The committee's evaluation report

The evaluation report is administered by the chair of the assessment committee.

• The committee must submit a joint written evaluation of the candidate's work 5 weeks after receiving the thesis (at least 4 weeks before the planned defence of the thesis). The joint conclusion in the report must be clear.

The report must clearly conclude whether the thesis:

• is worthy of being publicly defended for the degree of PhD without any changes;
• may be worthy of defence but the thesis or the scientific work has minor shortcomings that should be corrected before the defence;
• is not worthy of defence, and has major shortcomings that should be corrected before it can be defended

The committee may not accept a thesis on the condition that changes are made to the submitted material. The evaluation should conclude whether the qualitative and quantitative scientific requirements for a 3 years doctoral degree have been met, and whether the thesis is worthy of being publicly defended for the degree of PhD.

The committee's assessment

The evaluation report must include weighing of the strengths and weaknesses of the dissertation. This leads to a conclusion as to whether the committee finds the thesis worthy of public defence, or whether the committee recommends that the thesis not be approved for public defence. If there is dissent among the members of the committee, the reasons for dissent must be stated. It is preferred that the committee issue a joint report, with any individual statements enclosed. Grounds for dissent among the members of the committee must always be stated. Individual statements may be attached to the report even if the committee's conclusion is unanimous.

When assessing a thesis, special consideration should be given to whether the thesis represents an independent and comprehensive scientific work of a high academic standard with regard to the formulation of research questions, methodological, theoretical and empirical basis, documentation, treatment of the literature and presentation form. It is particularly important to assess whether the material and methods used are relevant to the questions raised in the thesis, and whether the arguments and conclusions presented are tenable. The thesis must contribute new knowledge to the discipline and be of an academic standard appropriate for publication as part of scientific literature in the field.

If the thesis consists of several interrelated minor works, the assessment committee must assess whether the content of the individual works constitutes a whole. In such cases, the candidate must document the integrated nature of the work in a separate section by not only summarizing, but also comparing the research questions and conclusions presented in the separate works. This part of the thesis is of vital importance both for the doctoral candidate and for the committee's assessment of the submitted work.

The committee's assessment can lead to three possible recommendations: worthy of defence, minor shortcomings should be corrected, or the thesis is not worthy of defence.

The thesis is worthy of being publicly defended for the degree of PhD without any changes

The thesis is considered worthy of defence if it is considered an independent and comprehensive scientific work of international standard, where the doctoral student satisfies the minimum requirements for research competence. The thesis may still have several weaknesses, but these weaknesses are of such a nature that they can be defended in a public defence, without being corrected in the thesis.

The thesis may be worthy of defence, but the thesis or scientific work has minor shortcomings that should be corrected before the defence

The thesis is not considered worthy of defence, but the committee considers that with minor revisions, the thesis can be brought up to a satisfactory level. This revision cannot be more comprehensive than what the candidate will be able to do within 3 months (cf. PhD regulations § 11-4). In such cases, the committee must provide written and concrete guidance on which parts of the thesis must be worked on and, more specifically, what is needed to raise it to a satisfactory level (for example, methodology, the relationship between material and conclusion, conceptual use, clarity of the problem, data processing and serious reference errors/deficiencies). However, the recommendation must not be considered as an assurance of approval upon completion of the assessment.

The candidate must submit a revised thesis within 3 months. The revised thesis may also contain other changes than the committee has pointed out. The committee must reassess the thesis to conclude whether it is worthy of defence.

The thesis is not worthy of defence, and has major shortcomings that should be corrected before it can be defended

If the committee finds that more profound changes are required regarding theory, hypothesis, material and/or method/analysis in order for the thesis to be recommended, the committee shall recommend rejection of the thesis. In cases where the committee recommends rejection, the report must contain details of the reasons for the decision. The committee should give some indication on which parts of the thesis need revision (methodology, relationship between material and conclusion, use of concepts, clarity of questions raised, etc.). This type of indication should not give the impression that a new assessment will necessarily lead to approval of the thesis.  

A thesis that is rejected can be submitted in a revised version. A new assessment can only be done once.

The report

The joint and coordinated evaluation (see template for the evaluation report) should start by mentioning the scientific field to which the thesis is a contribution. Outstanding and important theoretical and/or experimental details should be mentioned. The technical qualities (structure, written presentation and general impression) of the thesis should be briefly commented on. The joint assessment should include "a discussion of the thesis's scientific significance of the thesis and key issues concerning its theoretical framework, hypotheses, material, methodology and findings". Individual comments from any committee member may be attached.

See section 11-3 in Regulations for the Philosophiae doctor (PhD) degree at The University of Bergen and sections 3.1. and 3.3 in Guidelines for the evaluation of candidates for Norwegian doctoral degrees and relevant sections from the regulations.