Information for the external reviewer and members of the examining committee

This page contains information for those who are appointed as an external reviewer or a member of an examining committee at the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Gothenburg. If you have any questions, please contact the Chair of the public defence.

Background

The requirements for the Degree of Doctor include a coursework component and a thesis. The thesis can be a monograph or a compilation thesis, and corresponds to approximately three years of full-time work in a specific area of research.

A doctoral thesis at a Swedish university must be publicly defended in the presence of an expert in the field from another university who is called the external reviewer. The external reviewer is appointed by the Dean at the Faculty. The Dean also appoints a Chair for the public defence and an examining committee of three or five members. The examining committee assesses the thesis and the candidate’s performance at the public defence with a grade of "Pass" or "Fail".

Conflict of interest and impartial assessment

As an external reviewer or member of an examining committee, you are required to determine whether you have a conflict of interest in relation to the doctoral student, to anyone closely related to the doctoral student, to any of the doctoral student’s supervisors, or to any other member of the examining committee.

A conflict of interest means a circumstance that could damage trust in a particular person’s impartiality and affect their decision-making. Provisions governing conflict of interest are found in Sections 16-18 of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Administrative Procedure Act (external website)

You are required to notify the Chair of the public defence and the Dean if a conflict of interest exists. The Swedish Research Council’s guidelines for managing conflict of interest can assist you in determining whether a relationship entails a conflict of interest.

The Swedish Research Council’s guidelines for managing conflict of interest (external webbsite - pdf)

Below we have included some examples from the guidelines to illustrate when a conflict of interest typically exists, and when there is a risk of a conflict of interest:

As examples of situations in which there is typically a conflict of interest, the following can be mentioned:

• When an economic or other dependency circumstance exists. An example of the latter is a situation where an applicant or participating researcher has the task of assessing the research, application, department, subject area or competency of a person who is taking part in the administration of the matter.
• When an ongoing or recently terminated close collaboration exists, such as a teacher-student relationship, or a joint research project. The relationship between a doctoral student and their supervisor is considered a conflict of interest situation, regardless of how long ago the collaboration occurred.
• When there is evident friendship, enmity, or difference of opinion.
• When there is a manager-employee relationship.
• When the person taking part in the administration of a matter in another context has dealt with a question pertaining to the matter at hand, for example as a representative of another government agency or organisation.

As examples of situations in which there is a risk of conflict of interest, the following can be mentioned:

• When a book or article has been co-authored. As a rule, taking part in the administration of a matter should be avoided where research collaboration and co-authorship has occurred during the last 5-year period. A joint article or a joint chapter in an edited book may be enough to establish co-authorship. Co-authorship that occurred more than 5 years ago can also constitute a conflict of interest. The determining factor will be whether or not it was the result of close collaboration, and this must be assessed from case to case.
• When a person taking part in the administration of a matter belongs to the same department (particularly small and medium-sized ones) or an equivalent independent financial entity as an applicant or other participant in the matter.
• When the person taking part in the administration is engaged in the matter in such a way that a suspicion may arise that the basis for impartial assessment is compromised.

In the event of serious shortcomings in the thesis

As an external reviewer or member of the examining committee, if during your preparatory work you identify serious shortcomings in the thesis to the extent that it may be failed, you should notify the Dean and the Chair for the public defence as soon as possible but no later than 10 days before the scheduled day of the public defence.

The public defence itself

The candidate, the external reviewer, the examining committee, the Chair of the public defence and the candidate’s supervisor are present at the public defence. In addition, colleagues, experts in the field treated in the thesis, friends and relatives of the candidate and other interested parties from the public may be present.

The procedure for all public defences is described here. Please note that there are no detailed rules governing the public defence itself; the procedure may be amended by the Dean or the Chair. If significant changes are made to the procedure, the candidate and external reviewer must be notified in good time.

1. The Chair welcomes those present and introduces the candidate, the external reviewer and the members of the examining committee.
2. The Chair yields the floor to the candidate and gives them the opportunity to make formal corrections, send around an errata list and comment on any errors detected in the thesis.
3. The external reviewer briefly introduces and summarises the thesis (usually 15–20 minutes). The work should be presented in such a way that a researcher who is not specialised in the candidate’s work, but who works in the same general field, is able to form an impression of the work and the candidate’s contribution to the field. Note that the presentation is to deal with the thesis. It should not be a general lecture on current research topics in the specific discipline.
4. The candidate is given the opportunity to comment briefly on the external reviewer’s summary of the thesis and to highlight aspects which, in their opinion, have not been sufficiently dealt with.
5. The external reviewer discusses the thesis with the candidate by asking questions, which gives the candidate good opportunities to demonstrate their mastery of the subject area and ability to respond to criticism. The questions should be precise and primarily concern the work that is presented in the thesis. The discussion should focus on questions such as the relevance of the assumptions made, the validity of the methods used, and the scholarly significance of the results presented. However, it is also preferable to position the thesis in a wider context. During the discussion, the external reviewer may indicate that they are satisfied with the candidate’s responses and identify sections of the thesis that are particularly valuable to the field. It should also be made clear whether any part of the thesis or the candidate’s responses are worthy of criticism. The external reviewer should also comment briefly on the formal aspects of the thesis such as its presentation, the use of graphs, figures and tables, and the treatment of references. This comprises the biggest part of the public defence and generally takes between one and two hours. But if the external reviewer so wishes, it may take longer. At the end of this part, the external reviewer makes a general assessment of the thesis and its potential contributions to the field. During the discussion between the external reviewer and the candidate, questions or interruptions from the other members of the audience are normally not permitted.
6. The Chair then invites questions and comments from the examining committee and the rest of the audience. The external reviewer is permitted to participate in this discussion.
7. The Chair concludes the public defence by thanking the external reviewer, the candidate, and the examining committee.

The entire procedure normally takes no more than two and a half hours. If the external reviewer anticipates that the public defence will last longer than two and a half hours, they may suggest to the Chair that a short break be included in the proceedings.

The examining committee then meets immediately after the public defence to decide whether the candidate has passed. The examining committee elects a Chair from among its members. The external reviewer is present at the meeting of the examining committee and can provide additional information and comments on the thesis and the public defence. The Chair normally asks at least one of the supervisors to be present as well. However, the external reviewer and the supervisor or supervisors do not participate in the final decision. A doctoral thesis is assessed as either a Pass grade or Fail grade. In determining the doctoral student’s grade, the examining committee is to take into account the content of the thesis and the defence of the thesis. The decision of the examining committee is based on the grade that the majority agree on. Any individual member of the examining committee has the right to have their dissenting opinion recorded. If the examining committee fails the thesis, reasons must be provided in writing in the minutes of the public defence.

When the examining committee has agreed on the grade and has signed the minutes of the public defence, the Chair of the examining committee notifies the result.

Travel booking and compensation

The department is responsible for booking travel, any hotel accommodation and paying compensation. Contact the Chair of the public defence for more information.