Requirements for doctoral theses in the Biological and Environmental Faculty have been approved at the Faculty Council on 24 September 2024. Typically, article-based doctoral theses include 2-3 articles. The requirements are presented in the section ‘Criteria for doctoral dissertation’ below.
Doctoral researchers will be able to continue their thesis work according to their agreed research plans, as the scientific criteria for doctoral theses remain unchanged. If the scientific criteria are met, the doctoral candidate may negotiate with his/her supervisors to update his/her research plan in line with this new decision.
Preliminary examiners and a grading committee are appointed by the Faculty Council. Based on the preliminary examiners’ statements, the Faculty grants permission to defend.
The examination of dissertations is an integral part of quality assurance within academia It is vital that both the preliminary examiners and the Custos are impartial experts in their fields.
All the relevant information for the examiners and opponent on examining dissertation can be found below on this page. The instructions for the doctoral candidate are on Instructions for students.
Notice the changes in thesis examination process effective 1 August 2025
These changes have been updated below to the instructions of the faculty.
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dissertation); or it must be a scholarly work in the name of the doctoral candidate alone and based on previously unpublished research results (a monograph).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 and they must:
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.
Article-based dissertation 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. If there is only one article in an article-based doctoral thesis, a statement by the main supervisor and the coordinating academic will be appended when the thesis is submitted for pre-examination (see Instructions for Students - Submitting for pre-examination).
The summarising report is the core of an article-based dissertation. 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 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
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 doctoral degree.
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 write 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 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. The report may also be included in the summarising report or an article included in the dissertation. The matter of including same co-authored publication or article manuscript in a doctoral dissertation or Licentiate thesis of more than one student is decided on a case-by-case basis with consideration given to the clarification of author contributions.
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 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, 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.
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. The vast majority of doctoral dissertation at the University of Helsinki are monographs or article-based. Recognising any other structure of dissertation is extremely rare.
The Faculty Council appoints two pre-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. In this case, the grading committee consists of the opponent and the custos. If necessary, another faculty representative can be appointed.
Pre-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., separate institute or sector research institute) and should generally be from outside the University of Helsinki. If a pre-examiner is proposed from the candidate's own organization, 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., separate institute or sector research institute) and should generally be from outside the University of Helsinki. If an opponent is proposed from the candidate's own organization, a separate written justification from the coordinating academic is required. Docents working outside the faculty are not considered disqualified on this basis. The same disqualification principles apply to opponents as to pre-examiners. 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 on tenure track level 2 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 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. In the Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, all professors and second-term associate professors (Associate professor) can act as coordinating academics for the doctoral candidate. In the Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, the coordinating academic cannot submit a proposal for pre-examiners or the grading committee if they are the supervisor of the thesis and have a joint publication with the candidate included in the thesis manuscript. In this case, the coordinating academic must request another professor (from the same research program) to submit the proposal for pre-examiners and the grading committee.
Proposal for Pre-examiners and Grading Committee Form (e-form)
Disqualification
When selecting pre-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:
• individuals who are co-authors of any of the thesis's sub-publications
• individuals who have ongoing or thesis-project-time research collaboration with the candidate
• individuals who have close research collaboration with the supervisor of the thesis within the three years preceding the thesis examination
• close relatives of the candidate
• immediate supervisor or subordinate of the candidate or supervisor or
• members of the thesis committee
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:
Pre-examination statement is always given in this form:
Pre-examiner's statement form (Word) (to be added)
Schedule for permission to defend after recommending pre-examination statements:
You may ask help from Viikki-PhD to plan your defence schedule.
In general, if either one or both pre-examiners give a declining statement, the process of pre-examination expires. The Faculty Council decides on the expiring of the process. The doctoral candidate may give her/his response to the statements and take it to the Faculty Council hearing.
Expired 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 PhD Education Services inform the pre-examiners and doctoral candidate via e-mail of the decision. The pre-examiners receive instructions on the examination and the thesis manuscript and relevant appendices in the same e-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 pre-examination is done according to Faculty’s Evaluation criteria (see below).
The examination report should be sent to Viikki doctoral study services: viikki-phd@helsinki.fi
Pre-examiner’s statement is given on this report form:
Pre-examiner’s statement form (Word) (to be updated)
When the pre-examiners have been appointed before 1 august 2025, the Faculty Council still grants permission to defend and appoints the grading committee for public defence.
The Faculty Council appoints a dissertation grading committee for the public examination on the basis of the proposal of the coordinating academic. The doctoral candidate must confirm that he or she does not object to the appointment of the Opponent and grading committee member. At the Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences only designated researchers may act as coordinating academics. Their contact information is on the page Coordinating Academic of a Doctoral Researcher.
At the Faculty of biological and environmental sciences, if the pre-examiner has proposed corrections and transferred the responsibility to see that they are taken into consideration to the supervisor, the supervisor and the doctoral candidate must deliver a signed explanation of the corrections to the Faculty Council.
At the Faculty of biological and environmental sciences, the responsible academic may not make the proposal for a grading committee if he/she is a supervisor of the doctoral candidate. In that case the responsible academic has to ask another professor from the same research program to make the proposal.
There should be a minimum of two members who are allowed to participate in grading: The Opponent and the Custos and one or two Faculty representatives. Custos can participate in the grading of the dissertation, if he/she is not a supervisor of the dissertation. In this case the Grading Committee includes the Opponent and the Custos. Another Faculty representative may be appointed if needed.
The coordinating academic makes a proposal for the appointment of a grading committee using the form designated for this purpose. The form is printed out and signed by the coordinating academic and doctoral candidate.
A proposal for Grading committee members -form (e-form)
When selecting the Opponent, particular attention should be paid not only to his or her expertise but also to the impartiality in relation to the dissertation in question. The Opponent must be a docent or doctoral degree holder with equivalent academic qualifications. The Opponent must be from outside the doctoral candidate’s faculty and research unit (e.g. independent institute or state research institute) and as a general rule also from outside the University of Helsinki. If proposed Opponent is from the same organisation, e.g. from UH, coordinating academic must give written reasons for this. Same principles of disqualification (see above) apply to the Opponent as to the pre-examiners. A preliminary examiner of the dissertation may not act as the Opponent.
A Professor or an Associate Professor at the faculty is appointed to act as the Custos in the public examination. The primary supervisor of the thesis who holds the title of docent and is employed by the faculty could also be appointed as a Custos. If Custos has served as one of the dissertation supervisors or has co-authored one or more of the publications included in it, he or she may not participate in proposing a grade for the dissertation. However, he or she will serve as the administrative chair of the grading committee, who assists the committee in its work and ensures that the committee has sufficient operational resources.
Faculty representative must be professor or docent of the University of Helsinki, or members of the university's teaching and research staff with the academic qualifications of a docent. The faculty representative must be well acquainted with the grading criteria and regulations related to the examination of doctoral theses in use at the University of Helsinki. Custos can act as a faculty representative, if he/she is not a supervisor of the dissertation or otherwise disqualified.
A grading committee has already been appointed for the thesis at the same time when the preliminary examiners were appointed.
The Viikki Doctoral Education 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.
You may ask help from Viikki-PhD to plan your defence schedule.
The dissertation will be examined at a public examination. The Faculty Council appoints one or two opponents for the examination. The doctoral candidate delivers the dissertation 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 dissertation (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.
Proceedings of the public defence is described in more detail on the page Welcome to the public examination.
The Opponent is requested to submit a free-form report on the public examination of the doctoral dissertation within one week of the examination to Viikki doctoral student services: viikki-phd@helsinki.fi. The report is usually about two pages and it should assess the scientific value of the dissertation as well as the performance of the candidate during the public examination according to 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 six 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.
Proceedings of the public defence is described in more detail on the page Welcome to the public examination
The grading committee proposes to the faculty a grade for the dissertation. See the Evaluation criteria and Grading below. The proposal should assess the scientific value of the dissertation 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 Opponent and the grading committee must submit their statements to Viikki doctoral study services viikki-phd@helsinki.fi within two weeks of the public examination.
Before the grading of the thesis, the doctoral candidate must be provided with the opportunity to object to the Opponent’s statement and other documents related to the grading.
Pre-examination processes started after 1 August 2025:
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).
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).
Pre-examination processes started before 1 August 2025:
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 - Pass with Distinction. 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.
If a doctoral thesis is highly distinguished and ambitious in the light of all essential assessment criteria, it may receive the grade Pass with Distinction. The grading committee must be unanimous when it proposes “Pass with distinction”.
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.
The grade Pass with Distinction is given for pioneering theses of exceptional quality. The research topic must be scientifically important, and the theoretical foundations, the methods used and the empirical section must meet the highest academic standards. In addition, the results must have considerable scientific importance, and the observations and conclusions must be novel and significantly promote theory formation or practical applications in the field. A thesis approved with the grade of Pass with Distinction shows commendable scholarly maturity and independence on the part of the author and demonstrates his or her originality and exceptional innovation as a producer of scientific knowledge. In addition, the doctoral candidate must defend the thesis successfully in the public examination. This grade is usually awarded to approximately 10-15% of all theses passed annually at the Faculty. If the grading committee proposes the grade of passed with distinction, all committee members must support it unanimously and outline solid grounds for the proposal.
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).
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 Instructions for Students.
Licentiate thesis examiners are appointed by the Faculty Council. Licentiate theses are examined in accordance with the same guidelines and principles as doctoral dissertations. Proposal for pre-examiners form is used when proposing Licentiate thesis examiners.
A proposal for pre-examiners (e-form)
Same evaluation criteria and description of the grades (see above) is applied as for doctoral dissertations. The Faculty Council grades the thesis on the basis of the examiners’ statements.
Graduation request is submitted in Sisu, further information in Instructions for Students.