PhD Thesis

According to the University's guidelines for doctoral education the doctoral dissertation is the main part of the doctoral degree. In addition to the doctoral dissertation the doctoral degree includes 30 or 40 credits of studies.

According to the University's guidelines the doctoral education will be organised so that the doctoral degree can be completed in three to four years of full-time study.

Art­icle-based dis­ser­ta­tions

 Article-based theses must consist of scholarly publications on the same research theme and of a summarizing report compiled by the doctoral candidate. The report must present the research background, objectives, methods, material, results, discussion, and conclusions. The report must be a balanced work based on both the articles included in the thesis and relevant research literature. At the Faculty of Science, it is recommended that the summarizing report is approximately 50 pages in length (excluding the reference list, table of contents etc.). Discipline specific norms concerning the length of the summarizing report can also be considered.

• The number of articles required depends on a) their scope, b) their academic quality and significance, c) their publishing forum, and d) the author’s independent contribution.
• It is recommended that an article-based thesis at the Faculty of Science: includes three articles; the majority should be published or accepted for publication; previously unpublished manuscripts that are undergoing academic peer review, or are ready to be submitted for review, can also be included, but they should not form the majority. Discipline specific publishing practices in Mathematics and Statistics can be considered.
• In well-reasoned cases, a thesis can contain two published articles without inclusion of further work. In these instances, the articles must be particularly outstanding / substantive within your discipline, and you (the doctoral researcher) should be the first or corresponding author of the included articles (unless you work in a discipline where author-order does not reflect contributions). When submitted to the Faculty Council, such theses must be accompanied by letters of support from: (i) the coordinating academic, and (ii) the director of the relevant doctoral programme. The letters must outline why the thesis is particularly outstanding / substantive, and comment on the scientific maturity and independence of the candidate.
• Article-based theses may include co-authored publications. You should normally be the first or corresponding author  of at least two articles in your thesis (unless you work in a discipline where author-order does not reflect contributions); one of these must be published or accepted for publication. You must have made a substantive, independent contribution to all articles included in your thesis. A co-authored publication may be used in several theses by different authors.
• You must include a report in your thesis that clearly outlines your independent contribution to each co-authored article. You are strongly recommended to have the report approved by the other authors of the articles.
   

Mono­graphs

1. Previously published texts cannot be accepted as monographs. Before completing the dissertation proper, however, the author of a monograph may publish articles on related topics and refer to these in the dissertation.
2. The maximum recommended length of a monograph is 250 pages.
3. Supervisors of monographs must take particular care to ensure the quality of the manuscript before it is submitted for preliminary examination.

Dis­ser­ta­tions other than mono­graphs or those based on art­icles

1. The faculty council shall decide, based on a proposal by the relevant doctoral programme, on the scope and structure of dissertations that take a form different than a monograph or article-based dissertation. In such cases, supervisors must take particular care to ensure the quality of the manuscript before it is submitted for preliminary examination.

Based on the procedures enabled by the decisions of the Rector and the board, the Faculty Council of the Faculty of Science has decided to transfer the decision-making authority to the Dean regarding a) the permission for public defense, b) the approval and evaluation of the dissertation (applying to all preliminary examinations starting from August 1, 2025) , in following circumstances: 

On granting permission to defend: 

• members of the grading committee must have been appointed;
• the preliminary examiners’ statements must be unanimous and unequivocally supportive of granting permission for public defense;
• the preliminary examiners’ statements must be submitted using the University’s statement template;
• the doctoral candidate must have not submitted a response to the preliminary examiners’ statements. 

On the grading of the doctoral dissertation: 

• the opponent and the grading committee must unanimously recommend approval of the dissertation;
• the grading committee’s proposal must be submitted using the University’s statement template;
• the doctoral candidate must have not submitted a response to the grading statements. 

The decision-making authority regarding permission to defend and the grading of the doctoral dissertation will always remain with the Faculty Council if the statements are unclear or contradictory, or if the doctoral candidate submits a response to them. The pre-examiners, opponent and grading committee are still appointed by the Faculty Council at Faculty council meeting.  

The Dean will exercise this authority starting August 1, 2025. For dissertations with a preliminary examination starting before August 1, 2025 (i.e., preliminary examiners appointed at the Faculty Council meeting on June 10, 2025, or earlier), the decision-making authority remains solely with the Faculty Council. For these dissertations, the coordinating academic can submit the proposal for grading committee using this e-form: (e-form).

For other dissertations, the Dean will sign decisions according to a pre-agreed and published schedule approximately every two weeks, excluding Christmas, the summer holidays, and other public holidays. The submission deadline for materials for a specific decision is two weeks before the announced signing date, like Faculty Council meetings. The Dean will not sign decisions regarding the permission for public defense and dissertation approval and grading at other times. Please find the decision schedule below. 

To enable this procedure that speeds up the review process, the grading committee (opponent, custos, and faculty representative) must be appointed at the same time as the preliminary examiners, i.e., before the preliminary examination begins. This applies to all preliminary examinations starting from August 1, 2025. https://elomake.helsinki.fi/lomakkeet/135888/lomake.html?rinnakkaislomake=proposalfexaminFBES[k]

The dissertation grading scale will become "pass/fail" from  August 1, 2025. However, dissertations whose preliminary examination was initiated at the latest at the Faculty Council meeting on June 10, 2025, will be evaluated according to the previously valid grading scale ("Pass with distinction/pass/fail"). 

Ex­am­in­a­tion pro­cess for doc­toral dis­ser­ta­tions

 When planning the schedule for graduation, it is good look at the days of meeting of the Faculty Council and the timetable of Dean's decisions.

1. Once the doctoral candidate has finished the dissertation manuscript and has completed all the required postgraduate studies, the coordinating academic and supervisor(s) will look for preliminary examiners.
2. After hearing the doctoral candidate and the supervisors, the coordinating academic will make a proposal for the appointment of the preliminary examiners and grading committee of the dissertation (e-form). The doctoral candidate may submit an objection to the selection of the preliminary examiners and the opponent.
3. The Faculty Council will appoint the preliminary examiners and grading committee.
4. The candidate submits his/her dissertation manuscript as a single pdf-file including the published and unpublished articles to kumpula-phd@helsinki.fi at the latest a week before the Faculty Council has appointed the preliminary examiners. At the same occasion, in the case of co-authored publications, the candidate submits an account of his/her contribution to them if it is not included in the manuscript.
5. The Faculty Office will provide the preliminary examiners with instructions about the process.
6. The preliminary examiners have one month to give their written statement.
7. The Faculty Office will deliver the statements forward.
8. The doctoral candidate may submit an objection to the preliminary examiners’ statements.
9. The Dean will decide on the permission to defend the dissertation in a public examination.
10. The PhD affairs will inform the Opponent of his or her appointment, provide instructions for the Opponent, and inform the doctoral candidate of the permission to defend. Also the instructions for the public defence will be sent.
11. The public examination, also called the public defence, of a doctoral dissertation.
12. The Opponent will submit a statement on the dissertation to the Faculty within one week of the public examination.
13. The dissertation grading committee will propose a grade for the dissertation and give an assessment of the doctoral candidate’s performance in defending it.
14. The doctoral candidate will submit a written notification that he or she has read the Opponent’s statement and that he or she has no objections to it or to the grade proposed by the grading committee (form). The doctoral candidate may also submit to the Faculty an objection concerning the statement and appeal against the proposed grade.  
15. The Dean will decide on the approval of the dissertation and on the grade.
16. The doctoral candidate will submit to the Faculty Office an application for a diploma.
17. Graduation ceremonies.

Please contact kumpula-phd@helsinki.fi in all matters related to PhD thesis.

The doctoral candidate is responsible for the content of the work he or she submits for preliminary examination. The supervisor(s) are responsible for ensuring that the quality of the work is such that it can be submitted for preliminary examination. The primary supervisor decide if language revision is necessary.

Ap­point­ment of pre­lim­in­ary ex­am­iners

The Faculty Council appoints at least two pre-examiners for each dissertation. The pre-examiners should be professors or have the title of docent or PhD's with other equivalent academic qualifications. The pre-examiners are appointed outside the Faculty and normally outside the University of Helsinki. The Faculty Council considers exceptions to the above rules only on the basis of a written reasoned request. The supervisor of a dissertation cannot be appointed as its pre-examiner.

A pre-examiner cannot be:

• a person, who is a co-author in a publication included in the dissertation
• a person, who has or has had collaboration with the doctoral candidate
• a person, who has close collaboration with the candidate's supervisor in the past three years
• a close relative of the doctoral candidate
• immediate superior or subordinate of the candidate or his or her supervisor
• a member of the thesis committee.

The Faculty Council discusses the appointment of pre-examiners on the initiative of the doctoral candidate’s coordinating academic (e-form). The nominated pre-examiners are notified in writing of the Faculty Council’s decision. Doctoral candidates must be provided with the opportunity to lodge an objection with the Faculty Council against the appointment of pre-examiners.

In­struc­tions for pre­lim­in­ary ex­am­iners

The pre-examiners must, a months, submit a written statement, either jointly or individually, recommending explicitly that the doctoral candidate be granted or denied permission to defend the dissertation at a public examination. 

In their statements, pre-examiners must pay attention to at least the following:

• The significance and status of the research within the research field
• The scope of the work and adequacy of the research material, the significance and deficiencies of any manuscripts submitted for publication
• Application and development of the research methods
• The deduction of results from the material studied
• The consistency of the structure of the work
• Familiarity with and use of the literature
• The composition of the dissertation (presentation, style and language)
• The doctoral candidate’s contribution to the attainment of the dissertation’s research results (if the dissertation includes co-authored publications): has the doctoral candidate made a sufficiently independent contribution to the dissertation as a whole?

The pre-examiners should in their statement either

• support the permission to defend (therein, minor corrections are possible), or
• identify deficiencies in the manuscript that are severe enough such that permission to defend cannot be recommended. 

Preliminary examiner statements that require substantial corrections to the dissertation before giving permission to defend, are no longer an option. 

If a pre-examiner identifies shortcomings which he or she believes must be addressed before the doctoral candidate can be granted permission to defend the dissertation at a public examination, the pre-examiner must contact the candidate and agree on a course of action. The Faculty requests that pre-examiners not set conditions in their statements for granting a doctoral candidate permission to defend his or her dissertation. Instead, the pre-examiners’ statements should clearly indicate whether or not they recommend that the candidate be granted that permission.

Doctoral candidates must be provided with the opportunity to object to a pre-examiner’s statement before the Dean decides on permission to defend the dissertation at a public examination.

Because of differences of opinion between the pre-examiners or shortcomings in the dissertation, the pre-examination process cannot be concluded in some cases within the set time period or a reasonable extension period that the pre-examiners and the doctoral candidate have agreed on with the issuance of a statement recommending that the doctoral candidate be granted permission to defend his or her dissertation at a public examination. In such cases, the pre-examination process is terminated unless the doctoral candidate wishes to take the matter to the Faculty Council.

After a pre-examination process has been terminated, the doctoral candidate can request another pre-examination of his or her dissertation, once the changes referred to in the rejecting pre-examination statements or other changes have been made to the dissertation manuscript, and once the supervisor or another professor in the subject area has recommended that the pre-examination be restarted.

Regulations on Degrees and the Protection of Students’ Rights (Flamma)

Dissertations are examined at a public examination after the preliminary examiners have recommended that the doctoral candidate should be granted the permission to defend his or her dissertation. The public examination should be organised within 9 months after the permission to public defense is granted.

Ap­point­ment of op­pon­ents and cus­tos

The Faculty Council appoints one opponent or two opponents for a public examination. From 1st August 2025 onwards, the grading committee (the opponent, custos and faculty representative(s)) is appointed at the same time as pre-examiners. The opponent must have the qualifications of a docent or other equivalent academic qualifications. The opponent must be appointed from outside the Faculty and normally outside the University of Helsinki. The supervising professor will propose the appointment of opponents.

The opponent can have no relationship with the doctoral candidate, the doctoral dissertation or another party involved that may compromise his or her impartiality. Consequently, the following persons cannot serve as an opponent:

• A person, who has co-authored at least one of the articles in the doctoral dissertation or who is currently engaged in research cooperation with the doctoral candidate or was engaged in such research cooperation earlier
• A person who has been engaged in close research cooperation with the dissertation supervisor during the three years prior to the preliminary examination of the doctoral dissertation
• A close relative of the doctoral candidate or the immediate superior or subordinate of the doctoral candidate or the supervisor
• A member of the thesis committee

Doctoral candidate must be provided with the opportunity to object the appointment of the opponent to the Faculty Council.

The nominated opponent is informed of their duties. They also receive a brochure by the University Communications on the practices and procedures followed at the public examination. The PhD affairs office provides the instructions on the opponent’s statement.

In his or her statement, the opponent must pay attention to the following

A. The scientific value of the dissertation:
1. The significance and status of the dissertation in the field
2. The scope of the dissertation and the sufficiency of the material; the significance and shortcomings of any manuscripts submitted for publication
3. The doctoral candidate’s ability to obtain results from the material examined in the dissertation
4. The logic of the dissertation’s structure
5. The knowledge and use of literature in the field
6. Language

B. The doctoral candidate’s defence:
1. The doctoral candidate’s input into the achievement of the dissertation results 
2. The knowledge of the dissertation field
3. The knowledge of literature in the field
4. The ability to apply research methods
5. The ability to discuss, debate and respond to criticism

Custos 

The custos is appointed from among the professors or acting professors of the faculty. An associate professor on tenure track level 2 or supervisor, who is a docent employed by the faculty granting the degree can also serve as custos.  If custos has been a supervisor of the doctoral dissertation or has co-authored publications included in the dissertation, they are a member of the grading committee but cannot participate in making the grade proposal.

Faculty Representative 

The faculty representative must be a professor or docent at the University of Helsinki or a member of the University's research and teaching staff at the level of a docent. The faculty representative must be familiar with the University of Helsinki's doctoral defense practices and dissertation grading principles. The custos may act as the faculty representative, provided they are not the supervisor of the work or otherwise disqualified.

The coordinating academic submits a proposal for pre-examiners and the grading committee using an electronic form:

https://elomake.helsinki.fi/lomakkeet/135888/lomake.html?rinnakkaislomake=proposalfexaminFBES[k]

Pub­lic ex­am­in­a­tion and its language

The public examination begins with an introductory lecture (lectio praecursoria) given by the doctoral candidate on the topic of the dissertation. The opponent the Faculty Council has appointed then presents his or her comments on the dissertation. This part of the public examination cannot last longer than four hours. Afterwards, others attending the public examination may also comment on the dissertation. The public examination cannot last longer than six hours.

The language of the public examination is decided in advance by the custos (the chair of the public examination) after consulting both the doctoral candidate and the opponent. The language of the examination is usually Finnish, Swedish or the language of the dissertation, but it can be another language if the doctoral candidate agrees to it. In addition, the doctoral candidate and the opponent can use different languages at the public examination if they agree to such an arrangement.

Based on the procedures enabled by the decisions of the Rector and the board, the Faculty Council of the Faculty of Science has decided to transfer the decision-making authority to the Dean regarding the approval and evaluation of the dissertation (applying to all preliminary examinations starting from August 1, 2025) , in following circumstances: 

• the opponent and the grading committee must unanimously recommend approval of the dissertation;
• the grading committee’s proposal must be submitted using the University’s statement template;
• the doctoral candidate must have not submitted a response to the grading statements. 

The decision-making authority regarding permission to defend and the grading of the doctoral dissertation will always remain with the Faculty Council if the statements are unclear or contradictory, or if the doctoral candidate submits a response to them. The pre-examiners, opponent and grading committee are still appointed by the Faculty Council at Faculty council meeting.  

The Dean will exercise this authority starting August 1, 2025. For dissertations with a preliminary examination starting before August 1, 2025 (i.e., preliminary examiners appointed at the Faculty Council meeting on June 10, 2025, or earlier), the decision-making authority remains solely with the Faculty Council. For other dissertations, the Dean will sign decisions according to a pre-agreed and published schedule approximately every two weeks, excluding Christmas, the summer holidays, and other public holidays. The submission deadline for materials for a specific decision is two weeks before the announced signing date, like Faculty Council meetings. The Dean will not sign decisions regarding the permission for public defense and dissertation approval and grading at other times. Schedule for Dean's decisions. 

To enable this procedure that speeds up the review process, the grading committee (opponent, custos, and faculty representative) must be appointed at the same time as the preliminary examiners, i.e., before the preliminary examination begins. This applies to all preliminary examinations starting from August 1, 2025. https://elomake.helsinki.fi/lomakkeet/135888/lomake.html?rinnakkaislomake=proposalfexaminFBES[k]

The Dean decides on the approval of the dissertation. It also decides on the grade of the dissertation after hearing the grade committee. The grading is based on the opponent's and preliminary examiners' statements.

Op­pon­ent's state­ment

The opponent is required to submit to the Faculty Council a reasoned written statement on the dissertation within a week of the public examination. If there is two opponents they can give a joint statement. The grading of the dissertation must also take into account the doctoral candidate’s defence of the dissertation at the public examination.

Before the grading of the dissertation, the doctoral candidate must be provided with the opportunity to object to the opponent’s statement.

Grad­ing com­mit­tee

The grading committee makes a proposal of the grade of the dissertation. The proposal should take into account the scientific value of the dissertation and the doctoral candidate’s defence of the dissertation at the public examination. The proposal should also take into account the preliminary examiners' statements.

As­sess­ment cri­teria in the fac­ulty of science

The dissertation grading scale will become "pass/fail" from  August 1, 2025. However, dissertations whose preliminary examination was initiated at the latest at the Faculty Council meeting on June 10, 2025, will be evaluated according to the previously valid grading scale ("Pass with distinction/pass/fail"). 

The approval and grading of doctoral dissertations is governed by Section 44 of the Universities Act (Act No 558/2009) and Sections 42–44 of the Regulations on Degrees and the Protection of Students’ Rights at the University of Helsinki. To supplement the above regulations, the Faculty of Science issued on 4 December 2012 instructions entitled “The doctoral dissertation and its preliminary and public examinations, approval and grading” as well as this decision on the Faculty’s dissertation assessment criteria and grade descriptions.

According to Government Decree No 794/2004 on University Degrees (Section 21), the objective of scientific  postgraduate education is that the student

1. becomes well-versed in his or her own field of research and its social significance and gains knowledge and skills needed to apply scientific research methods independently and critically and to produce new scientific knowledge within his or her field of research;
2. becomes conversant with the development, basic problems and research methods of his or her own field of research; and
3. gains such knowledge of the general theory of science and of other disciplines relating to his or her own field of research as enables him or her to follow developments in them.

According to the Faculty’s decision, a doctoral dissertation is a consistent scholarly work based on independent research that makes an original contribution to knowledge. The author must master the most salient rules of academic writing and demonstrate an ability to produce independent and critical work. The research must be scientifically convincing and the results well-grounded. The research must be scientifically honest and meet the norms set for research ethics.

• The significance and status of the research within the research field
• The doctoral candidate’s contribution to the attainment of the dissertation’s research results
• The scope of the work and adequacy of the research material
• Application and development of the research methods
• The deduction of results from the material studied
• The consistency of the structure of the work
• Familiarity with and use of the literature
• The composition of the dissertation (presentation, style and language)
• The doctoral candidate’s ability to defend his or her research at the public examination

The grade of Pass with Distinction will be awarded only to dissertations of exceptional quality under the assessment criteria. The purpose of the Faculty’s preliminary examination procedure is to ensure that the dissertation can be approved after its public examination. However, a dissertation study authored by a doctoral candidate who has been granted the right to defend his or her dissertation at a public examination must be failed if, in the light of the assessment criteria, the dissertation has serious deficiencies and cannot be deemed to fulfil the minimum requirements set for doctoral dissertations

A dissertation cannot be accepted at a Faculty Council meeting before the Faculty has received a written statement from the doctoral candidate, indicating that

• the doctoral candidate has read the opponent’s statement
• the doctoral candidate does not wish to object to the opponent’s statement or the grade proposed for the dissertation.

The Faculty notifies the doctoral candidate of its decision on the acceptance of the dissertation.

According to the Regulations on Degrees and the Protection of Students’ Rights at the University of Helsinki, students dissatisfied with the grading of their Licentiate thesis or doctoral dissertation may appeal in writing to the Academic Appeals Board within 14 days of the receipt of the grading decision.  The Board can refer the grade back to the Faculty Council for reconsideration.