Assessment and Defence of the PhD Thesis

The head of unit and the principal supervisor must submit the proposal for nomination of the evaluation committee, propose a chair for the committee and ensure that the proposed members are willing to serve on the committee. The proposal must also include a proposal for the chair of the defense (ordstyrer).

The proposal must be sent to the PhD administration 1 month before the student hands in the PhD thesis. The Evaluation Committee must be officially approved by the faculty before the PhD thesis is submitted. 

The evaluation committee consists of at least three members who must be of professorial or full-time associate professorial status or have equivalent qualifications. The committee must include at least one person of each gender. Two of the members must be external, one of whom must come from a foreign university. One must be a member of the staff of SDU. This member is always the chair of the evaluation committee. The evaluation committee members must be competent in relation to their role. This means that the members must not have personal or professional interest in the assessment and defense. Heads of units and departments cannot be members of the evaluation committee. The members must not have published with the author.

The student’s supervisors may not be members of the committee, but the principal supervisor takes part in the committee’s deliberations without voting rights.

The evaluation committee must be approved by the PhD committee, the dean and thereafter the PhD student. The student is given one week to accept the composition of the committee. The written response must be submitted to the PhD school. When the student has approved the committee the PhD school sends out digital copies of the thesis to the members of the committee, the principal supervisor and the department.

The chair of the defense (ordstyrer) must be at associate professor level. If it is desired for a person at the assistant professor level to chair a defense, this may in exceptional cases be permitted by the PhD school, if the assistant professor in the role is under the supervision of an associate professor for whom the above rules of eligibility also apply. Heads of units and departments cannot be chair of the defense.

The chair of the defense must be approved by the PhD school. It is not a requirement that the chair has academic knowledge of the topic of the PhD thesis.

There are the same eligibility requirements for the chair of a PhD defense as for members of the evaluation committee.

The chair must be competent in relation to the role of chair of the defense. This means that the person must not have personal or professional interest in the assessment and defense. The chair of the defense must not have published with the author.

Under no circumstances must there be any communication directly between the evaluation committee and the author in the period between the submission of the thesis and the defense. Any clarifying questions regarding the thesis and its subject must be directed to the principal supervisor.

No later than two months after the thesis was submitted to the faculty, the evaluation committee delivers a preliminary evaluation of the thesis. The month of July is not included when calculating the two-month deadline. The research unit and the chair of the evaluation committee are responsible for holding the deadline. The evaluation is submitted to the faculty PhD administration office.

This evaluation has to be signed by the chair and must state, with reasons, whether the thesis in its current form is a suitable basis for the award of the PhD degree and whether this opinion is unanimous or a majority decision.

The preliminary evaluation should be approx. 2 A4 pages, made in the faculty evaluation form, and must as a minimum include:

1. Name of PhD student and title of the thesis, date of the defense
2. Name, title and affiliation of the committee members
3. Comments on within which academic field the PhD thesis has its primary contribution and, if relevant, within which it has its secondary contribution.
4. A short summary of the thesis form and content
5. Comments on the structure of the thesis, is it coherent and well written?
6. If the thesis is article based, information on where the papers are published and whether the papers are peer-reviewed.
7. Elaboration on:
   1. How the author masters the scientific theories, methods and tools as well as other skills connected with research and development within the area.
   2. How the author in the thesis shows the ability to analyze, evaluate and develop new ideas, including designing and developing new techniques and skills in the field of study.
   3. How the author in the thesis demonstrate the ability to participate in international discussions in the field of study and to disseminate research results and progress.
   4. How  the thesis makes a significant contribution to the development of new knowledge and understanding in the field of research
   5. Strengths and weaknesses of the thesis.
8. Conclusion on whether or not the thesis is suitable for the defense and as basis for the award of the PhD degree. The evaluation must state if the decision is unanimous or a majority decision. 
9. Date and signature of the chair of the committee on behalf of the committee

A PhD thesis cannot be conditionally approved for the defense.

If the preliminary evaluation is positive, the Faculty will inform the author and send them a copy of the evaluation without further comments. 

If the evaluation is negative the evaluation committee must in the preliminary evaluation state what changes must be made to the thesis for it to be accepted for a defense. The committee must also suggest how many months the author would need to make the changes and if the committee would be willing to evaluate the revised thesis. The deadline must be no less than 3 months. The committee must return their copies of the thesis to the PhD school.

In its estimation of the time needed for revision, the committee must take into consideration the fact that upon submitting a PhD thesis for the defense, the enrolment of a PhD student stops. The author obtains employment subsequent to the submission of the thesis or is registered as unemployed. Therefore, the recommended time for a revision must take into consideration that the author is no longer a full-time student and that the revision takes place outside of work hours.

The author and the principal supervisor are given a deadline of two weeks to comment on the evaluation and its recommendations. The written response to the PhD school must clearly state if the terms for resubmission is accepted.

In accordance with the PhD Order, the PhD school will make one of the following decisions based on the evaluation committee's recommendation and the author's and the principal supervisor's comments:

1) That the defense of the thesis may not take place.
2) That the PhD thesis may be resubmitted in a revised version within a deadline of at least three months. If a revised PhD thesis is resubmitted, it shall be assessed by the same evaluation committee, unless special circumstances apply.
3) That the PhD thesis shall be submitted for assessment by a new evaluation committee.

The PhD school will, in writing, notify both the evaluation committee and the author of its decision within 2 weeks after having received the comments from the author and the principal supervisor.

If the evaluation committee´s preliminary evaluation is positive the thesis is defended at a public defense. The defense is held no sooner than two weeks after the valuation committee has given their preliminary recommendation and at most three months after the submission of the thesis. It is the responsibility of the department PhD secretary to ensure that the room reserved is of sufficient capacity and to advertise the time and place for the defense. The date and time for the defense must be fixed after discussion between the committee members and the principal supervisor and the student.

At least three weeks before the public defense takes place, the chair of the committee must inform the PhD school of the date for the defense. The title of the defense is equivalent to the title of the thesis. The subject of the lecture must take the dissertation as its starting point but need not be an exposition of the thesis.

The defense follows the structure below:

1. Introduction by the chair of the defense.
2. The author gives a 30-45 minute presentation.
3. The chair of the defense may allow questions from the audience specifically related to the presentation.
4. The members of the Evaluation Committee comment on the report and/or examine the author. The chair of the defense limits this discussion to one hour.
5. The SDU member of the evaluation committee has 30 minutes at most for opposing the dissertation.
6. The chair of the defense closes the defense. Before doing so, they may invite the author to make a short comment.

A contribution from the principal supervisor is not expected. The chair of the defense may waive this rule if so requested by the assessment committee. The principal supervisor’s contribution in that case will be limited to 30 minutes.

The assessment committee's final tasks include both the provision of

1. a written evaluation of the PhD programme at the PhD school 
2. a final evaluation of the individual thesis and defense.

The two evaluations must be made separately

Final evaluation
The assessment committee gives its final evaluation of the thesis and the oral defense. The evaluation must be approx. 2 – 3 A4 pages

The evaluation must be made in the faculty evaluation form, take the preliminary evaluation as its starting point and must as a minimum include:

1. Name of author and title of the thesis, date of the defense
2. Name, title and affiliation of the committee members
3. Comments on within which academic field the PhD thesis has its primary contribution and, if relevant, within which it has its secondary contribution.
4. A short summary of the thesis form and content
5. Comments on the structure of the thesis, is it coherent and well written?
6. If the thesis is article based, information on where the papers are published and whether the papers are peer-reviewed.
7. Elaboration on:
   1. How the author masters the scientific theories, methods and tools as well as other skills connected with research and development within the area.
   2. How the author in the thesis shows the ability to analyze, evaluate and develop new ideas, including designing and developing new techniques and skills in the field of study.
   3. How the author in the thesis and at the oral defense demonstrate the ability to participate in international discussions in the field of study and to disseminate research results and progress.
   4. How  the thesis makes a significant contribution to the development of new knowledge and understanding in the field of research
   5. Strengths and weaknesses of the thesis.
8. Overall comments on the oral defense, was it coherent and well structures? Did the author address the questions adequately?
9. Conclusion and recommendation on the award of the degree. The evaluation must state if the decision is unanimous or a majority decision 
10. Signatures of all members, date of the signatures

It is set in the University Act that the Academic Council at a faculty confers the PhD degree on the author, if so recommended by the evaluation committee. In order for the council to confer the degree, they must receive a reasoned final evaluation with the content described above.

The final assessment must be submitted to the faculty PhD school administration no later than two weeks after the public defense and within 3 months from the date the thesis was submitted to the faculty.

The PhD degree is awarded if there is a positive assessment from a unanimous evaluation committee or from the majority of the committee's members. The positive final assessment must clearly state that the committee unconditionally recommends that the degree be conferred.

If the assessment committee final assessment is negative, the Faculty will send the final evaluation to the author, who has up to two weeks to comment on the final evaluation. After the author’s comments have been received, the faculty may decide to let the thesis be evaluated by a new assessment committee if the author has requested this.

Special exceptions: Any confidential information may, by agreement with the PhD school, be made available to the assessment committee in a separate confidential paper and presented at a closed meeting with the evaluation committee before the defense. In such cases the confidential information is only made available to the official opponents against the signing of the confidentiality agreement. The public thesis and defense must be adequate for the award of the PhD degree without taking into consideration the confidential material. For information regarding confidentiality agreements, please contact the PhD school administration office. 

The assessment committee's final tasks include both the provision of

1. a written evaluation of the PhD programme at the PhD school 
2. a final evaluation of the individual thesis and defense.

The two evaluations must be made separately

Evaluation of the PhD programme
The written evaluation of the PhD programme at the PhD school will take place in connection with the defense. By answering an online questionnaire the external members are asked to comment on the contents of the PhD programme within the time limits set by the PhD order and the internal faculty rules as described in the cover letter received along with the thesis.

It is possible to have a digital defense of the PhD thesis, if it is approved by the department, the evaluation committee, the principal supervisor and the student. As stipulated in the PhD order, the PhD student or author must be given the opportunity to present the PhD thesis to the members of the assessment committee and the general public. The faculty rules and procedure for the evaluation and defense apply.

The digital defense is advertised by the PhD school in "Ingeniøren" with information on how the general public can gain access to the digital defense. The department advertises the defense via the usual distribution channels and include information on how to gain access to the digital defense.

A digital defense must be held the following way:

• The defence must be live-streamed and be accessible via a secure IT platform.
• The assessment committee must be given the opportunity to put questions directly to the PhD student/author via the video meeting.
• The audience must also be given the opportunity to participate actively in the defence, i.e. put questions to the author, e.g. via a chat function.
• The chair of the defence is to ensure that the digital defence adhere to the faculty rules and procedure. If not, the defence must be paused or suspended.

The department is responsible for assigning one person (e.g. the chair of the defence) to be in charge of moderating the defense on the chosen platform, e.g. switch on/off of the microphone and camera and tend to the comments/questions in the chat feed. For questions regarding technical issues please contact SDU IT service.

Please consult the various SDU online guides for using the digital platform of your choice  for the purpose.