate with a request to present any errata.
• The candidate* presents a summary of the thesis including the scientific contributions (that is described) for about 20 minutes. Alternatively, the opponent presents the thesis and compares it relatively to other research in the field. The candidate must then be given the opportunity to comment on the opponents perception of the thesis.
• The opponent will discuss the thesis with the candidate through asking questions which enables the candidate to show his or her expected knowledge and ability to discuss the results. During this part of the defence other listeners may not participate in the discussion.
• The chairman gives the members of the examining board the opportunity to ask questions to the candidate.
• The chairman gives all listeners the opportunity to ask questions to the candidate and comment on the thesis.
• When the discussion is finished, the chairman formally closes the public session and the members of the examination board withdraw for their meeting.
• The examination board meeting is held behind closed doors. The board decides within itself who is to be the chairman of the meeting. The opponent, the principal supervisor and the second supervisor have the right to attend the meeting with the examination board. They may participate in the deliberations, but not in the decision. Although the opponent does not have a vote, his or her opinion is considered an important contribution to the board’s discussion. The opponent will often be asked how the standard of the thesis and its defence compare with those in his or her home country. The board announces its decision as soon as possible.

It is very rare for a Swedish thesis to be rejected after the formal defence. The content of the thesis has already been reviewed internally and also externally. However, if as opponent you find that the thesis is not of the standard required for a PhD degree, please contact the supervisor or examiner well in advance so that the public defence can be called off.

The entire act usually takes approximately 2–3 hours.

The public defence may be held in Swedish or English. The language is determined primarily with regard to the candidate, opponent and the members of the examination board, and secondly with regard to the expected audience.

*For the area of Health and Lifestyle, the normal case is that the opponent presents a summary of the thesis as well as its scientific contributions.

• Emely Niemi Jonsson

The Office of the Research and Education Board

[email protected]

Cookies used on hh.se

Halmstad University uses cookies to improve website functionality.

Read more in our cookie policy

Scientist Sees Squirrel

Seldom original. often wrong. occasionally interesting..

The “opponent” system: my experience at a Swedish PhD defence

Photo: A “nailed” thesis abstract (photo S. Heard)

  I recently returned from a trip to Stockholm, where I went to be the “opponent” (in North America, we would say “external examiner”) for a PhD defence. Get this: at the defence, the PhD candidate didn’t present his work – I did.  Curious? Read on.

It’s no surprise that academic systems vary – but the “opponent” system used in a number of European countries is an interesting variant, and one not well known (I think) in North America.  My sample size is very small, of course, involving one defence at one university in one country * , but I was impressed. I’ll describe my experience, and share some thoughts about its advantages and disadvantages compared to the North American convention.

The process

I was invited to be the opponent about five months before the defence.  About two months before the defence, I received the candidate’s thesis. That seems like a long time, but I needed to work harder on this than on a typical North American defence, so I was grateful for the time.  You’ll see why as I go on.

Although I didn’t participate in this part, about three weeks before the defence, the candidate had a “nailing” ceremony – in which the Abstract of the thesis was (literally) nailed to a plank in a department common room.  The nailing symbolizes the public release of the thesis, which cannot be defended until it has been public for three weeks. (The whole thesis, of course, is made available electronically at the time of the nailing.)

At defence time, I flew to Sweden to spend two days in the host department. The day before the defence, I gave a seminar in the host department (as one does).  More importantly, the candidate and I went for lunch, along with his supervisors and the Chair of the defence.  This lunch serves to let the candidate meet the opponent in an informal, low-pressure setting, rather than at or just before the defence. (The Chair of the defence was there, though, to enforce a rule that we not talk about the thesis.)  This contrasts with the North American system, in which the external examiner is discouraged, or even disallowed, from making any contact with candidate or supervisor before the defence.

The day of the defence was a big day and a long one.  The defence, in the morning, was attended by ~80 people, including students and faculty but also a large contingent of the candidate’s friends and family. Here’s how it went:

• The candidate was up first, with 10 min to speak – but only to introduce the study system and the most important methods he had used.
• Next, I presented the candidate’s thesis, taking about 30 min to introduce the context, present the methods, results, and interpretation, and to discuss its meaning for the broader field. I used a powerpoint illustrated with graphs and other elements taken from the thesis, but also material I gathered myself. This, of course, is exactly what the candidate would do him/herself in a North American defence.  But here I was doing it instead – with the candidate, who knew the work far better than I did, sitting right in front of me.  His presence, by the way, made it obvious that I couldn’t count on my usual reason for not being nervous when I give talks .
• Following the presentations, the candidate and I sat at facing tables at the front of the auditorium, and I questioned him for about an hour. This was just like the North American questioning by the examining committee, except that it was one-on-one: the 3-member examining committee just watched and listened.
• When I had finished, the examining committee had a chance to ask some very brief questions, and then the audience had their turn. These together took less than 10 min, though, and obviously weren’t a critical part of the candidate’s assessment.
• The Chair then declared the defence closed, and the candidate and audience left. The examining committee asked me for my overall assessment and comments, then the asked the principal supervisor the same.

The supervisor and I then left, so the examining committee could deliberate. (We left the room to discover a very large party in progress, with snacks and multiple bottles of champagne. Pass or fail, the bubby had already been poured! ** )  You’ll notice another big difference from the North American model here: I wasn’t a voting member of the examining committee.  My role as the opponent was to give the thesis, and the candidate’s knowledge, a good airing out; but I did so to help the examining committee judge the defence, not to judge it myself.

• After perhaps 5 minutes, the examining committee emerged to announce the candidate’s success.

That was the defence, but it wasn’t the end of the day. There was another lunch for candidate, opponent, and committee; and then in the evening, a very big party including dinner, toasts and toastmasters, speeches, songs, gifts from supervisor to candidate and candidate to supervisor, and dancing that lasted longer into the wee hours than I did.  Of course we celebrate defences in North America too, but I was struck by the scale of the celebration and the involvement of family and academics on an equal footing.

Advantages of the “opponent” system

The biggest advantage of the opponent system is that it ensures independent review of the thesis by someone who knows the thesis very, very well.  I had to know the thesis inside out and backwards, because I had to present it!  And my knowledge (or lack thereof) was on conspicuous display, so the examining committee could be sure of it.  (I rush to assure you that when I’m an external examiner in the North American system, I take the job seriously; but I won’t try to argue that I absorb every thesis in the detail I absorbed this Swedish one.  And, of course, not every external examiner is as conscientious as I claim to be.)

Another strength is that the opponent’s presentation of the work (rather than the student’s) gives the examining committee two different perspectives on the interpretation and importance of the research.  There were several points where I think I interpreted the results and what they meant for the big picture a bit differently than the candidate did.  This makes the defence more interesting, and it also aids the committee’s assessment of the way the work challenges or changes our understanding of the thesis topic.

Finally, the opponent system disentangles two different function of the examination: on the one hand, discovering (if you prefer, putting on display) the work and the candidate’s understanding of it; and on the other hand, judging that work and understanding.  This means, for instance, that the opponent can disagree fervently with the thesis, but the examining committee can judge the candidate’s response without having a direct stake in the disagreement.

Disadvantages of the “opponent” system

The main disadvantage of the opponent system seems to be its placement of a lot of eggs in one basket.  I presented the thesis and examined the candidate almost single-handedly.  What if I had done a poor job?  What if (despite my close-reading-assurance argument above) I hadn’t read the thesis carefully? Or had misunderstood it, or missed a major issue?  Or simply stopped questioning the candidate after a few minutes? I’m told in cases like this, the examining committee is expected to step up; but for the very reason that the opponent will (usually) be overprepared, I wouldn’t be surprised if the other examiners were sometimes underprepared.  Such defences must happen, but I don’t know how often.

I suppose one could argue that another “disadvantage” of the system is that it’s a lot of work for the opponent.  I don’t know if this makes it more difficult to secure an opponent for a defence. I’d accept another invitation in a heartbeat, and if I’m typical, this isn’t really a concern.

Finally, I’m told that a disadvantage of the system’s naming (rather than of the system itself) is that North Americans sometimes interpret the English word “opponent” too literally.  I wasn’t there to oppose the candidate’s work, but rather to hold it up to the light – by presenting it with both praise and criticism and by probing the candidate’s understanding.  This certainly makes rigorous questioning appropriate, but not one-sided or unreasoned opposition. Fortunately, I was well briefed!

Final thoughts

There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and I think more variance in the quality of PhD exams is explained by choice and behaviour of examiners than by opponent vs. external examiner system. So I don’t think either system is “better”. I do think that comparing these different systems is a useful way for us to think carefully about what it is we’re trying to do when we examine a PhD thesis.  It’s funny that the thesis and its defence is considered a critical, even defining, piece of a student’s graduate education – but I’ve never had any formal instruction in, or heard any formal discussion of, what we’re doing when we examine one. My “opponent” experience made me think about this a bit; maybe hearing about it has done the same for you.

© Stephen Heard ( [email protected] ) June 16, 2016

* ^ Want to triple that sample size? Here’s Carol Boggs’s account of her experience. But both of us were at Stockholm University. Here’s a description from Jonas Waldenström of the defences of two of his students.  But the process differs in details among universities and definitely among countries – in Norway, I believe, the candidate presents the thesis; in Finland, the opponent does but the process is enriched with top hats, robes, and a sword (really). I’m sure there are many other variations.

** ^ Just as in North America, failures at the defence stage are quite rare. This is not because the process isn’t rigorous. It’s because we don’t allow students to reach the defence stage until we’re confident that the work is excellent and the student can defend it well.  This makes the defence usually more of a celebration than a bar-hurdling – but only because the bar has already been hurdled.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Threads (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Bluesky (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)

29 thoughts on “ The “opponent” system: my experience at a Swedish PhD defence ”

One interesting thing to note is that not even all Swedish defences look the same, although the general pattern is similar. For example, at Uppsala (at least for our department) the student presents their work for ~30 mins and then the opponent has a talk where they are meant to put the thesis in a broader perspective. The contrast of the NA and Swedish/Scandinavian systems certainly got me thinking about the purpose of PhD defences (wrote a post ages ago on Small Pond Science).

Link please? I don’t remember that one!

Here it is: https://smallpondscience.com/2014/03/05/thoughts-on-the-phd-defence/ Was a little lazy digging it up earlier 🙂

Like Liked by 1 person

it is the same at Lund, Chalmers, Umeå, and Linköping…so I think the student presenting their work is more common in Sweden (at least in Chemistry/Physics departments) I had actually never heard of the opponent presenting the thesis but I have heard of no presentation from the student just a area overview by the opponent and then the questioning.

Well written & fun to read “from the other side”. – both NA and opponent. I’d second the “the opponent doesn’t always present the thesis but puts it in context of the field in general”. I defended at another uni than Stockholm in Sweden and presented my thesis ~30 mins, the opponent then introduced my research in context of the field, and then he went through the thesis with questions. About 2 hours, then the committee for another 30-1h.

I think the defense really serves two purposes. It’s public since all (most) universities in Sweden are public with public funding so the people have a right to know and listen. Secondly, it’s the one time when the graduate student get to shine and it’s a huge deal of graduating. The eveningparty, which is very formal with the dinner and mixing of work and family (not at all common in Sweden compared to NA. Sweden don’t generally bring spouses to Christmas parties etc for example), is the time when everyone calls the successful candidate Doktor – and the attitude change in faculty the next day is usually noticeable. “You transcended into PhD!”.

And I’ve been to a couple of “not so nice defenses”. In one case the candidate wasn’t super prepared, that was painful. In another the opponent was from competing research group and disliked the research (I personally think it might have been a poor judgement to ask them but people also behave quite differently at times….) however, 2 less lovely out of at least 30 attended defenses during the years is ok % to me. And as said earlier, you’re not allowed to defend if your thesis isn’t up to par, they won’t let you through to that stage.

Nice insight into the system, Steve, though as Amy notes not all Swedish defences are the same. This variability of PhD examining fascinates me and I’m sure there’s a book to be written about it (unless someone has already done it). It’s been my pleasure to examine 27 PhDs by defence in England, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and (in written format) South Africa and Australia. And whilst most of the variation is between-country, there’s also significant within-country variation too. My one piece of advice to the novice examiner is – read the accompanying documentation in detail and don’t assume that you know the process!

That does sound like really good advice, and not just for “novice” examiners! I would add “don’t be afraid to ask questions; your host will understand that you’d rather ask a dumb question than do something even dumber at the defence! (And I’m green with envy at your list of countries; mine now stands at just 3 (Canada, US, and Sweden).

Just a comment on the celebration part…my lab (considered slightly atypical) does something quite similar. After the defence, we roast the new doctor, then celebratory drinks (payed by the supervisor!) and then dinner + party. Family and friends are usually a part of all this and we all join together to offer a gift to the new doctor.

“After the defence, we roast the new doctor”

Sounds delicious! 😉

Ahah! I meant the kind of roasting where you make fun of the person (did I used the right term). Usually, it means showing the worst pictures possible.

Yes, it’s the right term, I was just teasing 🙂

“This contrasts with the North American system, in which the external examiner is discouraged, or even disallowed, from making any contact with candidate or supervisor before the defence.”

Quibble: that’s the *Canadian* system. At most US universities, the external committee member is just that–a regular committee member. I think that’s a much better system. I think the benefits to the student far outweigh the tiny risk that everyone on the committee will club together and give the student a degree he or she hasn’t earned.

Huh – that’s not my memory from my time at U. Iowa, but I could be wrong. My OWN U.S. PhD defence is far to long in the past for me to remember detail!

It may well vary between institutions, of course, but I think the Canadian system is rare in the US. At Rutgers, Bob Holt was my external, and I learned a tremendous amount from him. And I’ve served or am currently serving as the external for students at Texas and Colorado.

Peter Morin was mine (at Penn) – which makes us some kind of weird academic kin. Peter was terrific, and I just honestly don’t remember if I was able to correspond with him in advance of the defence or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZd_YyFzPD0 🙂

p.s. Speaking of Peter, back when I was in grad school he was an opponent for a Swedish PhD defense as well. The lab thought this was hilarious. I recall joking that the Swedes were going to give the Swedish student a PhD and take Peter’s away. 🙂

N=1 but my US experience is that our external was just a regular committee member. In my case, it was in fact a coauthor whose lab I had worked in.

my experience in US chemistry departments is that there are plenty departments that don’t use external examiners or “external” means to your department so is someone else from the same university

The system in Finland is quite similar to the one described here, except that there is not examining committee. The opponent writes a letter after the defence to tell the department officials (I don’t know the correct name) how he thought the defence went and how good the thesis was. In my own defence, I gave a 10 minute talk first in Finnish (because there were non-academic audience, like my family). The rest of the defence was in English. The opponent first described my thesis for maybe 20-30 minutes and then we had 1.5 hour discussion about it. I remember that I was quite nervous but also super-concentrated and everything went well. There was a possibility for the audience to ask questions but that never happens (and if happens it’s seen a horrible mistake of etiquette). Then it was time for glass of sparkling for everyone present and lunch with opponent, supervisors and chair. In the evening was then a dinner party (dark suits for men and fancy dresses for women) for colleagues and hand-picked family & friends. Talks, toasts and presents. 🙂 Here are some photos of my PhD defence and dinner party http://delphine.fi/~toni/photo/elinan_karonkka/ .

The thing about top hats and swords in Finnish PhD defence is not that simple. After your PhD you can take part in an official university promotion event. That is three days of official events and parties with other (recent) doctors. For that you need to buy the top hat and sword yourself. And pay also a lot for the other costs. I will do that one day but too expensive at the moment. 😉

One more thing about the Finnish system. Before the PhD defence, the thesis is checked by two external examiners. After that is still possible to correct the text before printing the thesis. The PhD defence with the opponent is not only theatre but I haven’t heard of anyone who had failed to pass it with acceptance.

Pingback: Fish out of water: a scientist examines a poetry thesis | Scientist Sees Squirrel

Pingback: About my PhD defense in Germany – biologyforfun

Interesting post and thank you for sharing you experience. As stated above, the procedure varies between universities in Sweden and at the Karolinska Institutet we let the opponent start with an overview of the field for 20-30 minutes, then the respondent gives an overview of the articles included in the thesis. Thereafter they have a discussion. As my first assignment in an examining committee I did have the unlucky experience of the opponent asking too few questions. This professor from Spain stopped after like half an hour and none of the questions were especially critical or interesting. In these occasions it it the duty of the committee to fill up the time with relevant questions to the respondent. This is where you start with your method questions, moving on to the general applicability in health care and if there is still plenty of time to fill out you can always draw the evolution card and discuss how this model/protein/genes fit into the survivor of the fittest algorithm.

Thank you for sharing your experience of the Swedish PhD defence so thoroughly. I recently defended my PhD at UNB and truly enjoyed the North American system. I had several questions in my mind about why it is set up in the way it is set up, which were resolved once I went through the experience myself. I can see the advantages of the opponent system you described, but I think someone who has spent a long time on a research project/program would prefer to have more than one expert engage with the work and fully participate in the examination process. Also the thesis may have elements that require different expertise for a deeper probe (as in interdisciplinary studies); doesn’t this make finding an opponent who would be an exact fit difficult? I was privileged to have a committee and examiners each of whom was an expert and authority on complementary aspects (themes, theories, genres, and eras) of the research, hence they connected with and asked questions about chapters or parts of the work that were of greater interest to them.

Pingback: Historical perspective in science? – Walking in my science shoes

Pingback: Viva, Soutenance, Disputation: How PhD Students around the World Defend Their Thesis | Lex Academic®

Pingback: How to Prepare for your PhD Viva | Lex Academic Blog | Lex Academic®

Thanks for the nice blog post! I am a Canadian academic and I will be in Sweden in a few days, serving as an Opponent. This was a nice read for me, to prepare myself 😉

Comment on this post: Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• Svensk webbplats
• Student Portal
• Staff Portal

Search results

Search tips

• Make sure there are no spelling errors
• Try different search terms or synonyms
• Narrow your search for more hits

Courses for Exchange Students

Job Opportunities

How can we help?

Find Employees

Roles, responsibilities and competency requirements when public defense of doctoral thesis

Here you can read about the roles, responsibilities and competence requirements for the opponent (external reviewer), the members of the examining committee and the chair of the public defense ('moderator').

The opponenten (external reviewer)

Academic title and level of competence: PhD and minimum competence level docent or equivalent

Must not be employed at the University of Skövde

Before the public defense

• the opponent must critically examine the entire thesis and prepare his/her opposition.
• the opponent has an obligation to report any suspicion of scientific misconduct to the University's Registry Officer.
• it is the opponent's responsibility to report any circumstances that may contribute to conflict of interest. For more information, see the University's “Guidelines on conflict of interest” (in Swedish Riktlinjer om jäv ).

During the public defense

• If chosen as an alternative: the opponent must give a summary and own interpretation of the content of the thesis and place it in relation to other research in the subject area.
• the opponent shall perform the public discussion, which means highlighting the central results, critically discussing the thesis and engaging in a discussion about the content with the respondent. The opponent discusses the thesis with the respondent by asking questions and providing views, thereby enabling the respondent to demonstrate his expected knowledge and ability to discuss the results. Future research work is also discussed here. This is the central part of the public defense as the respondent's ability to answer the questions is included in the grading.

After the public defense

• the opponent is expected to participate in the examining committee's deliberations, but leaves the meeting before the examining committee makes its decision.

The examining committee

Is the examiner for the doctoral thesis and the doctoral student's defense of the thesis in connection with the public defense. Information on assessment criteria can be found under “ Assessment of a PhD thesis and defense ” (or in Swedish under “Bedömning av doktorsavhandling och disputation”).

Must consist of three regular members and one substitute. At most one of the regulars may be employed at the University of Skövde, at least one must come from another Swedish University or higher education institution.

Both sexes must be represented.

Each member must have at least a docent's qualification or the equivalent.

• the examining committee must critically examine the entire thesis and prepare its examination.
• the members of the examining committee have the obligation to report any suspicion of scientific misconduct to the University's Registry Officer.
• it is the responsibility of the examining committee members to report any circumstances that may contribute to conflict of interest. For more information, see the University's “Guidelines on conflict of interest” (in Swedish Riktlinjer om jäv ).
• the members of the examining committee shall ask the respondent questions about the content of the thesis and assess the respondent's ability to defend the thesis and to answer the opponent's and others' questions.
• The examining committee meets and appoints a chairman (one of the three regular members). The examining committee is quorum when all members are present. The opponent is expected to participate in the deliberations. Supervisors have the right to attend, and one of them (normally the main supervisor) must attend the meeting and participate in the deliberations. When the deliberations are considered complete, the opponent and all supervisors must leave the room.
• The examining committee makes decisions on grades. Majority decisions apply and grades are only given as pass or fail. When grading, both the content of the thesis and the respondent's presentation, discussion and defense of it must be assessed.
• If the examining committee approves the thesis, the reasons may not be reported in the examination protocol. The same applies if an individual member has reservations about the decision.
• If the thesis is rejected, the reasons must be stated. The same applies if an individual member reserves himself against this decision. If the thesis is rejected, it is also possible for the supervisor to submit a special opinion.
• The examination protocol (Form 5.7) from the examining committee meeting is filled in and signed by all members of the examining committee.
• The examining committee announces its decision as soon as possible.
• The examination protocol from the examining committee’s meeting is handed over to the chair of the public defense.

The chair of the public defense

must be active at the school (‘institution’) to which the doctoral student belongs.

Before the public defense, the chair of the public defense must

• become familiar with his/her assignment and responsibilities and, if necessary, communicate issues with those concerned (main supervisor, doctoral student...).

During the public defense, the chair of the public defense must

• lead the public defense (act as moderator),
• be responsible for the defense being carried out properly. He/she must also check that everyone is present when the act/seminar starts. If the opponent or any member of the examining committee does not appear, the chair must investigate whether the public defense can be moved to a later time on the same day if the reason for the absence is delay, or ensure that the substitute member of the examining committee enters.
• welcome everyone, introduce the respondent, the title of the thesis, the opponent (external reviewer) and the members of the examining committee,
• present any relevant information about where the research has been carried out and about others involved,
• explain the procedure for the public defense (seminar) and ensure that it is carried out properly,
• leave the floor to the respondent who reports any typographical errors and/or other corrections in the thesis (errata list),
• leave the floor to the respondent and opponent (external reviewer) in the order chosen,
• give the examining committee members the opportunity to ask questions to the respondent and comment on the thesis,
• give the audience the opportunity to ask questions to the respondent and comment on the thesis,
• thank the participants and declare the public defense completed.

After the public defense, the chair of the public defense must

• hand over documentation for examination protocol (Form 5:7) and any other information to the examining committee.
• ensure that the examining committee appoints a chairman within the group. The chair of the public defense then leaves the meeting.
• check that the examination protocol is complete and signed.
• be responsible for the signed examination protocol from the meeting being handed over to the University's Registry Officer for registration and administration.

• Denna sida på svenska
• Medarbetarportalen startsida
• ki.se startsida

Apply for public defence of your thesis

Before applying.

You should prepare your defence application well in advance, ideally 12 weeks or more before the desired defence date during the defence semester.

We recommend an additional six weeks for monograph theses during defence semester. See “ Compilation or monograph theses ” (below).

• Book a venue for your chosen defence date on a weekday during semester-time . The venue must be located in the Stockholm region so that KI’s students and staff can attend, and must be accessible to the public. Venues are booked through your own department.
• Contact your opponent and the members of the Examination Board to make sure that they are available on the date in question, and that the board members are able to take part in the preliminary review of the constituent papers of your thesis. Propose a coordinator from the examination board and inform them of their role (see Information to Examination Board etc below). One or more of the Examination Board members and / or the opponent may digitally participate, provided that the public defence can be carried out with high quality. Read more about digital participation in public defence .
• Contact the printing house to find out how long it will take to have your thesis printed. Request permission to publish from the relevant journals. See Printing your thesis .
• Complete your compilation thesis summary chapter (”kappa”). The kappa does not have to be finished until the examination board has finished their preliminary review. Please note that the text will be checked to ensure that there is no plagiarism . At the same time, it will show if the text consists of any self-plagiarism. Read more about the content of the thesis (including guidelines for writing the compilation thesis summary chapter).

Application

A suitable time interval between the meetings of the Dissertation Committee and your desired defence date is about 12 weeks. This is to protect you from having to postpone your defence if the process is delayed for some reason. 

Use form 9 version 2024-03-15  according toinstructions. This version is less extensive than before, but should be combined with a report on the doctoral student’s achievement of learning outcomes which is submitted in a separate form and constitutes part 3 of the defence application.

More information on the report of achievement of learning outcomes .

Instructions to form 9 (version 2024-03-15) (PDF, 171.42 KB)

Form 9, Application for public defence or licentiate seminar (version 2024-03-15) (Word, 81.83 KB)

Form – Reports on the doctoral student´s learning and development as a researcher including achievement of outcomes for degree (part 3) (Word, 163.86 KB)

Examination Board and Opponent

The goal of the Examination Board’s composition is that the members total expertise should cover the entire area of the thesis. 

The members must be free in their assessment so that no doubt can be cast on the objectivity of their decision (see “Avoiding COI” below). There are normally three members of the board, but in exceptional circumstances (e.g. if the thesis is explicitly multidisciplinary) this number may be increased to five.

At least one member of the Examination Board is to belong to a university other than KI and have no current affiliation with KI. The coordinator must not belong to the same department as the doctoral student, the principal supervisor or any of the co-supervisors. One member may belong the student’s own department or the principal supervisor. At least one member shall come from another university than the doctoral student principal supervisor and co-supervisors. If possible, at least one member should have sat on the board during the half-time review. 

All members are to be docents or professors, although in exceptional cases, the Dissertation Committee may approve a proposed member who holds neither position. To apply for an exemption, a letter explaining as to why the proposed member possesses such a unique scientific subject competence that it is not possible to find another unbiased docent or professor. Additionally, a CV and a list of publications for the proposed member must be attached to the application.

Your opponent shall be a researcher who must hold a doctoral degree (PhD), possess expert knowledge of the thesis’ area and be without conflict of interest with respect to you, your supervisors, or the project. Your opponent doesn’t need to hold a docentship. A highly qualified professor may be considered although he/she does not hold a doctoral degree, in which case this person’s CV (including list of publications) is to be appended to your application. 

Note that only one proposal for an Examination Board member and opponent is to be submitted.  The Dissertation Committee can decide on the replacement of one or more of its members.

The doctoral student is responsible for sending the following document to the opponent and to the chair of the dissertation (the members of the Examination Board will receive the information directly from the Dissertation Committee):

Information to Examination Board, Opponent and Defence Chairperson (PDF, 269.94 KB)

Information for the Examination Board and Seminar Chairperson, licentiate thesis (PDF, 234.65 KB)

Fee to the opponent

The opponent’s fee is SEK 15,000. Note that no fee is paid to an opponent who is employed at, or affiliated to, KI.

Important information regarding opponents from other countries: 

For these, a so-called SINK decision is required (SINK = special income tax). Use the Swedish Tax Agency's form  SKV 4350 ( English version: 4350a ). A coordination number is also required, and according to new rules, the person applying for a coordination number must appear in person for an identity check at the Swedish tax office or at selected embassies. To avoid this, it is important that the SINK application states a reason why the person cannot appear for an identity check , for example that he/she will only be working for a few days in Sweden.

See also:  Salary and tax | Staff Portal (ki.se)

Examination Board members and opponents may participate digitally, provided that the public defence can be carried out with high quality

Avoiding conflict of interest (COI)

The requirements on the impartiality and objectivity of the Examination Board members and opponents are extremely high. This is in your interests, as such demands help to prevent subsequent allegations of irregularities. If there is the slightest reason for others to doubt the objectivity of the Examination Board, it would mean that your interests have not been looked after sufficiently.

The following documents are available to help you judge whether a conflict of interest situation exists:

COI as defined by the Administrative Procedure Act

According to the Administrative Procedure Act, conflict of interest refers to any circumstances in which a member of a decision-making body engaged in a discussion about, or the presentation of specific material can be assumed to lack objectivity of opinion. The opponent and members of an Examination Board must thus have absolutely no connection with you personally, your supervisor or your project.

Karolinska Institutet’s COI rules

Guidelines on conflict of interest (COI) (PDF, 499.9 KB)

The Swedish Research Council’s COI rules

The Swedish Research Council (VR) has also issued general COI rules:

The VR’s Scientific Council for Medicine and Health has defined how its COI rules are to be applied, specifying the following:

• A conflict of interests arises if there has been scientific collaboration and joint production over the past five year period. A co-authored article is sufficient to be considered joint production.
• A conflict of interests may arise for periods longer than five years if the collaboration has been particularly close.
• The relationship between a postgraduate student and his/her supervisor is considered a matter of conflict of interest, regardless of how long ago the collaboration took place.
• An exception from the 5-year rule can be made in the event of collaboration in the form of multicentre studies, which are judged on individual merits.

Many factors are taken into consideration by the Dissertation Committee when judging the suitability of an opponent or a member of the Examination Board. Sometimes it is a matter of clear-cut COI, but situations also arise in which a reviewer is considered unsuitable owing to lack of objectivity despite there having been no formal breach of the COI rules. The purpose of these decisions is to prevent situations in which objectivity can be called to question.

Compilation or monograph theses

The compilation thesis.

The most common form of thesis at KI is a compilation thesis with a general introductory thesis frame followed by a number of constituent papers. At least two of the constituent papers included in the thesis must have been accepted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, the remainder may be in manuscript form. Doctoral education includes taking active part in the publication of scholarly articles.

The number of constituent papers in a compilation thesis varies, but the Examination Board must deem them to be of the scientific standard expected of an internationally pre-eminent university and of a scope corresponding to four years of full-time doctoral education.

Many project groups often produce original papers with several co-authors. If such original papers are included in your doctoral thesis, your own contributions must be clearly identifiable.

Information about the content of the thesis

Support for writing the thesis (PDF, 240.32 KB)

The monograph thesis

If your thesis is to be presented as a monograph thesis in which there are no referee-reviewed articles, the review process deviates slightly from that for compilation theses.

• On submitting your defence application, you must append to the first draft of your monograph a proposal for two expert reviewers, one active at KI and one from another university.
• The reviewers will then examine your monograph and produce a written statement, similar to that made by a referee at a scientific journal, with comments on the quality and scope of the thesis. The statement is administrated by the Dissertation Committee.
• You will then be asked to respond to the statement and, if necessary, submit a revised monograph with all corrections clearly indicated.
• You must then send your thesis in the usual manner to the Examination Board with the preliminary reviewers’ comments appended in full. When the Examination Board has given its recommendation to proceed, the thesis manuscript will be sent for printing.

Expect a defence application for a monograph thesis to take an additional six weeks .

The Dissertation Committee

Gunilla hovén malinowski, ruket negasi, more information for logged in staff click here to show/hide information.

There is more information for those of you working in the following groups

• C4.Department of Neuroscience

English & American Literatures and Cultures

Doctoral Program at the Institute of English & American Studies, University of Szeged

The procedure and timeline of the PHD defense

Submission of a draft.

You submit a draft version of your dissertation to your supervisor(s) , who will read it and suggest revisions. (takes at least 1 month for your supervisor(s) to review the text)

SUBMISSION FOR PRE-DEFENSE

You submit to your supervisors and the Director of the Doctoral Programme a revised, improved version of your dissertation for a pre-defense (munkahelyi vita= workplace discussion ⁓ viva voce ) , an oral examination where you present your dissertation and are asked questions about it by an exam committee made up of your two “opponents”. NOTE that the pre-defense version of your dissertation should comply with the dissertation’s formal requirements (i.e., its length should not be less than the minimal requirement of 300.000 characters, nor exceed the maximum limit of 500.000 characters including spaces and footnotes but excluding the dissertation’s reference list). The Director of the Doctoral Programme will forward your dissertation to your two opponents (an internal evaluator from the University of Szeged and an external second reader from another university) invited to read your work and provide a brief written evaluation of it. (takes 1-2 months for the opponents to evaluate your work)

PRE-DEFENSE

A pre-defense takes place: the PhD candidate and the committee discuss the main research questions, arguments, evidence, structure, and organization of the dissertation. Opponents advise students about revisions that need to be accomplished before submitting the dissertation for the final defense.

The scenario of the pre-defense:

1. The doctoral candidate presents a brief outline of the dissertations’s main research questions, methodology, arguments, structure, results. 2. The opponents present their evaluations of the dissertation. 3. The PhD candidate respond to the opponents’ evaluations. 4. An open discussion takes place with the participation of academic staff and fellow PhD Students present. 5. The academic staff (PhD holders) present at the pre-defense cast their votes on the evaluation of the dissertation. 6. Announcement of results which may be as follows:

• The dissertation can be submitted for the final defense without any modifications.
• The dissertation needs minor amendments and corrections.
• The dissertation needs major revisions.
• The draft version submitted for the pre-defense cannot be accepted as the basis for a finalised dissertation.

SUBMISSION FOR FINAL DEFENSE

You work more on your dissertation, and submit a fine-tuned, revised, finalised version to the administrator of doctoral affairs (see the steps of the submission above) (provided you have fulfilled all the criteria mentioned above) (cc.2 month for revisions after pre-defense before submitting final version)

Additional material to be submitted electronically : Thesis Résumé Booklets, List of Publications (as registered in MTMT), Foreign Language Certificates, and a 1 page long CV in third person narrative form.

FINAL DEFENSE

Opponents (usually the same professors who evaluated your work for the pre-defense) are appointed by the Doctoral Programme and approved by the Doctoral School and the Doctoral Council of the Faculty of Arts to read your work. (Officially they have 2 months to prepare their reviews. The summer period (July and August) does not count.)

You receive the opponents’ written evaluations from the administrator of Doctoral Affairs and send a brief written response to their evaluations (in a single document) to the administrator of Doctoral Affairs copied the Director of the Programme and the Supervisor(s). The administrator of Doctoral Affairs forwards the responses to both readers.

For Hungarian citizens the language of the defense is in Hungarian (if requested: can be in English), for foreign students it is in English. 

The procedure of the final defense:

• Doctoral Candidate’s CV is read out by a member of the defense committee
• Doctoral Candidate presents brief overview of dissertation’s main research questions, arguments, methodology, structure (15 min)
• Opponents present their evaluations of the dissertation
• Doctoral Candidate presents response to the Opponents
• Discussions (questions and remarks from committee members and audience)
• Votes by members of the Committee
• Announcement of results

DOCTORAL DEGREE AWARD CEREMONY

After various administrative bodies (IDI, TDT, EDT) approve the results of the defense, successful candidates receive their PhD degree in an award ceremony at the end of the semester. Award ceremonies take place in June and January.

IMPORTANT CAVEAT

Please note that the timeline delineated above is an ideal case scenario. You should be aware that the the median time humanities Ph.D. recipients spent in their doctoral programmes (i.e. the time spent since the start of the programme till the time their doctorate is awarded) ranges between 7.3 to 6.9 years on average.

Public defence of PhD thesis and licentiate seminar

You can find information about the public defence of PhD thesis and licentiate seminar at the Faculty of Science and Engineering on this homepage.

The PhD studies cover studies of at least 240 ECTS and include a doctoral thesis of at least 120 ECTS, which is defended at a public defence.

Licentiate degree

As a stage in the PhD studies, a licentiate degree can be issued. This level of education covers at least 120 ECTS and includes a licentiate thesis of at least 60 ECTS, which is defended at a public seminar.

Academic year for PhD studies

Academic year 2023/2024: 16 August 2023-14 June 2024 Academic year 2024/2025: 16 August 2024-13 June 2025

Application for public defence of PhD thesis

The application Anmälan om disputation  (pdf) must be submitted to the Board of PhD studies no later than three months before the proposed date of the defence and during the academic year. An application made later then stipulated time frame is not to be processed and the main supervisor has to make a new application in accordance with the faculty's stipulated regulations.

The application shall contain:

• Completed application form with a proposal of a faculty opponent and examination committee and a short presentation of the opponent and examination board members (approximately 5-10 sentences for each person). All of them should have been accepted the assignment. See the guidance  (pdf, available only in Swedish) regarding examination committee. Keep in mind that the supervisors and the respondent should not have joint publications with suggested examination committee or the opponent over the past 5-6 years. If this is the case after all, this should be an explanation in an appendix to the notification. • An abstract of the thesis • A popular scientific summary in Swedish • A list of publications: clarify your contribution to the publications • A copy of the latest ISP with Annex the degree outcomes • A Ladok - registration certificate in Swedish for the period of time when the PhD student is enrolled on PhD studies at LiU

All documents should be sent as an e-mail attachment to [email protected] .

The deadline to submit the application for a public defence during the first three weeks in the autumn semester is April 1st. The deadline to submit the application for a public defence for PhD students who carry out nailing during the first three weeks of the autumn semester is May 1st.

According to the study handbook, Ch 6.3 §21 "The main supervisor is summoned to a meeting of the Board of PhD studies (or to a delegation meeting with the board chairman) to discuss the case and to make a brief presentation of the content of the thesis and other facts that can be of interest to the board. The choice of faculty opponent and examination board is to be justified and the Board of PhD studies (or the chairman) then resolve on this. The Board of PhD studies circulates extracts of the minutes to all concerned."

• Faculty of Science and Engineering's checklist before the public defense (pdf)

Application for licentiate seminar

Licentiate thesis.

The licentiate thesis must be defended at a public seminar, where an examiner and an opponent are involved. They should have a PhD degree. Anyone who has been supervisor, or has another relationship with the respondent or the supervisors, can not be appointed as examiner or opponent. The mandatory seminar take place during the academic year and is announced on public no later than three weeks in advance. The licentiate seminar is to be chaired by the examiner. Decision on the grade is taken by the examiner, after discussions with the opponent and the supervisor.

Application

The application must be submitted to the Board of PhD studies no later than three months before the date of the licentiate seminar and during the academic year. An application made later then stipulated time frame is not to be processed and the main supervisor has to make a new application in accordance with the faculty's stipulated regulations.

The application shall contain: • Completed form Application of a licentiate seminar  (pdf) with a proposal of a faculty opponent and examiner and a short presentation of them (approximately 5-10 sentences for each person). All of them should have been accepted the assignment. Keep in mind that the supervisors and the respondent should not have joint publications with suggested examiner and/or opponent over the past 5-6 years. If this is the case after all, this should be an explanation in an appendix to the notification. • An abstract of the thesis • A popular scientific summary in Swedish • A list of publications: clarify your contribution to the publications • A copy of the latest ISP with Annex the degree outcomes • A Ladok - registration certificate in Swedish for the period of time when the PhD student is enrolled on PhD studies at LiU

All documents should be sent as an e-mail attachment to [email protected]. The deadline to submit the application for a licentiate seminar during the first three weeks in the autumn semester is April 1st. The deadline to submit the application for a licentiate seminar during weeks 36-38 is May 1st.

Preliminary review of a doctoral theses

Preliminary review of a doctoral theses is mandatory at the Faculty of Science and Engineering from 1 July 2017. The review is performed by the regular examination board members, on behalf of the Board of PhD Studies. The statements will only apply whether the examination board members believe that the thesis holds such quality that it can be presented and defended at a public defense, and is thus no guarantee that the thesis and its defence will be accepted.

The PhD student supplies all regular examination board members with electronic copy of the doctoral thesis. The material is also sent to the Board of PhD Studies ( [email protected] ). Keep in mind that the opponent also needs all contents in good time. For more information see also the Studie handbook Chapter 6.3.

Preliminary review of a licentiate theses

Preliminary review of a licentiate theses is mandatory at the Faculty of Science and Engineering from 1 July 2021. The review is performed by the examiner and the opponent, on behalf of the Board of PhD Studies. The statements will only apply whether the thesis holds such a quality that it can be presented and defended at a public defense, and is thus no guarantee that the thesis and its defence will be accepted.

The PhD student sends an electronic copy of the licentiate thesis to the examiner and the opponent. The material is also sent to the Board of PhD Studies ( [email protected] ).

For more information see also the Studie handbook Chapter 6.2.

Similarity check of thesis manuscript

The PhD student is obligated to check the licentiate and doctoral thesis for plagiarism either before the dissertation goes to print. For that purpose, manuscripts are sent to Similarity Check for analysis. Similarity Check is a service that looks for similarities between a submitted document and external sources.

Use the following form to send a text for analysis: Send text to Similarity Check

Thesis and printing

The PhD thesis is published in the series "Linköping Studies in Science and Technology. Dissertations. No XXXX". Chapter 6 in the Study Handbook gives details about the design and contents of the dissertation.

ISBN and number in the dissertation series

The number in the series is administrated by the University Library , and a unique ISBN number is also assigned to the book.

Contact LiU-Tryck as soon as possible, about three months in advance and arrange the printing in order to have the printed thesis delivered four weeks ahead of the date of the public defence.

The university aims to publish all dissertations on the web, at Linköping University Electronic Press (LiU E-Press).

Nailing or "spikning" in Swedish, is an academic ritual. All PhD theses must be made public by being nailed up no later than three weeks before the public defence. This gives people opportunity to read the thesis in advance, and to be able to pose relevant question during the defence. Before you do this, the Dean approves the printed thesis for nailing.

One of the signed copies is nailed outside C2 in Builing C (or the Library in Kåkenhus) during the semester and no later than three weeks before the defence. The separate page in the theses is published on the web and information about your public defence can be read by anyone interested.

Well in advance (preferably at least three weeks) before the date of naling you should schedule an appointment with the Dean Johan Ölvander to endorse your thesis with the words ”Må spikas!”. You should have three copies of your thesis with you. Contact faculty coordinator Margareta Johansson, [email protected] , phone 013-282398 to make the appointment.

Before nailing

• Submit 10 copies to the university library (in the counter at one of our three university libraries). In the case the thesis is not published at LiU E-Press, submit 40 copies of the printed thesis. A digital receipt is given via e-mail on delivery. • Submit 70 copies to your department. Receipt is given on the delivery. • Hammers and nails are collected at the Deans Office (TFK), Building D (Linköping), or the Head of the Department ITN (Norrköping). • Submit at the Deans Office (Linköping) three copies of your thesis (Ask LiU-Tryck to drill holes in the two copies to be signed). Your department's communications officer is responsible for publishing information about the public defence in the LiU calendar.

• Doctoral studies

Doctoral studies at the Faculty of Science and Engineering

Doctoral studies at the Faculty of Science and Engineering aims to develop your ability to independently use scientific methodology and conduct research within the academy or the industry.

• Faculty of Science and Engineering (Institute of Technology) (LITH)

Public defence of doctoral thesis

This page contains information on how to apply for a thesis defence at the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS).

It is important to keep the following schedule, otherwise the public defence may have to be postponed.​ A public defence of doctoral thesis may only take place between:

• August 15 – December 20 and
• January 7 – June 15

Dates within these periods are referred to as term weeks. When counting weeks to fulfill requirements only time within term time  is counted. For example, if you plan on having the defence on August 15, count 10 weeks back from June 15.* The public defence must also stay as close as possible to normal office hours at KTH  (CET). The doctoral student is responsible for the process unless otherwise noted. Feel free to contact us  if you need help.

* As an exception, the deadline for making the thesis publicly available and distributing it—three weeks before the defence—is extended during the summer period. Please see the subheading "Due 3 weeks before the defence" below.

"All defenses and licentiate seminars on campus must be made accessible to viewers digitally." This means that even defences and seminars where all participants are present should be streamed online. In such cases, the stream setup does not have to be as advanced as an online/hybrid defence/seminar. ( Thesis, thesis defence and qualification )

"Autumn semester 2021 and onwards: [...] The defense of doctoral theses/dissertations may be held on campus and digitally. Doctoral thesis and licentiate seminars are open to the public and are, where applicable, subject to the Government's restrictions on public gatherings. Digital defense of doctoral thesis/dissertation and licentiate seminars are encouraged partly for quality reasons (increased opportunities for international participation in the grading committee and as an opponent), and partly for sustainability reasons (reduced travel). All doctoral thesis/dissertations and licentiate seminars must be digitally accessible for spectators." ( Decision by the President of KTH, V-2021-0421 , in Swedish)

Due 10 weeks before the defence

☐ Submit the application for an advance reviewer for the doctoral thesis  (only the principal supervisor's signature is required) for approval to [email protected] . Once the decision has been made, the advance reviewer must be given sufficient time for review and assessment, which needs to be taken into consideration.

☐ Send the preliminary version of the thesis to the advance reviewer once he/she has been approved by the director of third-cycle education.

☐ Start a revision of the doctoral student's individual study plan.

☐ The principal supervisor asks the prospective opponent and members of the grading committee if they are available on the planned date, and consults the programme's Director of Third-Cycle Education  (FA) if there is any uncertainty regarding conflicts of interest or similar issues.

☐ If anything other than physical presence is planned for the supervisor or doctoral student, this must be justified via email to the programme's Director of Third-Cycle Education  (FA), cc [email protected] , at the beginning of the entire application process. FA will then return with a prior notice.

"The advance reviewer must have been awarded the Degree of Doctor and be scientifically competent corresponding to the docent. ... Applicable rules on bias must be taken into consideration" ( Guideline on third-cycle studies , 6.2.6)

"The advance reviewer may be appointed as a substitute." ( Guideline on third-cycle studies , 6.4.2)

Read about the requirements for the opponent, chairman of the public defence and grading committee and who proposes these in KTH's Guideline on third-cycle studies , 6.4.2. Additions and clarifications:

• Added 2022-01-17: The grading committee members, including the substitute, may not come from the same division as the principal supervisor or the doctoral student unless under exceptional circumstances.
• It should clearly state in the application for public defence of doctoral thesis who is/are planning to participate via video link.
• At least one of each gender must be represented in the grading committee, unless special reasons prevent this and are presented in connection with the application.
• "For a grading committee consisting of three members, at least two members must be collected outside of KTH (may not be employed at KTH)." Clarification: the opponent is not in the grading committee.
• "A replacement must always be appointed." Clarification: From autumn 2021 onwards, only one substitute member of the grading committee will be required unless exceptional circumstances may cause more than one member to withdraw. Previously during the pandemic, the requirement has been that two substitute members (stand-ins) of the grading committee for public defences of doctoral theses must be appointed. If one of the ordinary members of the grading committee is already from KTH, there can only be one substitute from KTH.

In the event of uncertainty regarding competency rules and/or conflict of interest regarding the grading committee members and the opponent, the principal supervisor can consult the Director of Third-Cycle Education before submitting the application.

"Compensation for the opponent at a public defence of doctoral thesis: SEK 9,000. [...] Compensation for each member of a grading committee: SEK 2,500." ( Guideline on compensation for committee members, specialists and opponents , in Swedish)

Due 6 weeks before the defence

☐ Book a lecture hall  for the defence.

☐ Request a TRITA number via the web form TRITA number request for doctoral students at EECS .

☐ Request an ISBN number via the web form ISBN Request  (ISSN and ISRN numbers are no longer used).

☐ Submit to the doctoral education support:

• The form Application thesis defence . Requirements when choosing the opponent, chairman of the public defence and grading committee can be found under the previous subheading
• The form Summary of advance review of doctoral thesis (docx 74 kB)
• The form Distribution list, doctoral thesis
• The whole thesis as a preliminary PDF version, with a title page but without the cover page
• CV for the opponent and any members of the grading committee who are not professors and where it is not clearly stated that they hold a docentship ( Guideline on third-cycle studies , 6.4.2)

☐ The revised ISP should now at least have the status "Waiting for Administrator of third cycle education" (i.e. approved by doctoral student, principal supervisor and programme director).

☐ Request printing information from the printing company US-AB .

☐ Send the thesis for proof printing when the advance review has been approved. Final printing is not allowed until you have received the decision on the defence.

The distribution list must include a minimum of 7 external addresses. The thesis may be distributed in digital form, if so desired. No certain number of recipients must be Swedish

Information about test prints, invoices, covers, title pages, and more can be found on the Thesis  page.

About 4 weeks before the defence

☐ Doctoral Education Support sends a copy of the decision to the doctoral student and principal supervisor when it has been made by the Director of Third-Cycle Education.

☐ Send the thesis for final printing via US-AB.

☐ Create a video conference link. KTH offers Zoom Webinar, which works well for events like this. The meeting organizer (not the doctoral student) should contact [email protected]  to schedule such a video link. Read more on the web page Zoom Webinar for defense at KTH .

☐ Upload the thesis to DiVA according to the instructions found on the web pages Posting a doctoral or licentiate thesis  and Posting step by step . Make sure to enter the metadata correctly and fill out all relevant fields to avoid unnecessary delay.

☐ Publish the link to the video conference in DiVA.

☐ Service Center contacts the doctoral student and the principal supervisor regarding logistical and celebratory arrangements .

☐ The principal supervisor is responsible for informing the opponent and members of the grading committee about how the defence will be conducted.

The contact person for those in lack of a computer or computer skills should be the chair of the public defence, or someone delegated by him/her. The chair acts as a moderator and must be able to allow for audience participation (questions and comments) via Zoom, e.g. via the chat window.

The link to the video conference must be published in DiVA well in advance. The doctoral student can do this either (1) by adding the link and passcode (if applicable) to DiVA when registering the DiVA record, or (2) by sending the link and passcode (if applicable) together with the link to the already created DiVA record to [email protected] . The KTH Library will then be able to edit the information in DiVA, which will automatically update the KTH Calendar.

KTH's Guideline on Third-Cycle Studies , 6.4.4, contains helpful information regarding descriptions of public theses defenses. The EECS guidelines under the subheading "References" on this page may also prove to be useful.

Due 3 weeks before the defence

☐ Make sure that the thesis is already uploaded to DiVA (legal requirement).

☐ Send out the thesis (requirement). Contact [email protected]  to receive help with this:

• One copy to each recipient according to the distribution list, including the opponent and the members of the grading committee
• One printed copy to the KTH Library , together with the form Agreement regarding publication  as signed original (legal requirement). The distribution list states that an electronic version should be sent to the KTH Library, this is done by uploading it to DiVA
• Two printed copies—one for archiving and one for the nearest thesis board—to Doctoral Education Support at either Lindstedtsvägen 3, KTH Campus or Kistagången 16, KTH Kista

Starting in 2024, the deadline for making the thesis publicly available and distributing it—three weeks before the defence—is extended during the summer period. Exclude the month of July when calculating your deadline. For example, if your public defence is scheduled for 15 August, count three weeks backwards and exclude only the month of July. Compared to previous years, this change grants doctoral students up to an additional four weeks before publishing and distributing their thesis, depending on when their public defence is scheduled. ( Guideline on Third-Cycle Studies , 7.2.3 in the revised Swedish version)

All other weekly deadlines are unaffected and still calculated by excluding 16 June-14 August, as mentioned under the second subheading on this page. ( Guideline on Third-Cycle Studies , 6.4.1)

After the defence

☐ Submit the protocol as signed original (this is normally handled by the chair of the public defence) to the doctoral education support.

☐ Make sure your contact information in Ladok  is up to date.

☐ Log in to kth.se , click Services in the menu bar, and then Degree Certificate . Fill out and send in the application for degree certificate by following the instructions. Compare with your individual study plan (ISP) as a reference, so that the application is filled in correctly.

☐ Send your degree application case number (starts with “EX” followed by numbers) in an email to [email protected]  in order to speed up the application process.

☐ Fill out and send in the web form Mobility Questionnaire for Doctoral Students at EECS .

Find links to regulations and forms on the web page Links and resources .

Read about practical arrangements for public defence of doctoral thesis and licentiate seminar logistics .

EECS guidelines: Guidelines for the formal procedure at the public defence of doctoral theses at KTH (pdf 49 kB)

This site uses cookies to enhance the user experience. By continuing to use the site you agree that cookies are used according to our Cookie Policy (on the website of LTH) .

PhD website LTH

• Information for new doctoral students
• Study plans
• Departmental duties
• Student representation
• Scholarship
• Midway review
• Registration and review
• Preliminary review
• Printing and distribution
• Notification

The public defence

• Doctoral Conferment Ceremony
• Graduate schools
• Double degree
• Discontinuation from studies
• Current courses
• Faculty-wide courses
• Courses Given Regularly
• Courses Given on Request
• Credit transfer
• Learn Swedish
• Supervision
• Support functions
• Research support LTH Library
• Academic writing
• Skills and career development
• International opportunities
• Research ethics

The public defence is the occasion when your doctoral thesis is discussed and defenced in public. People with different roles and functions participate - these are briefly described below. In connection with the registration of the public defence, it is proposed who is to be appointed to the various roles, such as faculty opponent, examining committee member and more. This is decided by a Research Programmes leader from the Research Education Board at LTH (read more under Registration and review).

In order to be appointed as a faculty opponent or member of the examining committee, special requirements must be met.

Explanations - Public defence

Chair of the examining committee - Ordförande i betygsnämnd 

Chair of the public defence - Ordförande vid disputation

Committee deputy member - Suppleant i betygsnämnd 

Co-supervisor - Biträdande handledare

Faculty opponent - Fakultetsopponent

Examining committee - Betygsnämnd

Main supervisor - Huvudhandledare

Public defence - Disputation

The doctoral student defending the thesis - Respondent

Thesis - Avhandling

The faculty opponent possesses expert knowledge in the subject area of ​​the thesis. The opponent's role is to critically examine the thesis and to discuss the content in detail with the respondent during the public defence. The opponent must highlight both strengths and weaknesses in the thesis and give the respondent the opportunity to show their knowledge in the field of the thesis throughout the public defence. As the opponent is not a member of the examining committee, he or she has no voting rights at the examining committee's meeting.

The examining committee consists of three members, but in exceptional cases it may consist of five members. The members often represent different scientific aspects within the subject area of ​​the thesis and they have the opportunity to ask their own questions to the respondent when the discussion between the faculty opponent and the respondent is concluded. The members are appointed to assess the quality of the thesis and the respondent's ability to discuss its content. It is the examining committee that decides whether the thesis and the public defence are to be approved.

When the examining committee meets after the public defence, each member has one vote (approved / rejected), where the majority's votes determine the outcome. At the meeting, the members appoint one of the members as chairman.

At least one deputy must also be appointed to the examining committee. The deputy must be able to replace a regular member who is unable to participate. If all ordinary members participate in the public defence, the deputy does not participate in the examining committee's vote.

There is a chairman whose task is to lead the public defence. This includes, among other things, opening and concluding the public defence, presenting the participants and ensuring that the members of the audience also has the opportunity to ask questions and present views. The chairman is normally a person from the doctoral student's department.

The public defence may vary slightly between different departments and therefore the description here is general.

The publice defence act is opened by the chairman of the public defence, who presents the participants and explains the structure. The faculty opponent and / or the respondent then usually presents a general description of the thesis where the most important conclusions are described. This presentation focuses on relating the public defence to the general research area in order to place it in a context. Normally, the presentation is held at a relatively general scientific level so that others within the faculty can follow along. Then follows the most important part of the public defence: the scientific discussion between the faculty opponent and the respondent.

During the discussion, the faculty opponent asks questions and discusses important parts of the doctoral thesis, while the respondent answers and defends their work. The faculty opponent can choose which questions to ask and in which parts of the thesis the focus is placed. But the questions should normally focus on highlighting the most important contributions in the respondent's work, the relevance of this and any inaccuracies and misconceptions. The questions can vary from more general to more detailed. The idea is that the respondent will have the opportunity to show knowledge and understanding within their subject area. When the discussion is over, the faculty opponent usually summarizes the main impressions of the public defence.

When the discussion between the faculty opponent and the respondent has been completed, the members of the examining committee have the opportunity to ask questions and give comments. After this, the audience also has the opportunity to ask questions before the chairman of the public defence ends the session. There is no formal time limit for how long a public defence act lasts, but normally it lasts for about two to three hours.

When the public defence is over, the members of the examining committee meet to discuss and finally cast their votes. The faculty opponent and often the supervisor and chairman of the public defence are also present at the meeting. The members of the examining committee can request input regarding the respondent's work from the opponent and supervisor, but only the members of the examining committee may vote if the respondent is approved or not. After the vote, the outcome is announced by the chairman of the examining committee.

Example of a public defence act

• The chairman of the public defence presents the participants and their roles.
• Introduction of the faculty opponent, places the doctoral thesis in its context.
• Introduction by the respondent of the most important results. - - - - - a short break - - - - - - -
• The main discussion and the defence (faculty opponent and respondent).
• Some further questions and comments from the examining committee
• Additional questions and comments from the audience may occur.
• The chairman of the public defence concludes the session.
• The examining committee meets behind closed doors. The opponent, the supervisor and the chairman of the public defence often attend the meeting.
• The result of the vote in the examining committee's meeting is announced orally.

PhD Thesis Countdown: Dealing With Suspense and Waiting

As a mentor for students who write their Bachelor or Master thesis, I have heard many times that students wait for their supervisor to come back to them with feedback. I usually tell them that the thesis is their responsibility and thus that they are allowed to own it and continue working  while waiting for them to respond. This is what I also did during my PhD, but I also have to say that my supervisors were always really quick with their feedback and we also often scheduled a meeting the week after I had sent them a draft.

However, during the last weeks and months of my PhD there were times, where there was nothing left to do but wait for things to be checked-off the list which were beyond my control. The suspense associated with this was quite a challenge, because I usually plan way in advance which helps me taking control over a situation. But this time, I had no control and there was nothing left to do. I really enjoyed doing my PhD and I really do love my research, but I have to admit, I really look forward to the suspense being over.

So what were the most significant things I had to wait for and which created an uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty?

Quality assurance

At KTH, PhD students have several seminars at which they present their work and receive feedback from external researchers. My final seminar (also called 80% seminar) was in April 2018. Here, I presented my thesis for 30 minutes and afterwards discussed it with the opponent and also the audience. According to the guidelines at the time, the content of the discussion “should focus as much on what is done and how on this basis can do better within the framework of doctoral studies (normally 6 months)” . I am so happy, that Geraldine Fitzpatrick agreed to do this and the discussion with her and her feedback was really great.

After the final seminar, I worked to improve my thesis and the next major step was then, to send it to the advance reviewer from our department. Communicating with the reviewer in advance about preferred dates and getting the thesis to him as soon as possible was in my control. However, after I submitted the thesis to him as was agreed upon, I had to wait until I got his assessment and comments. Sweden is wonderful in terms of respecting vacation times and thus I totally understood if he would start reading not until the summer break was over. That would mean that the review would be finished probably end of August. I did hope, however, that the comments would come back earlier, so that I could work on and finish my revision before my wedding mid August. So besides not knowing about the outcome of his assessment and how much I would have to change in my thesis, the timing of his review would also affect subsequent planning.

I was not held in suspense for long. I sent my work in the beginning of July and I received the review ten days later; despite holiday season. I cannot tell you how happy this made me!

Opponent, committee, and defence date

Before a thesis goes to print, it needs information like ISBN and TRITA number and the defence date. That date has to be negotiated with the opponent and the committee, and of course, everyone has a busy schedule. In addition, possible opponents and committee members have to be approved by the school because potential conflicts of interest have to be avoided. After that, the main supervisor contacts potential opponent and committee members, whether they are willing and able to do this. Of course, the PhD student is not CCed on these emails, so I really had to learn to let it go and trust that this is taken care off. I hoped to have the defence in the beginning of November, but of course we had to be flexible given their busy schedule. This was really challenging for (control-freaky) me, because unless the external examiners and the date are confirmed, no ISBN / TRITA number is provided, thus, the thesis cannot be printed, the room cannot be booked etc. So, nothing to prepare, but just wait. It all worked out in the end.

Given that I did not want to check my emails during my honeymoon, I had asked my supervisor to text me in case something is wrong (as I said: Sweden is really great appreciating your own private space and time). So while enjoying Bali, my supervisor sent me a text message that opponent, committee, and date is all sorted out: 2nd November it is!

Typesetting and publication of latest article

I wrote a thesis by publication – or compilation thesis – which includes six articles. Four of them were already published, one was in-press, and one was submitted to the prestigious CHI conference . The article that was in-press was waiting to be published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research . Given that I had positive experience with them before, I hoped that the article would be published before my thesis goes to print. That way, all three included articles would have the same design. Yes, I may be a perfectionist – but hey, this is my PhD thesis we are talking about.

We submitted the manuscript end of November last year and got the reviews back mid March. On July 20th the article was accepted for publication after which we paid the processing fee and signed the license agreement. I had not heard or seen anything until mid August and the status in the system said “Queued for editing – Paid”. End of August the corresponding author received an email that there were a number of articles accepted and paid for at the same time, which explained the queue of papers awaiting copyediting assignment. The copyeditor was assigned on August 31st and two weeks later, on September 14th , we received the copyedited version with some requests for revision from our part. They asked us to respond within 2-3 working days… of course.

Journal: takes 15 months to review paper. Journal: Revise and submit requested. Please submit your revision in one hour or this email will self-destruct. — Dr. Tara C. Smith (@aetiology) October 11, 2018

I was on the plane for my honeymoon, so I didn’t see that email. I later saw that quite a bit had to be changed (among other things taking of pie charts and insert tables or plain text instead; changing the title) which was dealt with by the other authors. It took a bit more than 2 days and on September 19th the manuscript was submitted again. A week later the status in the system changed from “In Copyediting – Finalizing (in Step 3)” to “Queued for Typesetting”. So how long would that take?

Given that the journal gave us 2-3 working days, I hoped that this would be as quick as it had been with our previous publications with them. I know, some researchers have waited for years until it is finally published, but this probably depends also on discipline and journal. So far, JMIR was really quick. Take for example our last JMIR article : Decision made November 3rd, copyedited December 8th, proof-reading requested on December 22nd (where everyone was on christmas break, so delay on our part), our comments submitted January 12th, and article finally published on January 15th. So between acceptance and publications were 2 months and 12 days – despite christmas. This time everything seemed to take a bit more time, but also the typesetting?

The typesetting suspense is killing me. Really hope that our @jmirpub is published within the next days so that my #PhDthesis can go to print with correct info and nice layout. 🤞 #PrettyPleaseWithCherryOnTop https://t.co/9dV3FNvW3Z https://t.co/BdACTbIzUJ — Christiane Grünloh (@c_gruenloh) September 29, 2018

At one point, I had to let it go and send my thesis and the articles to the printing company.

Printing the thesis and checking the proofs

In Sweden, a PhD thesis is printed as book and usually around 100 copies are produced. So unlike the process in the UK, where you defend your thesis but have to make some revisions after your viva, I will be really finished when passing my defence on November 2nd. At KTH, printing must be done at a specific company and given that I published my licentiate thesis with them, I knew the process and knew how long each step would take. So, between my wedding and honeymoon, I prepared the thesis and the appended articles for print. That way, I’d have the first proof-print waiting for me at home when I return. While preparing the files for print, I found an error where I had updated a table in my thesis but not corrected it in the text. So I felt I had to give my thesis another read through before sending it to the printing company. Åsa Cajander, one of my supervisors, seemed to disagree 😉 .

What??? One error found. Hmm What on earth happened to “good enough”? pic.twitter.com/SZbX8MOBeQ — Åsa Cajander (@AsaC) August 27, 2018

Yes, I have problems. However, printing the thesis during my honeymoon worked like a charm and it was waiting for me at home when I came back.

Before you approve the print, you have to check the content (e.g.: are all chapters included, is everything in the right order, are index page, pagination, font sizes, and figures correct, is the cover correct with school name, ISBN and TRITA etc.) Given that my defence date was confirmed during my honeymoon, I could now also request the ISBN and TRITA number and update the files.

Did I mention, I have problems letting go? When proof-reading my work, I always print it on paper and read the final version out loud. I did that already before I sent it to print. But now I had my pretty thesis printed on paper book-style. So why not give it another go? I remembered the stupid little mistake from before, which I should have spotted during previous proof-readings. So I just figured, maybe every time I read my thesis, I get tired or are not as attentive when I reach the middle of it? Well, that’s solvable, right? Just start in the middle with the results chapter this time. So I did…

1/ #AcWriOct2018 Proofreading tips: Read on paper, read out loud, AND at one point: start in the middle. I have read my thesis so many times from the start, but today started with results section 😱. OH MY GOD! A whole day of corrections before sending it to print #KeepSwimming pic.twitter.com/fOkDxCpszv — Christiane Grünloh (@c_gruenloh) October 1, 2018

This took the whole day and then I sent my thesis again to the printer. So I waited for the print, but it did not arrive. I called them to ask whether they sent it and according to their records, it was sent to Germany on October 3rd.

Waiting impatiently for the mail carrier. Please let my proof print arrive today… pretty please. With cherry and cream on top 🍒 #phdchat #GetThatThesisOut #ThesisCountdown #LittleHelpers #KeepSwimming #ThisTooShallPass pic.twitter.com/1pVfp0AHpn — Christiane Grünloh (@c_gruenloh) October 9, 2018

Unfortunately it never arrived. I contacted the company again and they were very supportive. They suggested to print another copy but given that time was of the essence, maybe my supervisor could come by their office and check it for me? Great idea! My supervisor did that the next day and unfortunately (or fortunately?) found some issues, which I then fixed immediately. Next day, another print was ready, which was then checked by my friend who is also a PhD student at KTH. Doing all of this from afar is super stressful, but I am so lucky and grateful for the amazing support I have. Finally, I could send the approval of print to the company.

Letting it go!

Guess what happened only four hours after I approved the print? JMIR sent a proofreading request and informed us that they changed our title – again. And of course we are supposed to get back to them “ideally within 2 working days”. Well, what’s done is done – I really had to get the thesis printed and on its way to the committee. Yes, it would have been nice to have the correct title of the article in my thesis. And yes, including the published version of my latest article (i.e., with the same layout as the other included JMIR publications) would have been really nice, too. But this does not affect the quality of my thesis and thus it has to be good enough. So I finally let it go!

Share this:

• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

The Defence

My PhD thesis: Published and Printed

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Post Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Subscribe to this Blog

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

• Academic Life (12)
• Conference (12)
• eHealth (10)
• EU Project (5)
• Human-Computer Interaction (2)
• Mindfulness (2)
• Publication (8)
• Research (12)
• Teaching (1)
• Uncategorized (1)
• Writing (6)
• August 2024
• October 2023
• August 2023
• September 2021
• February 2021
• January 2021
• October 2020
• August 2020
• January 2020
• January 2019
• November 2018
• October 2018
• February 2018
• January 2018
• December 2017
• November 2017
• October 2017

A doctoral dissertation shall consist of peer-reviewed scholarly publications or manuscripts accepted for publication, as well as a summarising report on the said documents (an article-based dissertation); or, a doctoral dissertation shall be a scholarly work in the name of the doctoral candidate alone and based on previously unpublished research results (a monograph). The summarising report of an article-based dissertation shall be a balanced work based on both the publications included in the dissertation and research literature.

The article-based dissertation can also include manuscripts that have been accepted for publication. Manuscripts submitted for publication may be included as long as they do not constitute a significant portion of the dissertation contents. The preliminary examiner must evaluate the significance of such manuscripts to the dissertation contents, and indicate any shortcomings in his or her report.

Co-authored publications may be included if the author’s independent contribution to them can be demonstrated. The doctoral candidate must include in the dissertation a report on his or her contribution to the publications included in the dissertation as well as whether the publications have been used in previous dissertations. The Faculty recommends that this information be provided in the list of publications included in the dissertation.

The University Rector has issued instructions on the scope and structure of dissertations  on 20 June 2017. According to these instructions, the maximum recommended length for a monograph shall be 250 pages. At the Faculty of Science, the summarising report of an article-based dissertation is typically no more than 50 pages in scope.

Instructions for licentiate thesis .

Please contact [email protected] in all matters related to PhD thesis.

According to the University's guidelines for doctoral education the doctoral dissertation is the main part of the doctoral degree. In addition to the doctoral dissertation the doctoral degree includes 40 credits of studies.

According to the University's guidelines the doctoral education will be organised so that the doctoral degree can be completed in four years of full-time study.

The Rector's decision (nro 498/2017) of the general criteria for doctoral dissertations at the University of Helsinki and the criteria at the Faculty of Science are presented below.

Gen­eral cri­teria for doc­toral dis­ser­ta­tions

• A doctoral dissertation must consist of peer-reviewed scholarly publications or manuscripts accepted for publication, as well as a summarising report on the said documents (an article-based dissertation); or it must be a scholarly work in the name of the doctoral candidate alone and based on previously unpublished research results (a monograph). The doctoral dissertation may also take the form of another work that meets the appropriate scientific criteria, provided that the doctoral candidate’s independent contribution to it can be verified. All doctoral dissertations should meet the following scholarly criteria: they must a) contain new scientific knowledge, b) demonstrate critical thinking on the doctoral candidate’s part, c) demonstrate profound familiarity with the field, d) demonstrate mastery of research methods and their application, e) be scientifically convincing, f) contain justified results, and g) demonstrate scientific integrity and adhere to the ethical norms of research.

The supervisor and the doctoral candidate must limit the topic and content of the dissertation in such a way that the degree can be completed in four years of full-time study.

The doctoral dissertation must have a brief abstract of one to two pages, providing a summary of the dissertation and its key results. The abstract must outline the doctoral candidate’s objectives or research questions as well as the core research methods, results and conclusions.

Doctoral candidates must be informed of the requirements and grading criteria for doctoral dissertations when they are granted the right to complete a doctoral degree. The same information must also be provided to supervisors, supervising professors and monitoring groups as well as preliminary examiners and opponents when they are appointed. The dissertation requirements and grading principles must also be publicly available, for example, on the faculty website.

Art­icle-based dis­ser­ta­tions

• Article-based dissertations consist of scholarly publications discussing a single group of issues as well as a summarising report written by the doctoral candidate. The summarising report of an article-based dissertation must present the background, objectives, methods, material, results, discussion and conclusions of the research. The summarising report must be a balanced work based on both the publications included in the dissertation and the research literature.

A doctoral dissertation may include not only articles that have been previously published or accepted for publication, but also articles that have not yet been accepted for publication. In such cases, the preliminary examiners must be instructed to pay particular attention to the unpublished articles. The number of articles required depends on their a) scope, b) scientific quality and significance and c) publishing forum as well as d) the author’s independent contribution. The number of articles may vary between disciplines, but the number must be determined by taking into account the equal treatment of doctoral students and the target duration of four years for completing the degree. Typically, the number of articles ranges from three to five.

• Article-based dissertations may include co-authored publications. The doctoral candidate’s input in these must be clearly demonstrable. One co-authored publication may be used in several dissertations by different authors. To determine the doctoral candidate’s independent contribution to co-authored publications, the doctoral candidate and his or her supervisor must draft a statement on the doctoral candidate’s contribution to each publication. If the co-authored publication has been used in another dissertation, this must be mentioned in the report. The doctoral candidate should deliver the draft of the report on his or her contribution also to the other authors of the publication. The doctoral candidate must deliver the report to the faculty when submitting the dissertation for preliminary examination and to the preliminary examiners, opponent and custos at a later date. The report may also be included in the summarising report or an article included in the dissertation.

Mono­graphs

• Previously published texts cannot be accepted as monographs. Before completing the dissertation proper, however, the author of a monograph may publish articles on related topics and refer to these in the dissertation.

The maximum recommended length of a monograph is 250 pages.

• Supervisors of monographs must take particular care to ensure the quality of the manuscript before it is submitted for preliminary examination.

Dis­ser­ta­tions other than mono­graphs or those based on art­icles

• The faculty council shall decide, based on a proposal by the relevant doctoral programme, on the scope and structure of dissertations that take a form different than a monograph or article-based dissertation. In such cases, supervisors must take particular care to ensure the quality of the manuscript before it is submitted for preliminary examination.

Cri­teria for doc­toral dis­ser­ta­tions at the Fac­ulty of Science

At the Faculty of Science the summarising report of an article-based dissertation is typically 50 pages long.

At the Faculty of Science doctoral dissertations are either article-based or monographs.

Dissertations are assessed by the following criteria: a) The significance and status of the research within the research field b) The scope of the work and adequacy of the research material c) Application and development of research methods d) The deduction of results from the material studied e) The consistency of the structure of the work f) Familiarity with and use of literature g) The composition of the dissertation (presentation, style and language) i)  The doctoral candidate's performance at the public defence.

If a doctoral dissertation is highly distinguished and ambitious in the light of assessment criteria, it may recieve the grade Pass with Distinction. The preliminary examination process is used to ensure that the dissertation can be approved after the public defence. The dissertation can however be receive the grade Fail if it contains deficiencies that are serious enough in the light of assessment criteria and does not meet the minimum requirements for a dissertation.

The Faculty Council will appoint preliminary examiners of the dissertation, decide on the permission to defend the dissertation in a public examination and finally decide on the approval of the dissertation and on the grade. When planning the schedule for graduation, it is good look at the days of meeting of the Faculty Council.

• Once the doctoral candidate has finished the dissertation manuscript and has completed all the required postgraduate studies, the supervising professor and supervisor(s) will look for preliminary examiners.
• After hearing the doctoral candidate and the supervisors, the supervising professor will make a proposal for the appointment of the preliminary examiners of the dissertation ( e-form ). The doctoral candidate may submit an objection to the selection of the preliminary examiners.
• Before the preliminary examination a plagiarism recognition must be done the dissertation ( Urkund ).
• The Faculty Council will appoint the preliminary examiners.
• The candidate submits his/her dissertation manuscript as a single pdf-file including the published and unpublished articles to [email protected] within a week after the Faculty Council has appointed the preliminary examiners. At the same occasion, in the case of co-authored publications, the candidate submits an account of his/her contribution to them if it is not included in the manuscript. 
• The Faculty Office will provide the preliminary examiners with instructions about the process.
• The preliminary examiners have two months to give their written statement.
• The Faculty Office will deliver the statements forward.
• The doctoral candidate may submit an objection to the preliminary examiners’ statements.
• The supervising professor will propose the appointment of an Opponent, a Custos and a Faculty representative for the public examination of the dissertation ( e-form ).
• The doctoral candidate may submit an objection to the selection of the Opponent and the grading committee.
• The Faculty Council will decide on the appointment of the Opponent, the Custos and the grading committee and on the permission to defend the dissertation in a public examination.
• The PhD affairs will inform the Opponent of his or her appointment, provide instructions for the Opponent, and inform the doctoral candidate of the permission to defend. Also the instructions for the public defence will be sent. 
• The public examination, also called the public defence, of a doctoral dissertation.
• The Opponent will submit a statement on the dissertation to the Faculty within two weeks of the public examination.
• The dissertation grading committee will propose a grade for the dissertation and give an assessment of the doctoral candidate’s performance in defending it.
• The doctoral candidate will submit a written notification that he or she has read the Opponent’s statement and that he or she has no objections to it or to the grade proposed by the grading committee ( form ). The doctoral candidate may also submit to the Faculty an objection concerning the statement and appeal against the proposed grade.  
• The Faculty Council will decide on the approval of the dissertation and on the grade.
• The doctoral candidate will submit to the Faculty Office an application for a diploma . 
• Graduation ceremonies .

Please contact [email protected]  in all matters related to PhD thesis.

The Regulations on Degrees and the Protection of Students' Rights at he University of Helsinki includes provisions regarding the preliminary examination of doctoral dissertations. In addition, the Rector has given a decision about the preliminary examination of doctoral dissertations on 20 June 2017 and the Faculty issued its own instructions on preliminary examination on 12 December 2017.

The doctoral candidate is responsible for the content of the work he or she submits for preliminary examination. The supervisor(s) are responsible for ensuring that the quality of the work is such that it can be submitted for preliminary examination. The primary supervisor decide if language revision is necessary.

Before the preliminary examination a plagiarism recognition must be done the dissertation ( Urkund ). 

Ap­point­ment of pre­lim­in­ary ex­am­iners

The Faculty Council appoints at least two pre-examiners for each dissertation. The pre-examiners should be professors or have the title of docent or PhD's with other equivalent academic qualifications. The pre-examiners are appointed outside the Faculty and normally outside the University of Helsinki. The Faculty Council considers exceptions to the above rules only on the basis of a written reasoned request. The supervisor of a dissertation cannot be appointed as its pre-examiner.

A pre-examiner cannot be:

• a person, who is a co-author in a publication included in the dissertation
• a person, who has or has had collaboration with the doctoral candidate during the disseration process
• a person, who has close collaboration with the candidate's supervisor in the past three years
• a close relative of the doctoral candidate
• immediate superior or subordinate of the candidate or his or her supervisor
• a member of the thesis committee.

The Faculty Council discusses the appointment of pre-examiners on the initiative of the doctoral candidate’s supervising professor ( e-form ). The nominated pre-examiners are notified in writing of the Faculty Council’s decision. Doctoral candidates must be provided with the opportunity to lodge an objection with the Faculty Council against the appointment of pre-examiners.

In­struc­tions for pre­lim­in­ary ex­am­iners

The pre-examiners must, within two months, submit a written statement, either jointly or individually, recommending explicitly that the doctoral candidate be granted or denied permission to defend the dissertation at a public examination. The time period within which this statement must be submitted cannot be longer than three months, unless there are special grounds.

In their statements, pre-examiners must pay attention to at least the following:

• The significance and status of the research within the research field
• The scope of the work and adequacy of the research material, the significance and deficiencies of any manuscripts submitted for publication
• Application and development of the research methods
• The deduction of results from the material studied
• The consistency of the structure of the work
• Familiarity with and use of the literature
• The composition of the dissertation (presentation, style and language)
• The doctoral candidate’s contribution to the attainment of the dissertation’s research results (if the dissertation includes co-authored publications): has the doctoral candidate made a sufficiently independent contribution to the dissertation as a whole?

The pre-examiners should in their statement either

• recommend that the permission to defend the dissertation should be granted or
• recommend that the permission to defend the dissertation should be denied due to serious deficiencies in the dissertation.

If a pre-examiner identifies shortcomings which he or she believes must be addressed before the doctoral candidate can be granted permission to defend the dissertation at a public examination, the pre-examiner must contact the candidate and agree on a course of action. The Faculty requests that pre-examiners not set conditions in their statements for granting a doctoral candidate permission to defend his or her dissertation. Instead, the pre-examiners’ statements should clearly indicate whether or not they recommend that the candidate be granted that permission.

Doctoral candidates must be provided with the opportunity to object to a pre-examiner’s statement before the Faculty Council decides on permission to defend the dissertation at a public examination.

Because of differences of opinion between the pre-examiners or shortcomings in the dissertation, the pre-examination process cannot be concluded in some cases within the set time period or a reasonable extension period that the pre-examiners and the doctoral candidate have agreed on with the issuance of a statement recommending that the doctoral candidate be granted permission to defend his or her dissertation at a public examination. In such cases, the pre-examination process is terminated unless the doctoral candidate wishes to take the matter to the Faculty Council.

After a pre-examination process has been terminated, the doctoral candidate can request another pre-examination of his or her dissertation, once the changes referred to in the rejecting pre-examination statements or other changes have been made to the dissertation manuscript, and once the supervisor or another professor in the subject area has recommended that the pre-examination be restarted.

Regulations on Degrees and the Protection of Students’ Rights (Flamma)

Dissertations are examined at a public examination after the preliminary examiners have recommended that the doctoral candidate should be granted the permission to defend his or her dissertation. The public examination should be organised within 12 months after the permission to public defense is granted.

Ap­point­ment of op­pon­ents and cus­tos

The Faculty Council appoints one opponent or two opponents for a public examination ( e- form ). The opponent(s) must have the qualifications of a docent or other equivalent academic qualifications. The opponent must be appointed from outside the Faculty and normally outside the University of Helsinki. The supervising professor will propose the appointment of opponents.

The opponent can have no relationship with the doctoral candidate, the doctoral dissertation or another party involved that may compromise his or her impartiality. Consequently, the following persons cannot serve as an opponent:

• A person, who has co-authored at least one of the articles in the doctoral dissertation or who is currently engaged in research cooperation with the doctoral candidate or was engaged in such research cooperation during the dissertation project
• A person who has been engaged in close research cooperation with the dissertation supervisor during the three years prior to the preliminary examination of the doctoral dissertation
• A close relative of the doctoral candidate or the immediate superior or subordinate of the doctoral candidate or the supervisor
• A member of the thesis committee

Doctoral candidate must be provided with the opportunity to object the appointment of the opponent to the Faculty Council.

The nominated opponent is informed of their duties. They also receive a brochure by the University Communications on the practices and procedures followed at the public examination. The PhD affairs office provides the instructions on the opponent’s statement.

In his or her statement, the opponent must pay attention to the following

A. The scientific value of the dissertation: 1. The significance and status of the dissertation in the field 2. The scope of the dissertation and the sufficiency of the material; the significance and shortcomings of any manuscripts submitted for publication 3. The doctoral candidate’s ability to obtain results from the material examined in the dissertation 4. The logic of the dissertation’s structure 5. The knowledge and use of literature in the field 6. Language

B. The doctoral candidate’s defence: 1. The doctoral candidate’s input into the achievement of the dissertation results  2. The knowledge of the dissertation field 3. The knowledge of literature in the field 4. The ability to apply research methods 5. The ability to discuss, debate and respond to criticism

The Faculty Council appoints one of the Faculty professors as the Custos. The Custos can also be one of the Faculty's associate professors, on the level 2 of tenure track. The pre-examiner of a dissertation cannot be appointed as the Custos.

Pub­lic ex­am­in­a­tion and its language

The public examination begins with an introductory lecture (lectio praecursoria) given by the doctoral candidate on the topic of the dissertation. The opponent the Faculty Council has appointed then presents his or her comments on the dissertation. This part of the public examination cannot last longer than four hours. Afterwards, others attending the public examination may also comment on the dissertation. The public examination cannot last longer than six hours.

The language of the public examination is decided in advance by the custos (the chair of the public examination) after consulting both the doctoral candidate and the opponent. The language of the examination is usually Finnish, Swedish or the language of the dissertation, but it can be another language if the doctoral candidate agrees to it. In addition, the doctoral candidate and the opponent can use different languages at the public examination if they agree to such an arrangement.

The Faculty Council decides on the approval of the dissertation. It also decides on the grade of the dissertation after hearing the grade committee. The grading is based on the opponent's and preliminary examiners' statements.

Op­pon­ent's state­ment

The opponent is required to submit to the Faculty Council a reasoned written statement on the dissertation within two weeks of the public examination. If there is two opponents they can give a joint statement. The grading of the dissertation must also take into account the doctoral candidate’s defence of the dissertation at the public examination.

Before the grading of the dissertation, the doctoral candidate must be provided with the opportunity to object to the opponent’s statement.

Grad­ing com­mit­tee

The Faculty Council appoints the dissertation grading committee after the proposal from the supervising professor ( form ). The grading committee consists of the Custos, the opponent and one or two faculty representatives. The faculty representative must be a professor or a member of the research and teaching staff who has the qualifications of a docent. If the Custos has supervised the dissertation, he or she will have the right to speak but not to vote at the committee meeting. The committee must include at least two members entitled to vote.

The grading committee makes a proposal of the grade of the dissertation. The proposal should take into account the scientific value of the dissertation and the doctoral candidate’s defence of the dissertation at the public examination. The proposal should also take into account the preliminary examiners' statements.

As­sess­ment cri­teria in the fac­ulty of science

The University of Helsinki, and thus also The Faculty of Science, assesses doctoral dissertations using the grades Pass with Distinction, Pass and Fail. Doctoral dissertations are graded by the Faculty Council. The dissertation grading committee proposes the grade. The documents that serve as the basis for the grading of doctoral dissertations include statements by the preliminary examiners, the opponent and the dissertation grading committee.

The approval and grading of doctoral dissertations is governed by Section 44 of the Universities Act (Act No 558/2009) and Sections 42–44 of the Regulations on Degrees and the Protection of Students’ Rights at the University of Helsinki. To supplement the above regulations, the Faculty of Science issued on 4 December 2012 instructions entitled “The doctoral dissertation and its preliminary and public examinations, approval and grading” as well as this decision on the Faculty’s dissertation assessment criteria and grade descriptions.

According to Government Decree No 794/2004 on University Degrees (Section 21), the objective of scientific  postgraduate education is that the student

• becomes well-versed in his or her own field of research and its social significance and gains knowledge and skills needed to apply scientific research methods independently and critically and to produce new scientific knowledge within his or her field of research;
• becomes conversant with the development, basic problems and research methods of his or her own field of research; and
• gains such knowledge of the general theory of science and of other disciplines relating to his or her own field of research as enables him or her to follow developments in them.

According to the Faculty’s decision, a doctoral dissertation is a consistent scholarly work based on independent research that makes an original contribution to knowledge. The author must master the most salient rules of academic writing and demonstrate an ability to produce independent and critical work. The research must be scientifically convincing and the results well-grounded. The research must be scientifically honest and meet the norms set for research ethics.

• The doctoral candidate’s contribution to the attainment of the dissertation’s research results
• The scope of the work and adequacy of the research material
• The doctoral candidate’s ability to defend his or her research at the public examination

The grade of Pass with Distinction will be awarded only to dissertations of exceptional quality under the assessment criteria. The purpose of the Faculty’s preliminary examination procedure is to ensure that the dissertation can be approved after its public examination. However, a dissertation study authored by a doctoral candidate who has been granted the right to defend his or her dissertation at a public examination must be failed if, in the light of the assessment criteria, the dissertation has serious deficiencies and cannot be deemed to fulfil the minimum requirements set for doctoral dissertations

A dissertation cannot be accepted at a Faculty Council meeting before the Faculty has received a written statement from the doctoral candidate, indicating that

• the doctoral candidate has read the opponent’s statement
• the doctoral candidate does not wish to object to the opponent’s statement or the grade proposed for the dissertation.

The Faculty notifies the doctoral candidate of its decision on the acceptance of the dissertation.

According to the Regulations on Degrees and the Protection of Students’ Rights at the University of Helsinki, students dissatisfied with the grading of their Licentiate thesis or doctoral dissertation may appeal in writing to the Academic Appeals Board within 14 days of the receipt of the grading decision.  The Board can refer the grade back to the Faculty Council for reconsideration.

The procedures and formalities related to the public defence of doctoral dissertations have evolved in the course of several centuries. Today, faculties have different views as to the degree of formality of the public examination of dissertations. Some faculties observe old traditions, while others aim to create a seminar-like atmosphere with vivid discussion.

Read more about the protocol and traditions of public defences at the University of Helsinki.