Approval and assessment of the doctoral dissertation

The stages of the examination process are preliminary examination, permission for public examination, decision on the public examination, publishing the dissertation, organising the public examination event and making dissertation press release, public examination event and the assessment of the doctoral dissertation.

This page includes instructions on the approval and assessment of the doctoral dissertation.

Please note that you need to be registered as an attending student for the semester during which you defend your doctoral thesis and the dissertation is registered in the study register.

General instructions on the approval and the assessment of the doctoral dissertation

According to the Vice Rector Marja-Leena Laakso's decision on public examination of a doctoral dissertation and dissertation requirements (21.5.2019), the opponent is responsible for examining the dissertation and assessing its quality. In the evaluation statement given to the faculty council, the opponent also considers the doctoral candidate’s performance in the public examination. The part of the examination that is assessed in the evaluation statement starts after the doctoral candidate’s lectio praecursoria and ends with the final statement of the opponent. The evaluation statement cannot address issues other than those presented in the public examination and to which the doctoral examination had a chance to answer.

According to the Degree Regulations of the Ģ��ֱ��, section 52 §,

within two weeks of the public examination, the opponents must give, either jointly or separately, a substantiated written statement of evaluation on the dissertation to the faculty council. The statement must include a proposal for the grade. The proposal must take into consideration the candidate’s ability to defend the dissertation in the public examination. To support the assessment of a dissertation, a special assessment board may be appointed to make a proposal to the faculty council for the grade of the dissertation.
the supervisor of the dissertation cannot participate in the assessment and grading of the dissertation and cannot be appointed to the assessment board
before the final grade of the dissertation is awarded, the candidate shall be provided with the opportunity to respond to the opponents’ statements of evaluation and to the proposed grade by a potential assessment board.

According to the Regulations of the Ģ��ֱ��, section 14 §, the faculty council evaluates doctoral dissertations, licentiate theses and other similar study units on the basis of the examiners’ or assessmend board’s (if established) statements. This matter can't be delegated to be handled and decided by the dean.

According to the Degree Regulations of the Ģ��ֱ��, section 58 §, the student dissatisfied with the evaluation of a dissertation may submit a rectification request to the Appeals Board within 14 days from being informed of the decision. Requests for rectification must be submitted to the University Registry Office.

Disqualification

The examination process of the doctoral dissertation complies with what is said about the disqualification of officials in the Administrative Procedure Act (434/2003, Section 27). In the dissertation examination process, the absence of grounds for disqualification means that none of the persons (preliminary examiner, opponent, a member or presenting official of the faculty council, a member of the assessment board) participating in the process is in a relationship with the doctoral candidate that would cause the person’s impartiality to be questioned. Please also notice JYU instructions on

Compensation for a doctoral degree

A faculty of the Ģ��ֱ��, or any other unit providing doctoral education (e.g. the Finnish Institute for Educational Research or the Kokkola University Consortium Chydenius), which has participated in the supervision of a doctoral dissertation may apply for compensation for the doctoral degree from the University. Compensation can be applied for completed doctoral degrees that are not included in the University’s funding model for the unit.

The supplementary instructions of the Faculties

At the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, doctoral dissertations are assessed as follows:

dissertations that are in the official examination process (decision on the preliminary examiners has been made) by 31.7.2024 at the latest and that are approved and assessed by the Faculty Council before 31.7.2025 are graded on a scale of fail - pass - satisfactory - good - very good - excellent (0-5). In its meeting on 31.5.2023, the faculty council of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences has approved the evaluation criteria to be applied in the evaluation of doctoral dissertations according to this grading scale. If the dissertation is not approved and assessed before 31 July 2025, it will be evaluated on a scale of fail - pass - pass with distinction.
dissertations for which the decision on the preliminary examiners is made on or after 1 August 2024 will be graded on a scale of fail - pass - pass with distinction. The Faculty Council of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences has approved at its meeting on 20.3.2024 the evaluation criteria for the evaluation of doctoral theses according to this scale.

The faculty council decides on the assessment of the dissertation after receiving the statement of the assessment board, the statement of the opponent and the statement of the custos:

The assessment board will propose a grade for the dissertation. The board delivers a short statement explaining how the decision on the grade was reached. The board will meet after the public examination of the dissertation and the chair of the assessment board will deliver the statement to the Faculty.
Within two weeks of the public examination, the opponent must deliver a written assessment of the dissertation to the Faculty Council. The opponent writes their statement independently. The proposal must take into consideration the candidate’s ability to defend the dissertation in the public examination. The statement can include a proposal for the grade but this is not obligatory. If there is more than one opponent, they can provide a joint statement if they wish to do so.
The custos writes in their statement on the public examination event only.

The coordinator responsible for faculty's doctoral studies sends the candidate the statements for a possible response. If the candidate wishes to file a comment on the opponent’s report, the candidate should deliver the comment to the faculty council (coordinator responsible for faculty's doctoral studies) within ten days of receiving the statements.

The faculty council grades the dissertation. The coordinator responsible for faculty's doctoral studies informs the candidate, the supervisor-in-charge, and the specialisation representative of the approval and assessment. An appeal against the evaluation of the thesis can be made to the Appeal Committee of the University within 14 days after the information has been received. The appeal is submitted to the University registry office.

The candidate can apply for a doctoral degree when the doctoral studies stated in the curriculum have been completed and entered into the student register. The doctoral degree can't be awarded before the doctoral dissertation has been accepted by the faculty council.

The assessment scale and criteria for doctoral dissertations (and licentiate theses)

Doctoral dissertations that are officially in the examination process, i.e. the decision on the preliminary examiners has been made by 31 July 2025 at the latest and that are approved and assessed by the Faculty Council before 31 July 2026, will be graded on a scale of 0-5 (0=fail, 1=sufficient, 2=satisfactory, 3=good, 4= very good, 5= excellent). If the dissertation is not approved and assessed before 31 July 2026, the dissertation will be graded on scale of fail – pass – pass with distinction.

Dissertations for which the decision on the preliminary examiners is made on or after 1.8.2025 will be graded on a scale of fail – pass – pass with distinction. The Faculty Council of the Faculty of Information Technology has approved at its meetings (on 25.3.2025 and 22.4.2025) the evaluation criteria for the evaluation of doctoral theses according to this scale.

Approval and assessment of doctoral dissertations

In the Faculty of Information Technology, the opponent's evaluation report includes a free-form written statement (1-2 pages) and an assessment form (see the link below). In the assessment form, the opponent is asked to suggest a grade for the thesis.

Assessment form for the opponent (pdf) for the grading scale of 0-5

The opponent(s) must give their evaluation report to the Faculty Doctoral School within two weeks after the public examination. The final evaluation of the dissertation is made by the faculty council in the next possible meeting.

In addition to the report given by the opponent(s), the faculty council will base the evaluation on the statements from the pre-examiners and the comments from the representative of the research field (see organizing the public examination). If the opponent suggests the highest possible grade, the specialisation representative also writes a statement on the evaluation of the thesis. The supervisors of the dissertation cannot participate the evaluation.

A student dissatisfied with the evaluation of a doctoral thesis may submit a rectification request to the Appeal Committee within 14 days from being informed of the decision.

The Faculty Council ultimately grants the grade for the doctoral dissertation, and this decision is based on the opponent(s)’s final written statement(s) and the proposition done by the Assessment Board. The Assessment Board consists of chairperson, opponent and third member. They must have a doctoral degree and be independent of the doctoral candidate. The Board is appointed by the head of the discipline.

Characterization of the applied grading scale used for the doctoral dissertation

The doctoral dissertations at JSBE are evaluated with three grades, and the grading scale is characterized as follows.

Accepted with distinction ("kiittäen hyväksytty")

The doctoral dissertation provides a significant contribution to knowledge in its own field. The dissertation will most likely result, or has already resulted, in articles in highly respected refereed scientific journals. It is expected to be widely cited in the scientific literature. Presentations at highly respected international conferences or meetings also signal the quality of the study. Only approximately 10-15 percent of the dissertations are awarded with distinction. The proposition of the Assessment Board must be unanimous.

Accepted ("hyväksytty")

The doctoral dissertation provides a scientific contribution to knowledge in its own field. It contains innovative and creative ideas, and it may result or has already resulted in one or more articles in refereed scientific journals. The dissertation demonstrates the author’s ability to produce new scientific results independently.

Fail ("hylätty")

The doctoral dissertation does not fulfill the minimal standards of acceptance.

At the Faculty of Education and Psychology, doctoral dissertations are graded on a scale of fail, pass and pass with distinction. At its meeting on 19.3.2023, the Faculty's faculty council decided on the criteria for the assessment doctoral dissertations (pdf file), according to which all doctoral dissertations of the Faculty's doctoral programmes are accepted and assessed. The evaluation criteria will enter into force on 1.4.2024.

The faculty council decides on the assessment of the dissertation after receiving the statement of the assessment board and the statement of the opponent:

The assessment board will propose a grade for the dissertation with the evaluation form. The board will meet after the public examination of the dissertation and the chair of the assessment board will deliver the statement to the faculty to the coordinator responsible for faculty's doctoral studies.
Within two weeks of the public examination, the opponent must deliver a written assessment of the dissertation to the faculty council. The proposal takes into consideration the candidate’s ability to defend the dissertation in the public examination. The statement can include a proposal for the grade.

The coordinator responsible for faculty's doctoral studies sends the doctoral candidate the statements for a possible response. If the candidate wishes to file a comment on the opponent’s report, the candidate should deliver the comment to the faculty council (coordinator responsible for faculty's doctoral studies) within ten days of receiving the statements.

The candidate can apply for a doctoral degree in Sisu when the doctoral studies stated in the curriculum have been completed and entered into the student register. The doctoral degree can be awarded when the doctoral dissertation has been accepted by the faculty council.

The Faculty Council of the Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences grades the dissertation using the following three grades: Fail - Accepted - Accepted with Distinction. The decision on the grade is made taking into account the evaluations of the opponent (and the preliminary examiners).

You can familiarize yourself with the instructions for preliminary examiners and opponent, and the evaluation criteria in (pdf).

Approval and assessment of the dissertation at the Faculty of Mathematics and Science

In the Faculty of Mathematics and Science, the opponent's evaluation report includes a free-form written statement and an assessment form. In the assessment form, the opponent proposes the acceptance or rejection of the thesis manuscript as a doctoral thesis. If the opponent proposes the approval of the doctoral thesis, they also proposes a grade for the thesis (Pass or Pass with distinction), based on the evaluation criteria of the Faculty (see below).

The opponent(s) submit their report to the faculty doctoral school within two weeks after the public examination. The doctoral school then gives the report to the doctoral candidate, the supervisor-in-charge, and the Head of the Doctoral Programme. The doctoral candidate has an opportunity to respond to the opponent's evaluation report, or to indicate that they have no objections to the report.

If the opponent suggests a grade Pass with distinction, the Head of the Doctoral Programme will also write a statement regarding the evaluation. In their statement, the Head of the Doctoral Programme will take into account the reports of the preliminary examiners and the opponent. They may also consult any other person they wishes, with the exception of the supervisors of the thesis. In accordance with the JYU degree regulations, supervisors are not allowed to participate in the evaluation of the doctoral thesis. The statement from the Head of the Doctoral Programme is also sent to the doctoral candidate for information.

The final evaluation of the dissertation is made by the Faculty Council in the next possible meeting. The Faculty Council evaluates the dissertation on the basis of the statement of the opponent. Also the preliminary examiners' statements (and the possible statement from the Head of the Doctoral Programme) are available for the evaluation.

The date of the Faculty Council meeting in which the thesis is evaluated is also the date of graduation if the student has completed the required studies and has applied for the degree before the meeting. As a rule, meetings of the faculty council are held once a month: see Faculty Council and meeting dates.

A student dissatisfied with the evaluation of a doctoral thesis may submit a rectification request to the Appeal Committee within 14 days from being informed of the decision.

Criteria for the evaluation of doctoral dissertations in the Faculty of Mathematics and Science (approved by the Faculty Council 20.12.2023)

In the Faculty of Mathematics and Science, doctoral theses are graded according to the scale Fail - Pass – Pass with distinction. The grade Pass with distinction is awarded to outstanding theses, those comprising the top 10 % of theses in the discipline. Below are the criteria for the evaluation of doctoral theses in the Faculty, entered into force on January 1, 2024.

Pass with distinction

The work clearly belongs to the top tier of the research field and contains significant new scientific information. The work clearly meets the requirements for a doctoral thesis regarding quantity and quality. The author's independence as a researcher is evident, and their contribution to the work is substantial.
The research topic is credibly linked to the theoretical background, which has been comprehensively addressed, taking into account the development and history of the subject. The terminology and concepts of the research field are used flawlessly. In the case of experimental topics, the research material is comprehensive, and the research methods are appropriately chosen and used. The research results and/or data are carefully and expertly analyzed. Key findings are presented clearly and critically.
The structure of the work is logical and adheres throughout to good scientific practice. The use of literature is comprehensive, relevant, and critical. The work is flawless in appearance and language.
The doctoral candidate performs excellently in the public examination, demonstrating an exceptional command of the research field and the content of the work.
The work is completed within the target schedule. Any delays are justified.

Pass

The work meets the requirements for a doctoral thesis regarding quantity and quality. The author is able to demonstrate independence as a researcher, and their contribution to the work is clearly distinguishable and essential.
The theoretical background of the work is addressed at a sufficient level, considering the development and history of the subject. The research question is connected in essential parts to the theoretical background, and the terminology and concepts of the research field are presented mostly flawlessly. The research methods and/or material are appropriately chosen and used. The results are analyzed at a sufficient level and almost flawlessly. Key findings are presented clearly.
The structure of the work is clear, and the work follows good scientific practice. The use of literature is appropriate and sufficiently diverse. The work is mostly flawless in appearance and language. The errors and shortcomings in the work are overall minor.
The doctoral candidate performs well in the public examination and masters the research field and the content of the work.

Fail (the work may contain one or more of the mentioned deficiencies; the grade is relative to the severity of the deficiencies)

The work does not meet the requirements for a doctoral thesis regarding quantity and/or quality. There are apparent deficiencies and severe errors in several sections of the work, or the work is plagiarized and does not adhere to good scientific practice. The author's independence and/or contribution to the work are insufficient or not clearly distinguishable.
The work is not connected to the existing theoretical background and does not consider the development and history of the research field sufficiently. The terminology and concepts of the research field are systematically misused. In the case of experimental topics, there are severe deficiencies in the research material or its analysis, and the research methods are inadequate or unsuitable for the work, or they have been used inappropriately for the field. The key results and conclusions of the work are presented inadequately or erroneously.
The appearance of the work does not meet qualitative requirements. The use of sources is one-sided, incomplete, or incorrect. The language of the work is clearly deficient and contains serious errors.
The doctoral candidate is unable to defend the dissertation at an accepted level by demonstrating a good command of the research field and the content of the work.

Ģ��ֱ��