The faculty council approves and grades the dissertation. The grades are approved with distinction, approved and failed. Please read faculty/doctoral programme&nbsp;spesific assessment criteria below.

The faculty's criteria for evaluating doctoral dissertations, please see (lower part): 
<a href="https://intra.tuni.fi/en/studying/doctoral-studies/doctoral-programmes/doctoral-programme-built-environment-dpben" title="https://intra.tuni.fi/en/studying/doctoral-studies/doctoral-programmes/doctoral-programme-built-environment-dpben">https://intra.tuni.fi/en/studying/doctoral-studies/doctoral-programmes/doctoral-programme-built-environment-dpben</a>

Faculty of Built Environment (BEN)

(Approved by the Faculty Council of the Faculty of Education and Culture on 20 November 2019)

Evaluation of a dissertation

After the public defence, the&nbsp; evaluation process of the dissertation will proceed as follows:

The evaluation board prepares a proposal on the approval and grading of the dissertation for the Faculty Council based on the pre-examination statements, the opponent’s statements and a hearing with the custos.

In addition to this, the opponent(s) prepares a written examination statement on the dissertation. After the defence and before the evaluation, the custos presents his/her assessment of the progression of the public defence to the Faculty Council of the Faculty of Education and Culture.

The Faculty Council approves and evaluates the dissertation based on the written statements of the opponents, the proposed grade of the evaluation board, the pre-examination statements and other written comments.

The author must be given the opportunity to issue a written response to the statements and comments before the grading of the dissertation at the Faculty Council's meeting. (558/2009, Section 44)

For the approval and evaluation of the dissertation the Faculty Council uses the scale of approved with distinction, approved, or failed.

<figure role="group"><div class="embedded-file"><svg height="25" width="25" aria-hidden="true" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 24 24"><polygon points="22 18 22 20 2 20 2 18 0 18 0 20 0 22 2 22 22 22 24 22 24 20 24 18 22 18"></polygon><polygon points="12 18 18.55 11.46 17.09 10 13 14.09 13 2 11 2 11 14.09 6.91 10 5.46 11.46 12 18"></polygon></svg>Download<a href="https://content-webapi.tuni.fi/proxy/public/2019-11/assessment-criteria_final.pdf">EDU Assessment criteria for doctoral dissertations (pdf)</a></div></figure>

Professors and those members of the Faculty Council who hold &nbsp;doctoral degree &nbsp;(three of whom must be present at the relevant meeting) may take part in the approval and evaluation of the dissertation by the Faculty Council.

The author may submit an appeal against &nbsp;the evaluation of the dissertation to the Faculty Council of the Faculty of Education and Culture within 14 days of being informed of the decision (Sections 44, 82 and 83 of the Universities Act (558/2009).

Faculty of Education and Culture (EDU)

In the faculty's doctoral programmes (TTITO, TLTO) the following evaluation criteria is used:

1. General principles 
 
Doctoral dissertations are graded on a scale of approved with distinction, approved, or failed. 
 
A doctoral dissertation is a demonstration of independent work and must successfully pass through the dissertation process in order to be approved. 
 
The Doctoral Programme Committee (or a person appointed by the Doctoral Programme Committee) will propose a grade for the doctoral dissertation and justify the proposed grade. When the grade proposal is prepared, special consideration will be given to written statements provided by the preliminary examiners and opponent(s). Other materials will also be considered, if necessary. The Faculty Council will take into account all these materials when assigning the final grade. 
 
The following points will be considered when evaluating a doctoral dissertation: 
1) The entire dissertation process from start to finish. 
2) The introduction and conclusions included in the doctoral dissertation. 
3) The publications appended to an article-based dissertation (compilation) and the doctoral candidate’s independent contribution to these publications. 
4) A monograph dissertation as a whole. 
5) The statements provided and grades proposed by the preliminary examiners. &nbsp; 
6) The doctoral candidate's ability to defend his or her dissertation at the public defence. 
7) The statement provided and the grade proposed by the opponent(s). &nbsp;

The following points will not be considered when evaluating a doctoral dissertation: 
 
- Scientific publications authored by the doctoral candidate that are not appended to the dissertation and should not be listed therein. 
- The doctoral candidate’s past academic performance. 
- The quality of research undertaken by the doctoral candidate’s research group. 
 
The Faculty Council may fail a doctoral dissertation based on written statements provided by the preliminary examiners and opponents, other written comments and grade proposals. 
 
The reasons for proposing the award of the grade “approved with distinction” must be clearly stated.

 
2. Principles for awarding the grade “approved with distinction” 
 
This grade will only be awarded to dissertations that are of exceptional quality and only to about 10% of all approved dissertations. The preliminary examiners and opponents must unanimously agree that the work merits this distinction, meaning that it ranks among the international top 10% of all dissertations written in the field. The dissertation must meet the following requirements: 
 
1) The dissertation is of outstanding scientific quality when evaluated against international standards of excellence. The doctoral candidate has achieved exceptionally significant research results in his or her field. 
 
2) The quality of the dissertation and the findings are the result of the doctoral candidate’s significant independent scientific contribution 
 
3) In an article-based dissertation (compilation), the introduction and conclusions written by the doctoral candidate demonstrate his or her exceptional level of scientific independence and maturity; a monograph must satisfy this requirement as a whole. 
 
4) The publications appended to an article-based dissertation have appeared in prominent international scientific publication series or other similar publications employing a peer-review process. 
 
5) The writing style (including images and citations) is clear and polished. The final version of the dissertation is a faultless piece of writing. 
 
6) At the public defence, the doctoral candidate demonstrates his or her depth of knowledge and the ability to defend his or her dissertation and engage in thorough and critical theoretical dialogue with the opponents on essential topics relevant to the dissertation.

Approved by the Faculty Council of the Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences on 12 June 2019.

Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences (ENS)

<h2>Criteria for evaluating and grading doctoral dissertations and licentiate theses </h2>

Doctoral dissertations are graded on a scale of approved with distinction, approved, or failed. When a doctoral dissertation is evaluated, both the academic quality of the dissertation and the doctoral candidate’s ability to defend his or her dissertation will be considered. When an article-based dissertation (compilation of several scholarly articles) is evaluated, the quality of the summary, the articles and the dissertation as a whole will be considered.&nbsp;

The Faculty Council will approve and evaluate doctoral dissertations based on the written statements provided by the opponent(s), a possible grade proposed by an evaluation committee, the statements provided by preliminary examiners and other written comments.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Licentiate theses are graded on a scale of approved or failed. The Faculty Council will decide on approving a licentiate thesis and assign the final grade based on the statements and grade proposals provided by examiners.

Tables present the criteria for evaluating doctoral dissertations and the academic requirements that all approved dissertations must satisfy. A dissertation that does not satisfy the minimum requirements will receive a failing grade. To be approved with distinction, a dissertation must be of outstanding quality compared to the criteria for awarding the grade of approved. The grade of approved with distinction should only be awarded to dissertations that fall in the top 10-15% of all dissertations written in the field at the international level.&nbsp;

<figure role="group"><div class="embedded-file"><svg height="25" width="25" aria-hidden="true" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 24 24"><polygon points="22 18 22 20 2 20 2 18 0 18 0 20 0 22 2 22 22 22 24 22 24 20 24 18 22 18"></polygon><polygon points="12 18 18.55 11.46 17.09 10 13 14.09 13 2 11 2 11 14.09 6.91 10 5.46 11.46 12 18"></polygon></svg>Download<a href="https://content-webapi.tuni.fi/proxy/public/2022-05/assessment-criteria_dpii_dphat_dpcee_awear_0.pdf">Table 1. (pdf)</a></div></figure>

Table 1. Grading scale and evaluation criteria for doctoral dissertations: Doctoral Programmes in Information Studies and Interactive Media, Humans and Technologies, Information and Systems, Computing and Electrical Engineering, and A-WEAR (European Joint Doctorate).

<figure role="group"><div class="embedded-file"><svg height="25" width="25" aria-hidden="true" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 24 24"><polygon points="22 18 22 20 2 20 2 18 0 18 0 20 0 22 2 22 22 22 24 22 24 20 24 18 22 18"></polygon><polygon points="12 18 18.55 11.46 17.09 10 13 14.09 13 2 11 2 11 14.09 6.91 10 5.46 11.46 12 18"></polygon></svg>Download<a href="https://content-webapi.tuni.fi/proxy/public/2019-12/assessment-criteria-dpla-dpcmt_0.pdf">Table 2. (pdf)</a></div></figure>

Table 2. Grading scale and evaluation criteria for doctoral dissertations: Doctoral Programmes in Language Studies and Media, Communication and Performing Arts.

&nbsp;

<figure role="group"><div class="embedded-file"><svg height="25" width="25" aria-hidden="true" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 24 24"><polygon points="22 18 22 20 2 20 2 18 0 18 0 20 0 22 2 22 22 22 24 22 24 20 24 18 22 18"></polygon><polygon points="12 18 18.55 11.46 17.09 10 13 14.09 13 2 11 2 11 14.09 6.91 10 5.46 11.46 12 18"></polygon></svg>Download<a href="https://content-webapi.tuni.fi/proxy/public/2019-12/assessment-criteria-artistic-dissertation.pdf">Criteria for evaluating and grading artistic dissertations and licentiate theses (pdf)</a></div></figure>

&nbsp;

Please note! The instructions below are for these doctoral programmes:

<ul>
	<li>Doctoral Programme in Media, Communication and Performing Arts&nbsp;(DPMCP)</li>
	<li>Doctoral Programme in Information Studies and Interactive Media (DPII)</li>
	<li>Doctoral Programme of Humans and Technologies&nbsp;(DPHAT)</li>
	<li>Doctoral Programme in Language Studies (DPLA)</li>
</ul>

(Approved by the Faculty Council on 20 November 2019)

<h2>Acceptance and evaluation of a dissertation</h2>

After the public defence, the opponent(s) must submit written statements to the Faculty. In the statement, the opponent must indicate whether he or she recommends that the dissertation be approved and propose a grade for the dissertation. If no evaluation board is appointed, the Faculty Council will review the proposal(s) provided by the opponents(s) to determine the grade awarded for the dissertation.

The custos (or the person who replaces the custos on the evaluation board) will provide the Faculty with a justified grade proposal drawn up by the evaluation board. If a member of the evaluation board expresses disagreement with the majority opinion, the dissenting opinion will be noted in the grade proposal.

The grade proposal must be signed by all the members of the evaluation board. If the custos has served as the doctoral candidate’s supervisor, he or she will only be entitled to attend the early part of the evaluation board’s meeting to provide additional information. However, the custos must leave the meeting before discussion on the proposed grade begins.

Before a doctoral dissertation is evaluated, the custos must issue a written assessment of the public defence.

The statement prepared by the opponent, the grade proposal and the written assessment prepared by the custos must be submitted to the person who oversees doctoral affairs in the Faculty within two weeks after the public defence.

 
The opponent’s statement and the evaluation board’s grade proposal must be submitted to the doctoral candidate no later than seven (7) days before the Faculty Council’s meeting where the dissertation will be discussed. The doctoral candidate must be given the opportunity to issue a written response to the statements and the grade proposal within a reasonable time frame (558/2009, Section 44). The candidate may request that the grading of the dissertation be postponed to the next meeting of the Faculty Council to allow more time for preparing a response.

 
The Faculty Council will decide on the approval of the dissertation and the grade to be awarded. Professors and those members of the Faculty Council who hold a doctoral degree (at least three of whom must be present at the relevant meeting) will be entitled to take part in evaluating the dissertation. The doctoral candidate’s supervisor will not participate in the evaluation of the dissertation within the Faculty Council.

 
Doctoral dissertations are graded on a scale of approved with distinction, approved, or failed.

Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences (ITC)

<h3>Doctoral Programme in Administrative Sciences, Business Studies and Politics (HKP):</h3>

The Faculty Council decides on approving a doctoral dissertation and awards the final grade. Doctoral dissertations are graded on a scale of approved with distinction, approved, or failed.&nbsp; &nbsp;

<h4>Approved with distinction</h4>

The doctoral dissertation is of outstanding quality. The research questions are insightful, the discussion demonstrates an in-depth understanding of scientific thinking, and the analysis demonstrates broad knowledge of alternative interpretations and theories. The doctoral candidate has achieved exceptionally significant research results in his or her field. The dissertation demonstrates the&nbsp; candidate’s exceptional degree of scientific maturity and his or her creative approach to methodological and theoretical thinking. The doctoral candidate delivered an outstanding dissertation defence at the public defence. The dissertation is 
amongst the top 10% of all dissertations written in the field at the international level.

<h4> 
Approved</h4>

The doctoral dissertation meets the requirements set by the Faculty of Management and Business. The research questions are clear and placed in the context of the existing body of knowledge. The research methods are appropriate, and the findings are consistent. The dissertation demonstrates the doctoral candidate’s scientific independence and maturity.

<h3>&nbsp;</h3>

<h3>Doctoral Programme in Business and Technology Management (TOTO):</h3>

1. General principles 
 
Doctoral dissertations are graded on a scale of approved with distinction, approved, or failed. 
 
A doctoral dissertation is a demonstration of independent work and must successfully pass through the dissertation process in order to be approved. 
 
The internal reviwer of the dissertation will propose a grade for the doctoral dissertation and justify the proposed grade. When the grade proposal is prepared, special consideration will be given to written statements provided by the preliminary examiners and opponent(s). Other materials will also be considered, if necessary. The Faculty Council will take into account all these materials when assigning the final grade. 
 
The following points will be considered when evaluating a doctoral dissertation: 
1) The entire dissertation process from start to finish. 
2) The introduction and conclusions included in the doctoral dissertation. 
3) The publications appended to an article-based dissertation (compilation) and the doctoral candidate’s independent contribution to these publications. 
4) A monograph dissertation as a whole. 
5) The statements provided and grades proposed by the preliminary examiners. &nbsp; 
6) The doctoral candidate's ability to defend his or her dissertation at the public defence. 
7) The statement provided and the grade proposed by the opponent(s). &nbsp;

The following points will not be considered when evaluating a doctoral dissertation: 
 
- Scientific publications authored by the doctoral candidate that are not appended to the dissertation and should not be listed therein. 
- The doctoral candidate’s past academic performance. 
- The quality of research undertaken by the doctoral candidate’s research group. 
 
The Faculty Council may fail a doctoral dissertation based on written statements provided by the preliminary examiners and opponents, other written comments and grade proposals. 
 
The reasons for proposing the award of the grade “approved with distinction” must be clearly stated.

2. Principles for awarding the grade “approved with distinction” 
 
This grade will only be awarded to dissertations that are of exceptional quality and only to about 10% of all approved dissertations. The preliminary examiners and opponents must unanimously agree that the work merits this distinction, meaning that it ranks among the international top 10% of all dissertations written in the field. The dissertation must meet the following requirements: 
 
1) The dissertation is of outstanding scientific quality when evaluated against international standards of excellence. The doctoral candidate has achieved exceptionally significant research results in his or her field. 
 
2) The quality of the dissertation and the findings are the result of the doctoral candidate’s significant independent scientific contribution. 
 
3) In an article-based dissertation (compilation), the introduction and conclusions written by the doctoral candidate demonstrate his or her exceptional level of scientific independence and maturity; a monograph must satisfy this requirement as a whole. 
 
4) The publications appended to an article-based dissertation have appeared in prominent international scientific publication series or other similar publications employing a peer-review process. 
 
5) The writing style (including images and citations) is clear and polished. The final version of the dissertation is a faultless piece of writing. 
 
6) At the public defence, the doctoral candidate demonstrates his or her depth of knowledge and the ability to defend his or her dissertation and engage in thorough and critical theoretical dialogue with the opponents on essential topics relevant to the dissertation.

Faculty of Management and Business (MAB)

<figure role="group"><div class="embedded-file"><svg height="25" width="25" aria-hidden="true" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 24 24"><polygon points="22 18 22 20 2 20 2 18 0 18 0 20 0 22 2 22 22 22 24 22 24 20 24 18 22 18"></polygon><polygon points="12 18 18.55 11.46 17.09 10 13 14.09 13 2 11 2 11 14.09 6.91 10 5.46 11.46 12 18"></polygon></svg>Download<a href="https://content-webapi.tuni.fi/proxy/public/2021-02/jatkotutkintojen-opinnaytteiden-arviointiperusteet_met-eng_20201021.pdf">Criteria for evaluating postgraduate theses (pdf)</a></div></figure>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology (MET)

According to Tampere University Regulations on Degrees, the Faculty Council approves and evaluates doctoral dissertations based on the written statements provided by the opponent(s), a possible grade proposed by an evaluation committee, pre-examiners’ statements and other written comments.

At the Faculty of Social Sciences, assessment consists of 1) the written pre-examination statements and grading recommendations of the pre-examiners, which they give on the completed dissertation, taking into account any alterations made to it and the author’s report on them and 2) the statement and grading recommendation of the opponent.

The opponent’s statement should consider the dissertation as well as the public defence according to the following criteria:

Assessment criteria

<ul>
	<li>The general nature of the dissertation: A brief description of the scientific content of the dissertation and the main results</li>
</ul>

<ul>
	<li>Scientific novelty value, scientific significance, and practical importance</li>
	<li>Cohesion of the manuscript: does the research conducted for the dissertation form a unified, controlled entity</li>
	<li>Clarity of the research questions and objectives</li>
	<li>Knowledge of relevant scientific literature</li>
	<li>Command of the research method(s)</li>
	<li>Quality, extent, and relevance of the research data.</li>
	<li>The independent role of the doctoral student in, among other things, joint publications/research design and implementation.</li>
	<li>Scientific maturity of the research and critical approach</li>
	<li>Writing style and presentation</li>
	<li>Ability to conduct scientific debate and defend the dissertation in the public defence (opponent)</li>
</ul>

The official opponent(s) submit a written assessment report to the Faculty. The opponent(s)’ statement must be submitted to the Faculty within two weeks of the dissertation defence. According to Section 44 of the Finnish Universities Act (558/2009), the doctoral candidate can reply to the statement. In addition to the written statement, the opponent(s) submit a proposal for the grade with a separate form.

The opponent(s)’ and pre-examiners’ grade proposals should follow the following principles.

Grading principles

Dissertations are graded using the scale of approved with distinction, approved, and failed.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Approved with distinction

The approved with distinction grade can be given to a dissertation whose international scientific quality and significance are exceptionally high and where the doctoral candidate’s own innovative contribution is especially important. In the light of the assessment criteria, the dissertation has considerable merits without shortcomings that would cancel the merits. The doctoral dissertation is ethically sound and follows good scientific practice.

Approved

The study has the contribution value required of a dissertation, ie it addresses a scientifically important and well-grounded set of issues and has produced new and significant information for the theory and praxis in the research field. The approved grade requires that there are no significant deficiencies in the dissertation in terms of goal setting, presentation of the theoretical background, selection of data and methods, and the presentation of results and conclusions.

The dissertation is ethically sound and follows good scientific practice. The author of the dissertation has defended the research results in the public examination and responded to the public criticism.

Failed&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Pre-examiners and the opponent must recommend that the dissertation is failed if it does&nbsp; &nbsp; not meet the criteria for acceptable work, has significant inadequacies, or has been found to contain ethical misconduct (such as scientific fraud).

Assessing the doctoral dissertation

OpenFaculty of Built Environment (BEN)

OpenFaculty of Education and Culture (EDU)

OpenFaculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences (ENS)

OpenFaculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences (ITC)

OpenFaculty of Management and Business (MAB)

OpenFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology (MET)

OpenFaculty of Social Sciences (SOC)