Unfortunately the name and fame of an institute has more impact on one's career than the quality of his/her thesis and other publication. I have seen many bad theses and publications from people from reputable institutes. Sad but true.

To Magesh. The quality of work depends on the selection of problem which must be of great interest of the postgraduate student. He/ she doesn't be alone, the selection of a Director who share the same topics, a preliminar study of published , reliable results from the same group and others, critical review of technology to be applied, access to equipment without restrictions, a well planned work ,thought to ask original questions , several years of dedication to improve laboratory skills, clear work-hypothesis and well proved answers. Last , but not least, the manuscrit must be a good expression of before made questions and its corresponding answers under the Director's control and agreement. Fellows in the laboratory, play an important role, discussing in Seminars and in early communications in Congress presentations. Relationship with groups working in related topics, open a gate to improve Thesis quality and help to reach personal expectations.

The evaluation of any theses should include the following:

1) Problem statement.

2) Past processes to correct the problem.

3) Why these failed.

4) The suggested solution.

5) Application of the solution.

6) Result of the application.

7) Suggested further research.

8) After the above then do the evaluation of language use, lay-out, refrences used and any other requirement set by the university in question.

In addition to the above I should add, what is perhaps the 2 most important items:

1-The work is your own

2-the work is original

Please stick on this

I wonder why a Ph.D Thesis from a reputed institute should have all the fame. I have seen some cases in which Dr. 'X' Ph.D from MIT or Cambridge or IIT have great chances to get selected in an Academic institute / Research centers.

Is this because of the Brand name or the quality of work?

If it is based on the quality of work then how will you assess it?

If it is assessed based on number of publication in reputed journals / patents and the impact towards scientific world etc.

if these requirements are there in a thesis from a low end University then will you accept that candidate to work in a reputed institute?

If yes, then what is the relation between a University and Ph.D it produce (Apart from providing infrastructures) ?

For any research center to employ a PhD student who just graduated,they will need to consider the quality of his/her work.This is assessed as follows:

1-The work must meet the criterion of originality by, for instance, discovering new knowledge, or connecting previously unrelated facts, or developing a new theory, or revising established views.

2-Employers should also base their judgment on what may reasonably be expected of an able and diligent research student after completing the appropriate period of research required for the degree.

3-Employers may consider the relevance of the PhD thesis to the job and more importantly,how suitable is the candidate to the job. They will need to consider the capability of the candidate to use the experience and knowledge gained from his PhD and adapt himself to new challenges and more difficult problems.

4-Employers will certainly look into the no.of publications and in which journal published. However, this will not be the only factor in deciding whether the candidate is suitable for the job or not. Many PhD students have not made any publications and the employer may wish to satisfy themselves that the thesis contains material worthy of publication.This is where the interview and references come in.

5-Employer will consider communication skills,ability to work in a team,leadership qualities,and ability to adapt quickly to new technologies.

6-Employers may consider the university awarded the PhD .

7-The interview and the references have the most impact on the employers decision.

If I was an employer, the above will be how I assess a candidate. The university that the candidate graduated from and the no. of publications definitely help but will not be the the only factors.

Unfortunately the name and fame of an institute has more impact on one's career than the quality of his/her thesis and other publication. I have seen many bad theses and publications from people from reputable institutes. Sad but true.

I was expecting these kind of answers.

No comments

I do agree, it is the quality of the work and the interest of the institute. Everywhere, we find the good and bad quality in both institutes since there is no standardizations for the evaluation.

Of course reputation of the institution helps, if the reputation lies in demmanding quality. But if I were in the commitee, I would see if there was a real contribution from the author, and if he is indeed able to defend what he is bringing to debate.

A high end university PhD can be poor, a low end university PhD can be groundbreaking great, but that's not the point. The average level should be much higher at the top end university because:

1. Better access to information (article databases, wider libraries, statistic data)

2. Better selection base, as students strive for best universities

3. Better tutors, as they are able to recruit easy any other university staff they consider to be able to compete them;

4. Better infrastructure; labs, offices, etc.

5. Better motivation of PhD students, as either they depend on scholarships, are paid from grants, or they have a more competitive environment;

In terms of results, measured by today's standards, high end PhD have:

1. A bigger chance to publish in best journals, as those university either own or control their scientific committee

2. A better chance of being cited, as they work in collectives having same or near research goals, and other universities researchers are carefully monitoring those research centers results also, they may follow up.

3. A better chance to obtain research grants, as top end university are both attractive for research funds, and, they control scientific committees awarding the grants.

Would such a PhD be usable in developing countries? Probably not, as most universities cannot provide the income level, research infrastructure and environment a top university PhD owner would require.

In terms of employment in top universities and research centers, i guess it depends on the research goals, required skills and networking. I guess an unknown researcher from an unknown university has slim chances to start with, unless he has something very special to bring with him. I said "i guess" because i really don't know.

I know a physics PhD from my country working for NASA, never seen her as brilliant, at least compared to others i know, but very ambitious and really hardworking. So i guess, as it worked for her, being ambitious, working hard, and relentlessly follow the goal of working there will eventually pay off.

Brilliant people may also sit in a obscure flat in a obscure town and avoid big universities, since big universities push people to publish to much, to soon, and pressure may impede some people ability to perform, or feel happy. Besides they own the research results obtained there, and some researchers do not want that.

There are two things to be consider

1) a person doing from reputed institute will get advantage because the name of that institute will have its own effect in the mind of committee members..... because its a human nature for an example if u buy any clothes from a big shopping mall rather than from an ordinary shop and when others ask you from where u have bought then if you tell the name of tht mall then there is an expression like " wow reaallyyy its sooo cool" though the quality of clothes or even some time the brands of the clothes remain the same.....

2)The work....... if you have a talent and if you have decided to do sum great job then you dnt have to worry about the name under whom you are working since you should have to have one aim thts you have to achieve your target.....

In my opinion the thesis will carry the same value since whether you do in some ordinary university or from big institute but taking care that your work should have to be of higher stander since a person should have to be judge from his talent not from his place of birth...........

Sometimes, it is the standardizations and the quality of the well known university as well as the history make the graduated students have more points and secure as you have a supervioser with good experience and well known in the field

Quality of PhD work does depend only on the caliber of the student, but also on the Guide's sincere efforts to give directions to the fellow who is beginner. A good teacher always produce a scholar, and a poor guide produce only a fellow with PhD degree.

I do agree on almost on all counts with Bradut. However, I find Magesh quite right. Magesh, it is true that in our country we do not have all those facilities which are available in top-end university. But, to presume we lack good faculty and unmotivated and less hard working students, in spite of some grains of truth, is a tall claim.

Let me disclose, that I have been several times in selection committees, apart from our usual push-pull practices, when it comes to evaluate candidate and his/her work, it is the originality of work and defence by the candidate, because experts there are no fool and very often pin-pointedly ask questions on the weak aspects of a candidate,s work. Since, candidates coming from low-end universities, brilliant in their own right, very often to fail to defend because their interaction and training in this respect is usually lacking. On the other hand, students from high-end universities are very vocal and very often succeed in confusing selection committee. If selection is carried out only on the basis of the work and defence of the candidate, it is a candidate from a high-end university with a high degree of exposure is selected, which is the case in most cases. Brilliance needs expression.

I will make it as simple as possible, it is like when you submitt a paper for publication in international journal high or low impact factor, then when you applay for something they will look for the quality of journal.

An admission committee has its own standards, based on preliminary publications of the candidate and previous position in teaching work, but in my experience, first of all is the clear exposition of motives, methods, results and discussion, with a well known guide from the Director and a previous personal knowledgement of one or more members of the comittee with the group of research. The problem was clearly exposed by many members of RG. This is only another point of wiew, which adds an advice about the personal presentation of the candidate Regina Wikinski

An admission committee has its own standards, based on preliminary publications of the candidate and previous position in teaching work, but in my experience, first of all is the clear exposition of motives, methods, results and discussion, with a well known guide from the Director and a previous personal knowledgement of one or more members of the committee with the group of research. The problem was clearly exposed by many members of RG. This is only another point of wiew, which adds an advice about the personal presentation of the candidate Regina Wikinski

The first answer contains a typographic mistake. Read the second.

In some meaning, Ph.D. degree is the driver's license. It would be essential to drive the scientific world, but it would be minimum requirement to drive in the scientific field. It would be driver's license, it means that it would be not enough for the survival.

After you got the degree, next challenge would be to get the academic position. After you got the position, to get the research grant would be essential for the survival of your group. It is more difficult. Most of the young scientists, get retire from this competition, and move to the company, which is more stable, but more slave work position. My suggestion is the driver's license would be the driver's license. It would be nothing more than that. There are multiple difficulties to overcome in the carrier of your future, and most important thing is to have the strong driving force to overcome each barriers, to make your dream to the real. If your final goal is the stable life and smiling face of your spouse, the company's position would be the best one. However, if you wish to continue the challenge to the unknown would, the academic would be the best place, even though your life is very unstable Please ask the question to yourself, and decide which way to go. Good luck.

Dear Tomokazu Fukuda, You have explained the fate of the PhD holders in the most simpler language. I liked it very much! Whatever you said is true and correct, I agree.

I think the publication is one of the best way to judge the thesis. The write up of thesis is of approximately no sense. You can not judge student on the basis of write up, but you can judge on the basis of impact factored (as a first author)publication during the PhD studies.

I'm the vice chair of the academic appointment committee at the Faculty of Natural Sciences of my university. In evaluating candidates for professorships and associate professorship positions, I can state that very little attention is paid to the PhD thesis (it's not requested to be included in the application and I've never seen an applicant do so), and even less attention is paid to where the candidate took his/her PhD.

The evaluation is basically ALL about the postdoctorial track record of publishing, obtaining research grants and teaching experience.

However, for the first step in actually creating a postdoctoral track record, usually through a series of postdoc positions, both the thesis content and place of education will play a role - e.g. for obtaining the first postdoctoral grant!

I'm aware that this is perhaps only true for part of the Western world where you really have to have a fairly extensive postdoctoral track record to have a chance of getting a permanent academic position. In other parts of the world, a PhD degree is perhaps enough to open doors to academic positions, and then I can understand that the quality of the PhD thesis and the reputation of the university where the thesis was obtained from plays a bigger role.

Dear Bjorn,

In some countries postdoctoral research grants as well as any research grants are scarce and nearly impossible to obtain, unless for highly experienced and well connected researchers already having a university position. So, if they rely on such grants to select professors, they end up having no candidates.

Dear Bardut,

Yes, I certainly realize that this is the case in many countries, and therefore I added comments on this in my answer. In a country like Sweden, we can of course see the same thing going back in time. Perhaps, 30-40 years ago, not that many would get a PhD and of those only a few would go abroad for a postdoc. Therefore, a PhD was enough to land a good job, in industry or academia. With time, more and more people are getting PhDs, so this is usually not enough anymore to be competitive for academic positions. I'm sure we see this trend in most all countries, where increased level of education (which is good!!) is also leading to an increased competition at any given educational level, even if all countries haven't reached the same level of public education.

I fully Agree with Björn, the importance is not where you did your thesis (or the actual thesis itself), but rather what did you do.

If you do your thesis in a small lab where the only publications in the last four years are the ones you present for your thesis, it is very different that if you have one high impact paper on a lab that publishes 10 high impact papers per year....

José garcía: I ask were is the difference between the first and the second situation. Sometimes, you can see unexpected talent, high originality, a novel point of view of the "same" facts showing by a young postgraduate student. The history of science is enriched with more than one paper published in an low impact journal. Don´t lose such great expectations and remember the history of insulin.

Dear Regina,

my message was cut, sorry I think that the guy on a small lab where the only publications from the lab were his publications has more merit that the guy in the big lab with one high impact paper.... (sorry it was cut)

I will put up my views here on the basis of situations prevailing in India and that also specially in Pharma field.

The main thing is the quality of work I think. The institute is a bigger factor always and will remain the same. What is the guarantee that the PhD's from a low end university are capable when they are allowed to stand along with PhD's from high end universities. What if they have not done the phD on a regular basis. What if they have made some publications in some XYZ journals with no impact factors. Even if the PhD's from a high end university get more recognition, they are supposed to undertake research work on a regular basis and they do also. They also get their work published in good journals with impact factors. So why if they get recognition and fame, the others who have not taken pains for their PhD's make unnecessary discussions. I think the final line for the discussion should be " Big will always have their name and fame because they have invested years to earn it"

Dear Alok,

I believe that in most cases (in some countries MD are exceptions, but they get an MC degree an not a PhD), everybody making a PhD invests several years to earn it 3-4 is the normal in Europe, 6 is the mean in some US universities, and presumably "working hard". I presume that most of us would agree that making a PhD is a full time job for several years. You might get lucky and your hypothesis led you to great results an allow you to publish good papers, or you might get unluky and you hypothesis might turn out to be wrong and get negative results..... For this reason, personally I tend to give two different projects to PhD-students. If the guy seems to be smart one can be very ambitous and if it works will be able to get a high reward, an another one more safer, in case the first one turns out not to work as expected, etc. In this way he/she will have at least some publications This is my personal point of view and many might disagree, but for me it works in general.

I am a U.S. academic who has hired numerous postdoctoral fellows and junior faculty over the years. I've been blessed with many high-quality colleagues from many different types of PhD institutions. In my opinion, the single best indicator of future success in academia is a mix of ≥1 quality paper in a good, not necessarily great, journal plus 1-2 other publications, such as a review or methods paper, from the applicant's PhD research. As others have said here, several papers from an otherwise less-productive lab also is a great sign. The common theme is evidence that the candidate has a drive to generate results and to publish. If the results are not significant enough to get into the highest caliber journal, that may be due to the mentor's direction, the lack of state-of-the-art equipment, or just bad luck. If you're a PI at a high-end university and considering someone for their first postdoc position, you assume that you can supply better direction and better equipment, and maybe you have a high-probability project. However, the drive to produce results has to come from within the candidate. Provide evidence of that, and someone at a high-end university will give you a chance to show what you can do as a postdoc in a top environment.

I will consider the originality and recent research papers

I agree with Dr Luna, the publications resulting from the PhD carry more weight than where the research was carried out. I have examined PhD theses from a range of Institutions including the top 3 UK universities. I can say that the quality of the work is not always proportional to the prestige of the Institution. Students can be given bad projects regardless of their location. At the start of a PhD it may be difficult for a student to argue against their supervisor. So I test the students to see whether they have the wit to realise the limitations of their projects, and the drive to overcome them. These qualities can be readily assessed in a face to face interview, but will not always be evident on a CV.

Hi Elizabeth and colleages: all of us agree with the following points: Face to face interview with members of the academic committee , original previous work in the Doctoral Thesis in the field, the intention to work several years on a good project with a good and dedicated new mentor, capacity to change the first plan when the results are no longer interesting at present times , modern equipment and easy access to it, a few papers published on topics as outcomes of the thesis work, including a methodological review . The question is : differences between a post-doctoral student coming from a recgnized group from a high end University and other who made his/her thesis in a low end University, but showing talent, capable to integrate a good team. As a past and actual member of a few academic committes, and past Dean of a first line School of Pharmacy and Biochemistry in Argentina, I would take the challenge.

For my Ph.D students, what I always told them upfront was that the oral defense was a very important milestone. A scientist in training has to understand the concepts, be able to defend his/her hypotheses and experimental design. Any compromise at this early stage is a major disservice to the student and may lead to loss of self confidence later on when he/she faces fierce competition. Publications should be secondary. I also do not believe you can finish a Ph.D in 1.5-2 years and be successful later on. The training is a maturation process that should last at least 3-4 years.

The question is about the reputation of the institute and the acceptability of the work. I previously said and will again say that without proper exposure to research environment a PhD is never complete. Unlike some of the institutes where the candidate is only registered and does not work there, such PhD's are only getting degree, whether it is a low end or high end institute. So work hard and get the thing. The reputation of the institute will automatically pay for your hard work.

Well; here is a brief answer in three questions.

1) How well does it meet its objectives?

2) Does it advance previous knowledge on the topic of research? Does it make a difference to theory? Does it add to contextual knowledge?

3) Does it make a difference for academics and practitioners?

Publication for Ph.D. is fine. However, due to the too much evaluation for the impact factor, it is getting close to the game. To get the position and degree, some of the young scientists are getting too creative ( I do not intentionally mention what it means). Furthermore, their technique is getting more complicated, resulting in the difficulty to see what is the true data. Unfortunately, some of the young scientists publishes the high impact journals, and move to the next target, and then they say, "Hit and run". Due to the frequent citation in the introduction of the manuscript, that manuscript would receive high citation frequency and the committee member does not know how that manuscript has a significance. I think the establishment of the solid evaluation system is most important for the healthy growth of the science. Sorry, it becomes little bit out of scope of the discussion.

Contribution to growth of knowledge, application and obviously hit factor

Hi¡¡¡ This question shows how much the highly competition in our field deserve so much interventions and personal motivation. There are many factors that influence the expectations of a recent Ph D postgraduate student. As a member of a research institute, I am waiting a short text as a summary and statement by an editor of RG .¿Do you think that this question is out of RG scope?

Prof. Regina Wikinski Do it in a healthy way. nobody can stop your inspiration

I keep wondering why the entire scientific community has decided to spend such large volumes of public money for publishing in a few journals with supposedly "high impact" and enrich the coffers of their publishers. The way "impact" is measured is a glaring example of misuse of statistics and is unscientific (read Prof. Fukuda's comment) but very surprisingly is tolerated by the entire scientific community globally. Anyone has any clue regarding why this is so?

every one's anguish is to get some thing out of it quickly in their endeavours. These are days counted on the publications for appointment/promotion/getting guideship/projects. So it is bound to occur,They are aware of what all implied or you(Arnab Laha ) have explicitly put it

As Ananthapadmanabhan tell us, social environment takes off time to think about a new project, to try preliminaries results, to read it again, to discuss with laboratory members and to get grants to do the work.. This is the real world, but the enrichment of science and technology depends most on other factors . Is sad to depend on unknown criteria or misused statistics,(read Arnaba conribution)

A think a good thesis is one that can upgrade the frontiers of knowledge. Consequently, issues about meeting objectives, good publicatiions, infrastructures, quality or reputation of University, etc. are important but they depend on how the frontier of knowledge has been pushed.

I definitely agree with Dr. Roger in this respect. The scientific community comes to know about the upgraded knowledge only by means of quality publications and the quality of the work. So the focus during the evaluation of the thesis should be on the quality of work and the knowledge added to the existing knowledge in the field. If the thesis fails to contribute significantly to the field of work or if it is a run-of-a-mill / average work, then sufficient time should be given to the worker to enhance the quality of his thesis in terms of novelty as well as knowledge whether it is from a reputed high end university or a low end institute. So ultimately as an evaluator, you should have following points in mind:

a. The quality of work

b, the novelty of work

c. addition to the existing knowledge in the field

d. publications , if any

e. basis of selection of topic (very imp). Mere selection and repetition of previously performed work should have adequate justifications for the same.

First of all, you should ask yourself why you are doing Ph.D., is it only to earn a high degree or to be a scientist/researcher. Second, each university has own conditions and requirements. Therefore, my own experince is that if the work can be published in at least three separate articles in international journals with good standards. This can be enough (Ph.D., is usually doing something new and good)

To Arnab Laha: Why is it tolerated? One must go outside the economics profession to understand that clearly. Matt Taibbi has been reporting on the hand-in-glove relations between schools of economics and financial firms for years now. He has been reporting on the influence peddling and de facto bribery that the finance sector has used to buy the USA's congress and the president. The criminal finance sector has bought protection against being prosecuted for massive felonies. This president has exerted himself mightily to see to it that no investigation seriously starts. He developed an agreement with the states to coerce them into stopping prosecution efforts by state attorney's general. That $25 billion package (de facto bribe) to states when the states were starving for cash worked. That is how the USA introduced banana republic law to protect the wealthiest criminals with the power of the highest offices while holding ordinary people to the letter of the law.

It is not so much that it is tolerated as that going to the "right school" and pleasing the right professor(s) can set a person up to become fabulously wealthy. Those schools that populate the top of financial firms in New York and London then reap the rewards back in the form of support from their alumni, and the circle is complete.

That is why publishing in a top economics journal today has absolutely nothing to do with being correct. That fact is no more clearly shown than in the rampant criminality of the finance sector today, particularly in the USA. That is why we see the zombie ideas of disproven economics continuing to be taught. That is why we see rubbish ideas proven false blithely written in the top journals. That is why we see people like Steve Keen unable to publish in the high impact journals. It is because the rubbish spewed out by those at the top schools justifies policies that keep the financial criminals in power, despite the fact that they are sending the globe down the road to war by destabilizing the financial sector.

In the long-term this situation may correct itself. I certainly hope so. Things like this have happened in other fields. For instance, Mandelbrot was unable to publish in the top journals of mathematics. His seminal work was, therefore, published in what were then minor journals. Mandelbrot was still bitter about it when I had lunch with him in 2004. But those lesser journals did get a bump as a result.

good course work followed by thesis and it has to be objectively evaluated.. Infact thesis should not be sent to the referee's advice. rather university should maintain the Referees bank and based on the subject it should be sent to referee. one of the referee should come for VIVA. now a days large fees from the student is collected. so you can pay properly referee also. It is important that guide should also receive an honourorium

The main thing is the quality of work done and its importance. The procedure of evaluation has to be different from one institution to the other. Some have panels of experts and others send it individually to subject experts. More important is the evaluation and the depth of evaluation. What if the evaluator of your thesis knows you or your mentor and he just clears your thesis without any special doubts. SO the selection of experts for the thesis should be very secret and in my opinion it should also not be known to the guide or the student. Let the experts know what is in the thesis and evaluate it. AND they should also be given the thesis in such a way that they also don't know the names of the student and the guide.

Then quality evaluation will take place. People will give clear views about the work done and no chances of any biased opinions will exist in the whole procedure. Whether course work is done or not is not a matter because this practice has started recently and PhD's before, lets say, 5 yrs were not having course work in their curriculum. So let it remain to the newer ones with newer rules and regulations. Important is the practical work undertaken by the student and the research findings. What we need is a good evaluation irrespective of the face of the thesis.

In Russia as example, this degree is "candidate for scientists" that mean that applicant for that degree have experience and demonstrates knowledge and scill for executing scientific works. In my opinion this is right!

if the public viva is carried out effectively, commented and if the candidates fail to justify and prove their abilities, the expert should give the opinion on appearing once again for the VIVA. this treatment will make them to have enough merits and PhD will be meaningful

In my country, Bulgaria, the Ph.D. were for long time after defence in academic commitee(board, devoted to this scientific area) approved by National commision at Boarg of ministers. In this way the Ph.D degrees were more or less equal level.

From some time this tradition were broken and I suppose that this will decrease level(or do bigger spread) between quality of Ph.D works. What about this change?

Dr Nahata rightly pointed out the criteria for judging PhD projects;

a. quality and novelty of work

b. contribution to existing knowledge.

Although PhD programmes are designed to enable the researcher acquire new skills and knowledge, there must be a demonstration of high quality and novelty. It must focus on new ways of doing things and or inquiries into the unknown. Publications could be subjective, for reasons already mentioned. Researchers working in high end universities are likely to publish in high impact factor journals even if the ideas are not novel. Big names attract big journals.

For most developing countries, it is difficult to produce good PhD work for lack of infrastructure and facilities. They simply do not have the tools to probe into the unknown. Although a student may be talented, his or her PhD work may be poor due these environmental factors. Therefore evaluating PhD theses could be difficult in certain settings where the standards are already lowered by these extraneous factors.

we should not think about some prestigious university. make every university be the best. for which let us devise the best standards . All the competent persons sit together formulate and send it to HRD and let them think and have it uniform through out this country

Interesting result of this discussion is that in most developing countries Ph.D degree is not so prestigious. But why they are after that employable in developed country universities ?

The thesis from any university must place before the referee

The presentation of research problem must be precise and well defined

The present status of knowledge till date

The method of investigation with reference and addition/modificatioin be highlighted

The investigation must prove that the work is a NEW contribution to the science

The volume of results/data should be adequate for consideration of the award.

It is the quality of publication of the work rather than the number of publications should the matter for consideration

The Ph.D Thesis is always considered as a monographic publication.

The different points of view about the value of a Doctoral Thesis appears as a problem, when the huge number of responses are compared. Among them we find a Thesis on new aspects of a given topic with great interest, deserving several years of work in a high tech laboratory, under the supervision of a wellknown mentor This kind of work , very well described by many members of RG, improves the formation of an independent young researcher. On the other hand, Matteo says that a PhD Thesis is a monographic publication. I think that each type of work have its own value, but scientific amount of knowledge increases pari pasu with the increment of interconnection and published papers as an outcome of well done Thesis , among other type of contributions As Humberto Eco says , some of the conditions of a PhD Thesis is the profound interest on the topic , and the selection of a good mentor.

I advise everyone to make his/her PhD dissertation available on internet. This way people can read it and it gets the fair attention and credit it deserves

I agree with Babak, with one condition: the Thesis must be evaluated by a jury before it is edited in Internet. There are editorial groups dedicated to edit such type of conributions- One of them edited my own work and it can be found as a first contribution in my profile..

yes indeed. A new rule at our university is that a dissertation should be edited first by a professional editor before it goes to the committee for approval. The end product is then (similar) to an ordinary refereed book.

Usually, commitees are nominated by personal relashionships of supervisor or by other ways of doing it.

However, doesn't matter if the dissertation or the PhD Thesis come from a reputable institute or from a University with impact on academic environment.

If we are criterious doing the evaluation of a PhD Thesis, many of those are trash, not only due to the supervisor responsability, but also, by lack of work and research of the candidate.

Of course, I'm not generalizing this initial thought.

There are several points I usually analyse during the preparation for argumenting with the candidate, during his public presentation. So, if you allowed me, I'm going to describe thos parameters:

1 - The pertinence of rtesearch.

a. It is inovation, new knowledge, or only a single state of the art on the field of study?

b. What are the main objective of the research? Is it relevant for Knowledge?

c. If both of the upper questions are affirmative, than let's do the next step, wich is the conclusion. Is it a conclusion with a personal contribution for science and knowledge, or only a colection of thoughts based on what was written during the rest of the thesis, without personal criticism?

What I expect from a PhD thesis, and from the candidate, it doesn't matter if it is PhD or Master degree.

First of all: It is well written? The language used, technical terms and ortography are correct?

2. Pagination of PhD thesis are according international rules? If not, do they respect ISO standards, on subjects like, number of pages, position of numbers, structure and organization of pages, chapters and content?

3.Is the title of the Thesis correct? Let me explain: The title choosen for a PhD thesis must reveal the main subject of research, and by reading it , it should be in accordance with written content.

3. The abstract "realy" describe the content, the discussed problem of research and directions asdsumed during it?

4. The structure of the document is correct, according to the sequence of research developed to the get an answer for the initial question, or problem, posed? It have a correct development on the object of research and, not only the sequence of problem discussed, but also the criticism and the language used, are compreensible not only for expert on the subject, but for non-expert on it?

5. The thesis have tyo much citations or not? If it have to much citations along it, it is only a state of the art on that subject and should not be considered a PhD thesis. But, inspite of all the citations used, in direct or indirect forms, the candidate have questioned those references? And if so, what are the conclusions obtained? What is his personnal vision of questions posed on that? He wrote it in the end of each chapter, proving, so far, he is abble to think, develop analysis and criticism on those thoughts? if so, than let's go on...

6. Finally, the conclusion. Did the candidate make the right conclusions about subject of research? What inovations he presents? Based on what? Those are based on the rest of the document (PhD thesis) or simple analisys and proposals without linkage with the rest of the document?

7. In Conclusion, do the candidate presents directions or subjects for future researtch in same field or other field of knowledge, allowyng others to conduct research at same subject but with others directions for discuss or complement lack of research in present document, for missing time, information or data access....

8. Finally, is it original? The bibliography is sufficient for that work? It is adequate? The sources consulted are referenced according the standard rules? Bibliographic fonts are credible? The structure developed along the document, have the conductive line of research and critical thinking clearly enough for anyone to understand it? The work is original, or we can tracesome levels of plagiarism, on it?

9. A last and quick lecture, will give the a global and last perception on the subject, the pertinence of the study and oportunity of it's fullfilment.

Each of those parameters listed above are anotated and classified on a scale from zero to five and, after that, the classification I use to do is result of the classification given to each parameter considered, multiplied by a factor according to the relevance of each parameter, and the average of final somatory, converted for a scale from 0 to 20. Obviously It's considered only positive classification, and that will be influenced by candiates presentation and it's public defense.

Some universities only give as "APPROVED BY UNANIMITY" or "APPROVED BY A MAJORITY", while others give an efective classification between 10 and 20.

Inspite of it, let me tell that some public discussions of PhD research works, are cautionly conducted, due to lack of knowledge of the candidate, even with an original work.

It's also a necessity to think that, in several thesis, not only the candidate don't know all the subject of research, but it's supervisor don't have the obligation to know the field of research developed by it's student. It's main function is to conduct the candidate on his research and advise him when he needs or the supervisor think that's needed.

I don't know if I made myself clear about my understanding of the subject, but be my guest to pose any question you want me to answer.

Only for reference, till now, i've supervised, argued, participate in comitees as co-supervisor or president of juri, almost 120Master degree and PhD dissertations.

I'd like to respond to Regina and Babak about on web-based publication of PhD theses, and argue against the professional editing of thesis text. To do so, let me explain how it works here. In Gothenburg, Sweden. First of all, the tradition is that the PhD thesis is printed in about 200 copies and made public 21 days before the thesis defense (thus, any post-defense editing is rather meaningless). Prior to this, the candidate has usually taking pains to get advise on contents, lay-out etc from his supervisor, other members of the research group, and a critical review by the internal examiner (I'm an internal examiner for several students in my field). Through this process, the candidate tries to make his/her thesis as strong scientifically as possibly, but also a book with nice and acceptable lay-out.

However, the final version remains the work of the PhD candidate. The same day it comes from the printer's and a copy is nailed to the wall of the university (and thus made public in a tradition stemming from Martin Luther), it is also, since a few years back, made public on the web - the link is https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/10556 where currently, over 8500 PhD theses can be browsed and uploaded.

To me it is essential that the thesis remains as it is when the PhD candidate decides, this is the work I want to defend. It should not be altered by any professional editors as suggested, as the thesis then becomes useless in evaluation the work of the candidate (e.g. for someboby who wants to consider the candidate for a postdoc).

Thus, even if the content of the thesis is criticized during the defense, the thesis text is not altered - and the fundamental reason for this, this is a thesis, not a peer-reviewed publication, it is the text which the candidate defended, nothing more, nothing less and it may contain flaws, which is the nature of a thesis.

It reflects what quality of a thesis the candidate feels is acceptable. Often, candidates decide to publish reviews based on their thesis text, and then, they're of course, able to alter and edit the text, get peer-review etc, but the thesis document remains as a valuable assessment point for any future evaluations of the candidate.

To Björn Thrandur Björnsson

Hi. I totally agree with your opinion, however, in Portugal, the Candidate is free to publish his own thesis like any book and, after defense remains the obligation to send one copy of it for National Public Library, and one remains at the library of the university where he argued.

What I'v tried to tell, in my last answer, was the method I use to read and classify a thesis that was not supervised by me. But that's only my point o view and my way of try to do an accurate evaluation establishing parameters that, make the process of evaluation of diferent thesis, diferent subjects will have the same treatment, regardless scientific content of it.

Best Regards

As I have previously mentioned, it is the quality of the thesis (written in correct way and the experiments were done in a professional way as well as the results are of high quality and not been published before and could be published in international specialized journal, and the applicant can solve the problems in a scientific and research mind way.

Generally the name and fame of universities should be kept aside and credit should be given to the quality of work they have performed, sometimes some low grade universities also end up giving a better idea but they are generally not seen because of their low stature therefore the credit should be given not only to publication but also to the quality of work they produce and it should be seen that how much contribution it is actually giving to the real science, even quality of work published in a paper should be given importance over the quantity of publications. As if the work is really interesting and giving a good message to the science then it should be given more weight- age over the simple work just again re-searching all the things that has been searched before..................

Dr. Piyush Paliwal i really endorse your view. The universities can pay some compensation to guides. I have been guiding In madras university and the pathetic thing for the guide is Rs 100 paid on the day of VIVA and I don"t bother for it , but the students respect more corrupts much more and takes us for granted and demand more demand more of contrtibution and don't even accept if we offer some comments. So many guides stoop to unethical way and support mediocre thesis for gains. If the thesis is bad both teacher and taught should be taken to task

Dr. Gopalan, i agree with you that universities should pay some attractive compensation to guides but i would like to highlight that it is the later part of the thesis i.e. when thesis is ready and send for reviews, to get some good comments that time really help improve the thesis but it cann't change it overall. My idea of genuine and productive research starts from the day one when a student has been taken for PhD. The more responsibility for genuine and productive research should undoubtedly be taken by the mentor and yes student should also contribute to it by their ideas while they learn during the course of their doctorate. The mentors should plan a project in a more defined way that end up really contributing to the science in a great way. You must have seen several mentors placed at good positions in universities or even in academic institutes but they really don't have the novel idea but just keep rotating their research in some way or the other......... I am neither against any mentor or student but actually what science really need is the novelty and while in PhD the more responsibility should be taken up by mentor and last but not the least students should also have a productive role to play in terms of their ideas while they learn as they are also the future scientists...........................

students should publicly demonstrate their abilities at the time of the course work,during the research and viva. At each stage , the evaluation by the committee should appear visible to teacher and taught. It should be a cumulative addition and finally the student should cross 60% to get Ph D awarded

There are some questions put in Prof. Paulo Silva's answer that I would like to bring again: the problem of too much citations in a PhD thesis is something that could be explained - not justified - by candidates' fear of being accused of bringing an unscientifical invention. It is very common in social sciences, specially in Jurisprudence, this one because of its very conservative atmosphere (Law is not made to revolutions, but by revolutions, and when it comes, it is to bring stability). But in the middle of citations, if the candidate is able to bring something could be seen, although not treated specifically, personal contribution, innovation, is present.

I would consider:

Selection of topic or problem for research and its local, regional or global relevance or implication

Framing the hypothesis or visualization of concept

Introducing the subject, defining strengths,scope, weaknesses and gaps.

Outlining crisp and clear cut objectives

To the point, but exhaustive and up-to-date review of previous work done, presented in easy to comprehend and plausible fashion

Use of appropriate models, materials and methods/protocols employing latest techniques in well controlled and systematically executed experiments or tests

Repeatability, reliability and validity of results

Statistical methods and analysis of results

Threadbare discussion of results in the light of pre-existing and contemporary literature by quoting known facts and findings, besides speculating the unknown

Summarizing results, concluding remarks and a word for future prospects

Quality of graphs, figures, tables, illustrations, diagrams and flow-charts etc.

General organization and style of presentation

Terse and telling use of language with correct use of grammer and punctuation

Finally overall appeal or impression

I hope all these parameters not only distinguish a good and not so good thesis, but also reflect the worth of the candidate, guide and the institute in general

all should pass a paper in values and system. Then writing and spoken language training if required( based on evaluation), and research methodology.I I Sem. in sem the field of study based papers plus finalization of the area of the research topic... research scholar seminar and expert suggestions with guide finalization of the research topic. This will be with in a year. Then the research scholar can have 2 more years to complete PH D . extension can be given with consultation with thesis monitoring committee with guide. like question bank we can have referee names with specialization and committee should also verify their availability for evaluation and then the thesis can be sent maximum evaluation time should be 3 months

Public viva with one of the evaluator. if successful in all this then awrd of the degree in the next convocation

Certainly the Ph.D. from premium universities across the world get advantage. However, i have come across the Ph.D. from non recognized institutions and they are making great  impact being a extra ordinary researchers. Premium institute researches get better access and better guidance but without novelty and without great publications no one sustain for longer period of time.