Overall, the traditional system of thesis evaluation is same across the seas. Though, a petition should be registered to the Univ. Administration for making the process more better in transfering of judgement decission. Adding more peer reviewers may give more perfection in evaluation process, the thesis citation directory may be helpful.

As you point out, the focus is properly on the process of evaluation through which degrees are awarded. It is a peer review or judicial process.

The steps in that process (sequence of milestones, requirements for progress, dispute resolution method, etc.) should be very clear. It should not be vague. I expect that the process is clear for most faculties at established universities.

As in judicial processes more generally, there remain doubts about the outcome, even when the process is very clear.

Our subjective doubt about the quality of the PhD degree ultimately depends on the reputation of the university or faculty. The process and evaluators -- and hence the degrees -- garner more trust at reputable schools.

It would be wrong to suppose that all aptitudes can be evaluated by unbiased, objective, quantitative scores or ranking. This is why formal recognition of aptitude and suitability of all kinds (degrees, certifications, professional license to practice, etc.) generally entail a significant component of expert judgement whose fallibility can be mitigated but not eliminated.

I would add that any radically new and progressive thesis is likely to face a rough ride through the thesis evaluation process. It could hardly be otherwise. A split decision could be a badge of thesis merit. A unanimous decision could be the rubber stamp of conformity.

The evaluation process should therefore make allowances for theses that may be distasteful to the evaluators, provided that the defense against the evaluators' points of criticism is strong. Additional evaluators may be needed to assess the strength of that defense, as generally provided under the terms laid out in the evaluation process.

Dear Ronald Kessel ,

Most of your views are similar with that of mine.

However, would you be kind enough to comment on this instant case.

Examiners have many foibles as humans. If the thesis has some originality to it, this deepens the problems the student faces. But the process is human judgment which is always fallible.

Overall, the traditional system of thesis evaluation is same across the seas. Though, a petition should be registered to the Univ. Administration for making the process more better in transfering of judgement decission. Adding more peer reviewers may give more perfection in evaluation process, the thesis citation directory may be helpful.

To some extent the existing process is good but we should keep minimum 5 reviewers with at least two from another country, and the reviewers must be those whose literate being cited by the student

Subjective decision is a known problem for almost all examination process. PhD. evaluation is more vulnerable because the thesis contains non-text book materials that are the outcome of the student's work. In case of non recommendation, I think the student should get a chance to defend his/her case before the final rejection of the thesis. This should be done in front of a panel of experts in the relevant subject.

The system must be open and more rigorous in PhD evaluations. In my institution, five examiners who are exponents in the field of research evaluates the thesis. After submitting their reports, the PhD candidate is called for a viva voce to defend the work in a public academic forum of experts in the field. They, together with the examiners, quiz the candidate and determine the appropriateness to award the degree in the presence of the Dean of graduate school. This has greatly improved the rigor in the PhD evaluation.

@ Ronald Kessel , Your views / opinions, as I have understood, are very much realistic.

Your following suggestion

" The evaluation process should therefore make allowances for theses that may be distasteful to the evaluators, provided that the defense against the evaluators' points of criticism is strong. Additional evaluators may be needed to assess the strength of that defense, as generally provided under the terms laid out in the evaluation process. "

can be a way of reducing the subjectivity in thesis evaluation.

@ Dickson Adom ,

I do agree with your view that the system must be open and more rigorous in PhD evaluations.

I have been convinced that the evaluation process in your institution is better than that of my university.

@ Dennis Mazur ,

I think that your comment is that which has been happening in usual practice.

@ Jahangir Khan ,

Your suggestion can make the thesis evaluation process a reformed one.

@ Drlatief Ahmed,

I agree with you.

However, I am of the view that the number of reviewers should be more than five. It should be as more as possible.

@ Arup Kumar Bandyopadhyay ,

You have mentioned usually practice of subjectivity in thesis evaluation. However, as I think, should not be happened.

Your suggestion

" The student should get a chance to defend his/her case before the final rejection of the thesis. This should be done in front of a panel of experts in the relevant subject. "

, as I understand, can be a way of reducing the subjectivity in thesis evaluation.

Can anybody suggest if it is necessary to reform the evaluation process, currently existing in the universities, of Ph.D. thesis. If it is so, then what should be the reformed process?

Its depends only the examiner..Guide should not try and not give the name of subject experts to the university.. Repeated examiners should not come again and again to the same Guide ...and should not give opportunities to sharing examiners ..i mean Guide A go for student of Guide B and vise versa

It is observed that what should not be happened, as mentioned by G. Kumar, usually happens in practice.

This is one reason for which I have raised such a question.

Dear Dhritikesh Chakrabarty, Your point is absolutely correct sir ...Moreover, some of the great personality having very good journals like Elsevier, but in which their friends and their own papers only published.. Its very sad to good young researchers.. in some cases they demand to add their name as one of the author to published... It should be stopped.. Then only original papers should come ..should be changed.. Tq sir

Examiners of PhDs are human beings and sometimes it can be subjective. However, it is a thorough process with limited errors.

Dhritikesh Chakrabarty Anup Kumar Bandyopadhyay Drlatief Ahmad G. Kumar

Joab O. Odhiambo, Subjectivity is a serious one that provides injustice to everybody under examination.

I am completely against subjectivity.

Some examiners take it as a war of between them and the supervisors. Its majorly subjective, objectivity is quite minimal