INFORMATION REGARDING ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE REQUIREMENTS
As a rule the below mentioned standards must be met by the members of the assessment committee:
· Minimum educational level equaling Danish associate professor cf. the Ministerial Order no 1039 of August 27, 2013 about the PhD education at the universities and certain higher artistic educational institutions.
· Actively publishing within the research area of the dissertation, documented through publications in internationally acknowledged journals and conference proceedings with peer-review (within the last five years), this can be documented with an updated list of publications, patents, technical reports, product development and the like.
· At least one external member must have experience with PhD supervision and must have been main supervisor on a PhD project with a positive outcome.
· Diversity in the composition of external members is desirable, so that one main supervisor does not repeatedly use the same external member.
· When relevant for the PhD project it is possible to include a member of the assessment company from the industry.
APPROVAL OF AN ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
The following documents must be enclosed in one pdf file in searchable format when an assessment committee is forwarded to the PhD Board for approval:
1.CV incl. an updated list of publications for all three members. The CV must reflect the above mentioned standards. The publication list must be exhaustive for the last five years. CV and publication list must be in Scandinavian or English.
2.For Industrial PhD students, a confirmation must be enclosed from the Department stating that § 26 of the Ministerial Order has been met (at least one of the members shall have company-relevant research experience within the relevant field).
3.The name of the PhD student's supervisor (and co-supervisor(s), if any) must be noted on the recommendation from the department.
4.The supervisor/co-supervisor and the members of the assessment committee must not have any joint publications during the last five years. In case of co-authorships within the last five years the department must submit a statement explaining why this does not constitute a conflict of interests. Furthermore it is not possible to be a member of the assessment committee if there are any co-authorships with the PhD student.
Concerning competence to act the regular competence to act regulations apply cf. The Act on Public Administration §3-6. Special attention must be given to the following:
· Members of the assessment committee cannot be in an up-downwards management layer compared to the main supervisor (example 1: The Head of Department cannot be a member of an assessment committee for a PhD student in his or her own department. Example 2: A section leader cannot be a member of an assessment committee for a PhD student in his or her own section.) NOTE: If it is not possible to find other academically competent persons to replace a disqualified members, a permission to serve in the assessment committee can be given by following special argumentation.
· It is not possible to be a member of an assessment committee if there are joint publications with the PhD student, or if any are in preparation.
· As a rule, it is not possible to serve as, member of an assessment committee if there is a significant amount of joint publications with the supervisor or co-supervisor(s), if any.
· If the PhD student or the main supervisor is fully or partly financed or has a sideline occupation at an external company, then assessors from that company cannot be used. This also includes subsidiary companies and branches in other locations.
The assessment committee shall submit a recommendation as to whether the PhD student, through the publicly defended thesis, has fulfilled the requirements laid down in the Ministerial Order on the PhD Programme at the Universities and Certaing Higher Educational Institutions.
Within two months after the thesis has been submitted and not later than three weeks prior to the defense the assessment committee is requested to write a provisional recommendation stating whether the thesis in its provisional form can be accepted for public defence. The chairman of the assessment committee forwards the provisional recommendation to the Doctoral School who makes sure that the author receives a copy of the recommendation. If a majority of the members of the assessment committee accept the PhD thesis, the chairman of the assessment committee, the other committee members and the supervisor(s) in co-operation set the date for the public defence of the thesis.
If a majority of the committee members cannot accept the PhD thesis in its present form, the recommendation must also include at least a majority recommendation that can form a basis for a decision by the institution as to whether the thesis can be re-submitted in a revised form within a time period of at least three months.
The supervisor is responsible for handling the practical matters in connection with the defence. This includes the booking of hotel rooms, the announcement of the defence, as well as the recommendation to the Faculty concerning the chairperson of the defence. Announcement of the defence and the recommendation for the chairperson should be forwarded via the department to AAU PhD
The defence shall take place following the submission of the preliminary recommendation of the assessment committee and no later than three months after the handing in of the thesis. Based on the rules in the legislation on inventions, or if special circumstances apply, the institution may decide to postpone the defence.
Prior to the defence, the chairperson appointed by the Faculty must arrange a meeting with the assessment committee and the supervisor(s). This meeting usually takes place 1-2 hours before the defence. At this meeting it shall roughly be agreed how the examination shall proceed. The total examination time (question time) must not exceed 2 hours and the members of the assessment committee and the supervisor(s) shall prioritize their questions in such a way that they confine themselves to this time limit.
The PhD student gives a lecture explaining the research work carried out. The duration of the lecture should be approximately 45 minutes.
The PhD Study Director is responsible for approving the moderator. The following requirements must be met by the moderator:
Examination. The most significant role of the moderator is to ensure that the agreed upon plan (cf. number 2 above) is followed. This includes ensuring that all the members of the assessment committee get the opportunity to ask questions and that the PhD student's time to answer is limited in such a way that the assessment committee can obtain answers to their questions within the time limit. Questions may be asked ex auditorio provided that the chairman is notified. Each person asking questions ex auditorio is given a maximum of 15 minutes including the necessary time for the PhD student's answer.
Immediately after the public defence the assessment committee shall submit to the department its recommendation based on the PhD thesis and the public defence as to whether the PhD degree should be awarded. Afterwards the department forwards the recommendation to AAU PhD