Mid-way review and final review

As part of the doctoral programme, the doctoral student's work will be reviewed and discussed at two seminars open to the department's staff. At the mid-way review seminar, which should take place about halfway through the PhD programme, two lecturers will review and discuss the work produced by the PhD student so far. At the mid-way review, a plan for the remaining work should also be discussed (it is desirable, but not necessary, that the lecturers have access to a written description of the plan before the seminar). At the final review, which must be held at least two months before the planned public dissertation defence, two lecturers (if possible the same as at the mid-way review) must review and discuss all the work to be included in the thesis. For requirements regarding the content of the thesis, see the General syllabus for third-cycle programmes.

The principal supervisor is responsible for identifying and engaging suitable lecturers. The lecturers must have successfully defended his or her doctoral thesis and should normally have qualification required for appointment as a docent. Exceptions to the requirement for docent competence can be made for one, but only one, of the lecturers if the lecturer in question has special expertise that is of particular relevance to the thesis work. To create both breadth and depth in the discussion at the seminar, it is recommended that one of the lecturers has an area of expertise that does not directly overlap with the dissertation area.

Unless otherwise agreed, the lecturers shall have access to all material no later than two weeks before the seminar.

At the mid-way review, the material should include at least one complete manuscript (full draft or accepted/published article) and should include a brief plan of the remaining dissertation work. At the mid-way review, the material can also include incomplete manuscripts, e.g. a manuscript with only an introduction and a description of the method or a manuscript that only describes the first experiment in a series of experiments, but in this case, it is important that the parts submitted to the readers are well prepared. For the final review, the material should consist of complete versions of all work to be included in the thesis (including the thesis introduction). All course credits must be completed and reported in Ladok before the final review takes place (checked by the Director of Studies).

The doctoral student's principal supervisor chairs the seminar. The seminar begins with the PhD student presenting the content of the studies for about 30-40 minutes.

Then about 60 minutes are devoted to a discussion between the reviewer and the doctoral student. The seminar ends with a short question and answer session where everyone present can raise questions. The time and place of the seminar will be announced in the calendar.

In connection with the seminars, the lecturers provide written feedback to the PhD student and principal supervisor (the exact forms of this feedback may vary).

In addition, the lecturers submit a written assessment to the doctoral student, principal supervisor and director of studies for the PhD programme. In addition to a brief summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the work, the written assessment at the mid-way review shall include a position on whether the thesis work can continue as planned. This recommendation shall be based on both the completed work and the planned work. The lecturers must also state whether 50% of the requirements of the third-cycle programme have been completed.

The written assessment at the final review shall contain both an overall assessment of the quality of the thesis (see guideline below), and a recommendation as to whether the thesis i) can be presented without changes, ii) can be presented after minor directed changes, or iii) should undergo significant revisions and then be inspected at a new final review. If the lecturers request significant revisions, the final review shall be followed by a physical meeting between lecturers, doctoral student, principal supervisor and director of studies for the doctoral programme. Current guidelines for quality assessment at the final review according to previous FUN decisions are:

(a) Questions should be derivable from previous empirical evidence and theory.

(b) Questions should be formulated so that they can be answered.

(c) The design should be able to answer the questions.

(d) Analyses and methods must be carried out correctly.

(e) The conclusions should be based on the results of the analyses.

(f) The language should be understandable and correct.

(g) Formalities - APA - (references, tables, figures) must be followed.