Examination process of a doctoral thesis

General criteria

A doctoral thesis consist of peer-reviewed scholarly publications or manuscripts accepted for publication, as well as a summarising report on the said documents (an article-based thesis); or it is a scholarly work in the name of the doctoral candidate alone and based on previously unpublished research results (a monograph). The doctoral thesis 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 demonstrated.

All doctoral thesis should meet the following scholarly criteria and they must:

• contain new scientific knowledge,
• demonstrate critical thinking on the doctoral candidate’s part,
• demonstrate profound familiarity with the field,
• demonstrate mastery of research methods and their application,
• be scientifically convincing
• present justified results, and
• demonstrate scientific integrity and adhere to the ethical norms of research.

The doctoral thesis must have a brief abstract of one to two pages, providing a summary of the thesis 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.

Article-based thesis

Article-based thesis consist of scholarly publications discussing a single group of issues as well as a summarising report written by the doctoral candidate. The thesis may consist of peer-reviewed articles already published or accepted for publication, or previously unpublished manuscripts that are under peer-review or ready to be submitted for peer-review. Typically, 2-3 articles are required, although one article may be sufficient under certain criteria. The criterion may be met by e.g., a particularly meritorious scientific publication accepted for publication.

The summarising report is the core of an article-based thesis. The background, objectives, methods, material, results, discussion and conclusions of the research should be presented in the summarizing report. The summarising report must be a balanced work based on both the publications included in the thesis and the research literature.

A doctoral thesis 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

• scope,
• scientific quality and significance,
• publishing forum, as well as
• 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.

Article-based theses 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 theses by different authors. To determine the doctoral candidate’s independent contribution to co-authored publications, the doctoral candidate and his or her supervisor must write a statement on the doctoral candidate’s contribution to each publication. If the co-authored publication has been or will be used in another thesis, this must be mentioned in the report. The doctoral candidate should deliver 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 thesis for preliminary examination. The report may also be included in the summarising report or an article included in the thesis. 

The objective of doctoral education is that the student will be well-versed in his/her own field of research and possess the knowledge and skills needed to independently apply scientific research methods and produce new scientific knowledge. To achieve this objective, knowledge of the publication process as a whole is highly important. The acceptance of a work by a refereed series also demonstrates the quality and scientific significance of the study, meeting the highest international standards. The thesis research must be of high international quality. Therefore it is recommended that all articles are or will be published in international well-regarded refereed scientific series.

The Faculty accepts essay-based doctoral theses in the field of economics. - Essay-based doctoral theses typically consist of independent chapters (essays) on the same theme as well as a summarising report. The format and requirements for these theses are comparable to article-based theses with the exception that the chapters have not necessarily yet been published or approved for publication in peer-reviewed publication series. Co-authored essays may be included if the author’s independent contribution to them is sufficient

Monographs 

A monograph is a scholarly work in the name of the doctoral candidate alone and based on previously unpublished research results. Previously published texts cannot be accepted as monographs. Before completing the thesis proper, however, the author of a monograph may publish articles on related topics and refer to these in the thesis. The maximum recommended length of a monograph is 250 pages, including annexes and bibliography.

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

Other types of theses

The faculty council shall decide, based on a proposal by the relevant doctoral programme, on the scope and structure of theses that take a form different than a monograph or article-based thesis. In such cases, supervisors must take particular care to ensure the quality of the manuscript before it is submitted for preliminary examination. The vast majority of doctoral thesis at the University of Helsinki are monographs or article-based. Recognising any other structure of thesis is extremely rare.

The Faculty Council appoints two preliminary examiners for the doctoral thesis and, starting from August 1, 2025, also the grading committee at the same time. The grading committee must include at least two members involved in the evaluation: the opponent and the custos, along with one or two representatives from the faculty. The custos may act as the faculty representative, provided they are not the supervisor of the work of otherwise disqualified. In this case, the grading committee consists of the opponent and the custos. If necessary, another faculty representative can be appointed.

.

Preliminary examiners

A pre-examiner must have at least the qualifications of a docent or equivalent academic merits. Pre-examiners are selected from outside the doctoral candidate's faculty and research unit (e.g., independent institutes and sector research institute) and should generally be from outside the University of Helsinki. If a pre-examiner is proposed from the candidate's own organisation, a separate written justification from the coordinating academic is required. Docents working outside the faculty are not considered disqualified on this basis. A pre-examiner can also be selected as the opponent.

Opponent

Special attention must be paid to both the expertise and independence of the opponent in relation to the work being examined. The opponent must have the qualifications of a docent or equivalent academic merits. The opponent or opponents are selected from outside the doctoral candidate's faculty and research unit (e.g., independent institutes and sector research institute) and should generally be from outside the University of Helsinki. If an opponent is proposed from the candidate's own organisation, a separate written justification from the coordinating academic is required. Docents working outside the faculty are not considered disqualified on this basis. A pre-examiner can be selected as an opponent.

Custos 

The custos is appointed from among the professors or acting professors of the faculty. An associate professor of the faculty or supervisor, who is a docent employed by the faculty granting the degree can also serve as custos.  If custos has been a supervisor of the doctoral thesis or has co-authored publications included in the thesis, they are a chair and a member of the grading committee but they cannot participate in making the grade proposal.

Faculty Representative 

The faculty representative must be a professor or docent at the University of Helsinki, or a member of the University's research and teaching staff at the level of a docent. The faculty representative must be familiar with the University of Helsinki's doctoral defense practices and thesis grading principles. The custos may act as the faculty representative, provided they are not the supervisor of the work or otherwise disqualified.

The coordinating academic submits a proposal for pre-examiners and the grading committee using an electronic form. 

Disqualification and conflicts of interest

When selecting preliminary examiners and the grading committee, special attention must be paid to both the expertise and independence of individuals in relation to the work (the candidate and supervisors).  The examination and grading of the thesis consider the disqualification principles outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act 434/2003. A pre-examiner, opponent, or member of the grading committee must not have any relationship with the candidate, thesis, or any other party that could question their impartiality. 

As such, the following individuals cannot serve as pre-examiners, opponents, or members of the grading committee: 

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

Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry provides the following additional guidance on the above-mentioned close research collaboration: Principally, co-authored publications are always considered close research cooperation. However, if supervisor considers that a co-authored publication within the previous three years with the proposed examiner should not be considered as close research collaboration (e.g. the publication has several, even dozens of authors and there has been no collaboration between the two authors), then the supervisor may make a statement to the Faculty Council about the division of labour and why the work in question does not constitute a close research collaboration. 

In this case supervisors must note that the Faculty Council evaluates the statements on a case-by-case basis, and there is a risk that the proposed preliminary examiner will be considered disqualified.

The pre-examiner assess the scientific value of the thesis according to evaluation criteria. Minor suggestions for corrections are possible, if they do not prevent a recommending statement. The statement may be given jointly.

Within four weeks of their appointment, the pre-examiners in their statements either:

• Recommend that the doctoral candidate is granted a permission to defend the thesis at a public examination, or
• Decline the permission in case the manuscript is incomplete or if there are formal errors.

Pre-examination statement is given in a form, see below "Preliminary examiner's statement".

--

The process of pre-examination is discontinued if the pre-examiners cannot recommend that the doctoral candidate is granted a permission to defend due to significant deficiencies in the theoretical premises, methods or empirical section. Or if the two examiners do not agree on the quality of the work.

In general, if either one or both pre-examiners give a declining statement the process of pre-examination expires. The Faculty Council is informed of the discontinued process. The doctoral candidate may give her/his response to the statements and take it to the Faculty Council hearing.

Discontinued pre-examination may be restarted when all the demanded corrections have been made and the supervisors and coordinating academic recommend starting the pre-examination. The Faculty may nominate the same pre-examiners or find other experts to pre-examine the manuscript. The process is the same regardless of whether there has been previous pre-examination or not.

The Faculty decides on granting permission to defend the thesis based on the preliminary examiners’ statements. In the case one of the publications is a finished manuscript and not submitted for publication, the preliminary examiners should pay particular attention to the quality of this article in their assessment. However, the preliminary examiners are not thesis supervisors.

After the preliminary examiners have been appointed, Viikki doctoral study services inform the preliminary examiners and doctoral candidate via e-mail of the decision. The preliminary examiners receive instructions on the examination and the thesis manuscript and relevant appendices in the same mail. The preliminary examiners must, within four weeks of accepting the assignment, submit a written statement, either jointly or separately, explicitly recommending that the doctoral candidate be granted or denied permission to defend the thesis in a public examination.

The preliminary examination is done according to Faculty’s Evaluation criteria (see below).

The examination statement should be sent to Viikki doctoral study services :  

Preliminary examiner’s statement is given on this report form:

A grading committee has already been appointed for the thesis at the same time when the preliminary examiners were appointed.

The Viikki doctoral study services’ senior advisor sends the pre-examiners' statements to the doctoral candidate and the supervisor when they are received at the faculty. The senior advisors present the Dean's decision. The Dean decides on the permission to defend on the basis of the recommending statements of the pre-examiners according to the schedule below.

in Studies service.
If you need help in planning your schedule ask from Viikki doctoral study services .

The thesis will be examined at a public examination. The Faculty Council appoints one or two opponents for the examination.  The doctoral candidate delivers the thesis to the Opponent(s), well before the defence to give them time to get acquainted with it.

The public examination begins with an introductory lecture (lectio praecursoria) by the doctoral candidate. After the lecture the doctoral candidate asks Opponent to give her/his comments of the research. Then the Opponent stands up and briefly evaluates the significance/relevance in the research field. After the Opponent’s comment both Opponent and doctoral candidate sit down and the examination begins.

In the examination the Opponent goes through the research work starting from the title and continuing to the methods, references and conclusions. The doctoral candidate answers Opponent’s questions and defends her/his research. After the Opponent is satisfied he/she announces that the examination is completed and gives the final statement with a remark that he/she proposes that the Faculty accepts the thesis (it is very rare that the Opponent does not propose accepting). The Opponent and doctoral candidate stand up for the final statement.

If the audience has no comments nor questions, the Custos stands up and closes the public examination. The overall duration of the public examination may not exceed four hours, and the event lasts typically approximately two hours.

The procedures of the public defence is described in more detail on the page

Opponent's report

The Opponent is requested to submit a report on the public examination of the doctoral thesis within one week of the examination to Viikki doctoral student services: . Report should be written on Opponen's report form, that has been sent to Opponent earlier as an attachment of the instructions. The report should assess the scientific value of the thesis as well as the performance of the candidate during the public examination according to the Evaluation criteria (see below) of the Faculty. The Opponent should clearly indicate in his or her statement whether he or she recommends that the dissertation be approved or rejected.

Custos (kustos) is Faculty-appointed chair of the public examination. Custos, Opponent and doctoral candidate agree on the date of the public examination as well as the dress code and the examination's degree of formality.

The Public examination starts when the participants enter the hall. The doctoral candidate first, Custos second and Opponent last.  The Custos and the Opponent, provided that they are doctoral degree-holders, will carry their Doctor's hats in their hands when entering and leaving the auditorium. During the public examination, they will place the hat in front of them on the table with the lyre emblem facing the audience.

The Custos introduces the doctoral candidate and the Opponent to the audience and opens the examination. If the examination is likely to take a long time, the Custos may interrupt it by announcing a break. The public examination may take maximum of four hours. After the examination is done, doctoral candidate asks the audience to make comments and pose questions. The Custos will ensure that the doctoral candidate has the opportunity to reply to each comment and that the comments do not digress from the topic in hand.

Finally, the Custos will stand up to announce that the examination is completed. The participants will leave the auditorium in the same order in which they entered: first the doctoral candidate, followed by the Custos and the Opponent. The audience may congratulate the doctoral candidate once he or she has left the auditorium and has had the opportunity to thank the Opponent and Custos.

The procedures of the public defence is described in more detail on the page

The grading committee proposes to the faculty council a grade for the thesis. See the Evaluation criteria below. The proposal should assess the scientific value of the thesis as well as the performance of the candidate during the public examination and therefore all the members have to attend the public examination. The proposal must also consider the preliminary examiners’ statements. The grading committee is requested to submit the proposal within one week of the examination.

The procedures of the public defence is described in more detail on the page

Faculty’s requirements for doctoral thesis are found above, please take them into account in the evaluation.

1. The independence and maturity of the author: In the case of article-based dissertations, attention should be paid to whether the publication(s) form a cohesive entity and to whether the doctoral candidate’s independent contribution to planning and implementing the research can be verified. The division of labour report can be used as an aid. Maturity refers to the author’s scholarship, adherence to scientific standards, mastery of the research approach and ability to analyse scientific problems as demonstrated by the dissertation.
2. Research topic and formulation of the research problem: The theoretical background of the research and the doctoral candidate’s familiarity with the field. The originality and scientific significance of the topic. The research approach, the theoretical basis of the study and its suitability for the topic at hand. The definition and clarification of the research objectives and research problem. The doctoral candidate’s knowledge and use of relevant literature in the field as well as the scope of the literature covered.
3. Material and methods: The selection of material and methods. The applicability of the material to the examination of the research problem and the feasibility of the methods in terms of the material and problem-solving. A sufficiently detailed description of the material and any measurements to enable the relevant parts of the research to be repeated. An analysis of the material using appropriate methods that support and are compatible with the research problem and approach.
4. Research results and their presentation: A report of the results obtained and their scientific significance. A clear and concise report of the results, including any reservations.
5. Discussion and conclusions: The rigorousness of the consideration of the results and their relationship to other research in the field. The scientific justification of the conclusions made. A critical and extensive section analysing prior literature and the results at hand.
6. The clarity and polish of the dissertation: The structure, title and sub-headings of the dissertation. The clarity, accuracy and readability of the language. The information content, clarity and intelligibility of graphs and tables.

The Opponent and the grading committee must submit their statements to Viikki doctoral study services:  within one week of the public examination.

Before the grading of the thesis, the doctoral candidate is provided with the opportunity to object to the Opponent’s statement and other documents related to the grading.

The Faculty decides on approving and grading the thesis based on the Opponent’s statement and grading committee’s proposal. Doctoral theses are graded on a scale of Fail - Pass. When the Faculty decides on the grade it has to evaluate the theoretical background and the scientific significance of the research. Furthermore, the independence and originality of the topic as well as maturity of the author should be taken into account.

The grade Pass contains no significant deficiencies in the theoretical premise, methods or empirical section. The research conducted for the thesis must relate to a well‑founded complex of problems which has scientific importance. Moreover, the research must produce new, important knowledge for theory building in the field or for practical application. No serious deficiencies can be apparent in the phrasing of the research questions, the presentation of the theoretical background, the selection of material and methods, and the presentation of results and conclusions.

Grounds for rejecting the thesis (Fail) may include, e.g., the following: The research problem has been formulated vaguely or incompletely. The research materials are particularly brief or biased in terms of the nature of the problem and the objectives of the research. The methods used are not suited for examining the problem at hand, but yield erroneous or insufficient answers to the questions posed. There are serious shortcomings and inconsistencies in the structure and title of the work. In addition, the thesis may be rejected during the preliminary examination or grading process due to research ethical reasons (such as academic fraud).

Theses are approved and graded by Dean's decision. The Viikki doctoral study services' senior advisors present the Dean's decision. 
in Studies service.
If you need help in planning your schedule ask from Viikki doctoral study services .

If the doctoral candidate is dissatisfied with the grading of their doctoral thesis may appeal in writing to the Academic Appeals Board within 14 days of the receipt of the grading decision (section 64 of the Regulations on Degrees and the Protection of Students’ Rights at the University of Helsinki).

Instructions for scientific licentiate degrees are available in

Licentiate thesis examiners are appointed by the Faculty Council. Licentiate theses are examined in accordance with the same guidelines and principles as doctoral theses (see above). A Proposal for pre-examiners and grading committee -form is used when proposing Licentiate thesis examiners (please fill in 'not applicable' into the sections for grading committee members).

Same evaluation criteria and description of the grades (see above) is applied as for doctoral theses. The Dean grades the Licentiate thesis on the basis of the examiners’ statements.

Graduation request is submitted in Sisu, see the instructions in.