Phd Thesis Evaluation Criteria Text

Jonathan Friesen - Writing Coach

evaluation of the written thesis examiners are asked to evaluate the thesis according to a number of criteria as indicated in the grid in the thesis examination form which will be sent along with the thesis package. Examiners provide an overall judgment of 'passed' or ‘‘not passed’, assessing whether or not the thesis fulfills the requirement for the degree. If the thesis meets the general criteria for the degree sought, as well as those listed on the examiner's report form, it should be evaluated as 'passed', even if some changes are recommended.

an evaluation of 'passed' should be awarded unless the revisions required are major,  such as: the need for a new study, experimentation, or significant additional research or reformulation. Major problems with the presentation of the work.  stylistic or editorial changes are not normally considered to be major revisions, but if the quality of the presentation is so poor that extensive rewriting is required, the thesis should not be passed. The supervisor or another designated person will ensure that the student corrects the thesis and that it appropriately reflects the examiners' suggestions for revisions prior to the final deposition. If the written thesis is not passed, it must be rated unsatisfactory in at least one of the review categories. Please see thesis examination failures  and refer to the information package examiners were sent by gps for more information. Usually by the same examiner.  if/when review of the revised thesis is required, the thesis office will contact the initial examiner to ascertain their availability.

In rare cases, a revised thesis may be sent to a new examiner if the first examiner is not available to serve if the revised thesis is again  ‘not passed’,  the student will be withdrawn  from the university unless the decision is reversed through an appeal to the hearing committee for bias, error, or misrepresentation please see hearing committee for bias, error, or misrepresentation for more information. The research thesis is expected to be an original piece of empirical work of relevance to clinical psychology, demonstrating the candidate’s ability to apply scientific principles and undertake rigorous investigation. It should be of publishable quality, making a distinct contribution to the knowledge of the subject and affording evidence of originality.

Master Thesis Bioinformatics

The work done for the thesis must not have been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of any other degree, and it must be the candidate’s own work. If the candidate is working in a team or analysing previously collected data the candidate’s personal contribution must be clearly defined. The criterion of acceptability is that the candidate is making a substantial independent contribution to the study. The candidate is free to choose from a range of approaches and paradigms as long as the research methods are appropriate to the research questions or hypotheses being investigated. It should be borne in mind that, due to the multiple demands of clinical training, trainees are allotted relatively little time in which to do their project. We therefore do not hope for large or flawless studies, but we do expect that the research will be executed in a rigorous and professional manner. These notes should be read in conjunction with the trainees’ guidelines on the major research project and on writing and presenting the thesis.

Before the viva, the internal and the external examiner each independently complete a report on the thesis. The purpose of the viva is for the examiners to understand the candidate’s thinking about the material in the thesis and also to establish their claim to independence of work. The candidate should be given the opportunity to explain any deficiencies or clarify any issues raised by the examiners. This includes an agreed evaluation of the written thesis and an assessment of the candidate’s performance in the viva. The result of the examination must be assigned to one of the five categories below. In arriving at an overall evaluation, examiners will bear in mind that strengths in some areas of the thesis may compensate for weaknesses in others.

The more important or innovative the topic or method, the more forgivable are shortcomings: it is relatively easy to do methodologically sound but trivial research harder to do innovative research that is scientifically or professionally significant. The following categories are not marks in the sense of corresponding to a, b, c, etc. Rather they are to be thought of as specifying what is needed to bring the thesis up to an acceptable standard.

It is possible, for example, that a generally excellent thesis may have some flaws requiring corrections, or that a competent but rather uninspiring thesis be awarded a pass. One month, three months, one year represent the maximum time the candidate is given to make the corrections. However, it is possible that candidates may be able to submit their corrections earlier, and indeed the requirements for hpc registration put them under some pressure to get their thesis finally approved.

Ultimately, the examiners will judge how well the corrections have been completed, rather than how long they have taken to be completed. Any small deficiencies in conceptualisation, measurement, design or execution are counterbalanced by positive qualities and a thorough discussion of methodological limitations.

pass conditional on minor corrections one month

a thesis which meets the criteria for a pass, but has some weaknesses that are fairly readily correctable. Corrections might include adding some further material rewriting several pages some re analysis or re presentation of the data or correction of a large number of typographical or stylistic errors. Theses with minimal presentational errors can, at the board of examiners’ discretion, be awarded a pass. Stipulated revisions might include the addition of substantial new material a significant amount of rewriting, often in several parts of the thesis or an extensive re analysis of the data, which will usually necessitate revising the discussion of the findings.

referred for major revisions one year

a badly thought out or extremely poorly presented piece or work with serious flaws that are not convincingly explained in the viva.

Csc Speech Writing