University of Helsinki

Instructions for assessing doctoral dissertations

These instructions have been drawn up to facilitate the task of pre-examiners and opponents in writing a statement on a doctoral dissertation, and to harmonise grading practices. The pre-examiners and the opponent may also use criteria that are not mentioned below, provided that they state reasons for using such criteria. Enclosed with these instructions is a grading form which should be filled in and returned to the Faculty Office accompanied by the written statement.

In their statements, the pre-examiners and the opponent should pay particular attention to the formulation of the research question, methods and material, research results, discussion and conclusions, knowledge of the research field, the doctoral candidate’s own input, and the manner of presentation.

The pre-examiners and the opponent are asked to propose the grade ‘approved’ or ‘approved with distinction’ for the dissertation. The grade ‘approved with distinction’ is to be given only to dissertations of exceptionally high quality; the pre-examiners and the opponent should not propose this grade unless they have given the grade 4 or 5 for each of the six areas assessed below. If the opponent proposes the grade ‘approved with distinction’ for the dissertation manuscript, the statement should be accompanied by a short summary of the merits that have prompted the opponent to propose this grade.

The Faculty Council will grade the dissertation based on the assessments submitted by the pre-examiners and the opponent. The instructions of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine on research-oriented postgraduate studies are available at www.vetmed.helsinki.fi/english/doctor.html

A. FORMULATION OF THE RESEARCH QUESTION

1 = The research question has been formulated on the basis of inadequate scientific reasoning (for example, the doctoral candidate has quite coincidentally encountered a method of definition or fairly extensive case material).
2 = The doctoral candidate has formulated research questions but they are not based on an original idea and have little relevance for veterinary medicine.
3 = The research is based on an original idea that is logical and has relevance for veterinary medicine.
4 = The research premise is innovative and has major relevance for veterinary medicine.
5 = The research premise is particularly innovative and is based on creative thinking or boldly refutes previously held conceptions.

B. METHODS AND MATERIALS

1 = The methods that are employed are suited to studying the topic. The research materials are limited.
2 = The methods that are employed are well suited to studying the topic. The research materials are fairly limited.
3 = The methods that are employed are well suited to the research work. The research materials are representative.
4 = The doctoral candidate has applied methods innovatively or has further developed existing methods. The research materials are highly representative.
5 = The doctoral candidate has used an exceptionally wide range of methods in the dissertation, has used methods that require considerable expertise, has significantly developed existing research methods or has developed a new approach as part of the research work. The research materials are exceptionally extensive.

C. RESEARCH RESULTS

1 = The results complement and specify earlier conceptions that were uncertain and fragmentary.
2 = The doctoral dissertation introduces certain new conceptions or knowledge to the field.
3 = The doctoral dissertation introduces new conceptions or knowledge to the field.
4 = The doctoral dissertation contains essentially new conceptions or knowledge.
5 = The doctoral dissertation contains highly important new conceptions or knowledge.

D. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The doctoral candidate’s ability to critically examine his or her research results in the light of previous knowledge is manifested in the dissertation itself and in discussions that take place at the public examination. The doctoral candidate’s ability to make critical analyses, maintain his or her scientific integrity and develop academic insights is manifested when he or she discusses and makes conclusions on the topic.

1 = The general discussion contains a list-like presentation of the doctoral candidate’s own research results and of results presented in previous publications. The conclusions provide answers to the questions that have been posed.
2 = The doctoral candidate is able to compare his or her own research results with previously published literature, examining reasons for differences. The conclusions provide satisfactory answers to the questions that have been posed.
3 = The doctoral candidate compares critically his or her own research results with previously published literature, examining reasons for differences and identifying weaknesses and merits in both his or her own work and previous studies. The conclusions provide satisfactory answers to the questions that have been posed, and are scientifically well grounded.
4 = The doctoral candidate compares critically his or her own research results with previously published literature and is able to make a synthesis of the current state of the research problem. Conclusions are based on a critical approach.
5 = The doctoral candidate is able to make a synthesis of the current state of the research problem and to pave the way for later studies. Conclusions are based on profound critical thinking.

E. KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESEARCH FIELD

The doctoral candidate’s knowledge of the research field is manifested in the literature review contained in the dissertation, and in discussions that take place at the public examination.

1 = The doctoral candidate’s knowledge covers the topic.
2 = The doctoral candidate possesses knowledge of the topic and has formed a coherent impression of the merits and weaknesses of previous publications.
3 = The doctoral candidate possesses considerable knowledge of the topic and examines critically and coherently the merits and weaknesses of previous publications.
4 = The doctoral candidate’s knowledge of the topic is extensive and he or she is able to change or complement prevailing conceptions.
5 = The doctoral candidate’s knowledge of the topic is so extensive that he or she is able to substantially change or significantly complement prevailing conceptions.

F. DOCTORAL CANDIDATE’S OWN INPUT

The doctoral candidate’s own input can be assessed on the basis of the summarising report and discussions that take place at the public examination.

1 = The doctoral candidate’s own input is adequate. He or she is sufficiently familiar with the methods used in the dissertation.
2 = The doctoral candidate has produced a fairly large part of the research results and understands all of the methods used in the dissertation .
3 = The doctoral candidate has produced a large part of the research results and has used methods innovatively.
4 = The doctoral candidate has produced a major part of the research results and has developed existing methods further so that they are applicable to his or her research.
5 = The doctoral candidate has produced an exceptionally large part of the research results or has developed a new research method.

>> Grading form in pdf-format