Submitting the thesis
General responsibilities
The PhD candidate is responsible for preparing their doctoral work within the applicable deadlines. The candidate must apply for evaluation for the doctoral examination, including all necessary attachments.
The supervisors are responsible for assessing whether the work meets the quality requirements for a PhD thesis.
Important information regarding the regulations for submission and the phase prior to submission can be found in the official regulations Forskrift for graden philosophiae doctor (ph.d.) ved Høgskolen i Østfold (see Lovdata, §14).
Approval of the Educational Component
Before submission, the educational component must be formally approved. To obtain this approval, the candidate must document that the courses have been completed and fulfil the criteria set out in the PhD programme curriculum.
External courses that are to be included in the educational component must be applied for separately using a designated online form. The candidate must attach valid documentation (such as a course certificate or transcript) confirming that the course has been completed and passed. The course title, number of credits, and institution must be specified in the documents, which must be approved by the programme director. This approval takes place during the study period.
Formal approval of the educational component lies with the PhD programme board, but the process is delegated to the programme director and the PhD advisor. Once the educational component is complete, the candidate notifies the PhD advisor (Nettskjema).
Applications will be processed on a rolling basis.
Once the educational component has been approved, the candidate will receive a written confirmation. This confirmation must be included upon submitting the thesis.
Expected Submission Date
The expected submission date must be communicated by e-mail to the programme director by the main supervisor three to four (3–4) months in advance. Normally, no more than five (5) months should pass between submission and the public defence.
Evaluation committee
The PhD programme board is responsible for the formal appointment of the evaluation committee that consists of minimally (and normally) three members, including the assessment of impartiality.
Article 3 of the regulations:
(3) The evaluation committee shall normally be composed in such a way that:
• More than one gender must be represented
• At least two of the members have no affiliation with Østfold University College
• At least one of the members holds a primary position at an institution outside of Norway
• One of the members is permanently employed at Østfold University College
• All members hold a doctoral degree or equivalent qualifications
• The evaluation committee chair shall normally be employed at Østfold University College
If there is any deviation from these criteria, specific justification must be provided.
Article 6 of the regulations:
(6) The institution may, when required, appoint a substitute member to the assessment committee.
The main supervisor submits a reasoned proposal to the programme director, listing five to six (5–6) potential committee members in order of priority, three to four (3–4) months before the planned submission date. This is done by using the designated online form for committee nomination (Nettskjema), which the main supervisor is responsible for completing and submitting.
The PhD programme board is responsible for obtaining the signed impartiality declaration from all evaluation committee members upon their appointment.
The candidate will be informed about the proposed evaluation committee and given the opportunity to comment. The candidate is obliged to disclose any potential conflicts of interest or other significant matters that may affect the evaluation of the thesis. If the candidate has any comments regarding the composition of the evaluation committee, these must be sent by email to phd-ds@hiof.no no later than one week after the information about the proposed evaluation committee has been provided. The e-mail should be marked "Comments on the composition of the evaluation committee PhD [first name surname]".
The proposal is then processed by the PhD programme board, preferably before the thesis is submitted. The candidate will not have access to the PhD programme board’s internal assessment of the proposed composition.
When the evaluation committee has been appointed and until its assessment is complete, the supervisors and the evaluation committee shall not communicate about the candidate or the candidate’s work.
Submission of the Doctoral Thesis
According to § 14-2 of the regulations, the submission of and application for assessment of the thesis can only take place once the educational component has been approved.
The application must include the following attachments:
- The scientific thesis, submitted in the format specified by the regulations and relevant guidelines
- Documentation confirming that the educational component has been completed and approved
- Documentation of necessary permits, when required (e.g., SIKT, REK)
- Co-author declarations where required under § 12-2 (link to form)
- A cover letter stating whether the thesis is being submitted for assessment for the first or second time and declares that the thesis has not been submitted for assessment at another institution
- A letter that accounts for the revisions of and changes in the thesis if the thesis has undergone minor revisions or is submitted for the second time (resubmitted after rejection)
- Normally, a declaration from the main supervisor stating that the thesis is ready for evaluation
- Documentation of completed 90 % seminar (if applicable)
The thesis and all required attachments must be sent by email to phd-ds@hiof.no. Mark the email with “Submission of PhD thesis [first name surname]". The thesis must be submitted as a PDF format. Once submitted, the thesis cannot be withdrawn. The candidate will receive confirmation that the thesis has been received.
The PhD programme board will process the application for thesis assessment. If the application does not meet the requirements of § 14-2, it will be rejected. The application may also be rejected if it is clear that the thesis does not meet the necessary quality standards and would be rejected by an evaluation committee.
A plagiarism check will be conducted. If the plagiarism check indicates a possible breach of recognised research ethical standards, the procedure described in the guidelines for handling individual cases of possible scientific misconduct will be followed (Fusk og plagiat – Høgskolen i Østfold).
Evaluation
The thesis will be sent to the evaluation committee immediately after the programme board has approved the submission and the plagiarism check has been completed. The candidate and supervisors will receive a copy of the letter to the evaluation committee.
One of the members of the committee is appointed chair to ensure good progress. The chair is normally an internal academic member and must ensure that the work is initiated promptly and that the time frame for the committee’s work is complied with.
The chair of the evaluation committee, in cooperation with the dean and the PhD programme director, is responsible for setting a preliminary date for the public defence as soon as possible, and no later than two months after the thesis has been approved as worthy of defence.
The evaluation committee may require the candidate to present underlying material and any supplementary or clarifying information. The committee may also request that the supervisor account for the supervision provided and the work carried out on the project.
After submission
Errata List
It is possible to apply to correct formal errors in the thesis by submitting an errata list. Such an application must be submitted no later than four weeks before the evaluation committee delivers its recommendation. The application should be sent to phd-ds@hiof.no, marked "Errata list for [first name surname]". The candidate will receive confirmation by e-mail. An errata list may only be submitted once.
The following documents must be attached to the errata application:
- A complete list of the errors to be corrected (errata list)
- An electronic version of the corrected thesis (in PDF format)
Evaluation committee’s evaluation and recommendation
(Based on Section 16 of the Regulations)
The evaluation committee’s recommendation must be made available no later than three (3) months after the committee has received the doctoral thesis. The evaluation committee’s recommendation, together with the topic for the trial lecture, is sent to the institution (phd-ds@hiof.no) and then forwarded to the programme director and programme board, who will send it to the candidate. The candidate is given a deadline of ten (10) working days to submit written comments on the recommendation to the programme board. If the candidate does not wish to submit comments, the programme board must be notified of this by e-mail.
Acceptance, minor revisions or rejection
The evaluation committee may conclude in one of three different ways: acceptance, minor revisions, or rejection.
Acceptance: The evaluation committee recommends that the thesis is ready for public defence.
Minor revisions: Based on the submitted thesis and any supplementary material, cf. § 18-1, the evaluation committee may recommend that the programme board allows minor revisions before a final recommendation is made. The evaluation committee must provide a written and specific overview of what the candidate must revise.
Minor revisions are considered part of the initial submission, not a resubmission of the thesis.
If the programme board permits minor revisions to the thesis, a deadline for these revisions will be set, normally not exceeding three (3) months. A new deadline for the committee’s final recommendation will also be established. At this stage, the final recommendation from the evaluation committee may be either acceptance or rejection. The institution’s decision under this paragraph cannot be appealed by the candidate.
Rejection: If the committee finds that fundamental changes to the theory, research question, material, or method are necessary for the work to be recommended for defence, the committee must reject the thesis.
In the case of rejection, see “Application for Reassessment” (§18).
Institutional procedure for the committee’s recommendation
The programme board processes the evaluation committee’s recommendation.
If the evaluation committee recommendation is a unanimous approval or rejection, and the programme board accepts the evaluation, the programme board makes its decision in accordance with the evaluation committee’s recommendation.
If the programme board have reasonable doubt concerning the evaluation committee’s recommendation, it may either request more information from the evaluation committee, or appoint two new evaluators who submit separate individual report. These reports are sent to the candidate, who may provide written comments. The programme board then makes its final decision.
If the evaluation committee’s recommendation is split, the programme board decides in accordance with the recommendation of the majority of the evaluation committee. However, if the programme board has reasonable doubt concerning the evaluation committee’s recommendation, it may either request additional information from the evaluation committee or appoint two new evaluators who will submit separate individual reports. These reports are sent to the candidate, who may provide written comments.
If the two new evaluators reach the same conclusion as the majority of the evaluation committee, the programme board will make the same final decision.
If the new evaluators agree with the minority or are divided in their recommendations, the programme board normally forwards the reports to the evaluation committee, together with the candidate’s comments, so that the committee can prepare a new recommendation taking the new evaluators’ reports into account. If the committee remains divided, the programme board normally follows the new majority opinion within the committee.
Application for Reassessment
(Section 18)
1. A scientific thesis that is not found worthy of defence may be resubmitted in a revised version no sooner than six (6) months after the programme board has made its decision. A new evaluation committee will then be appointed, in which at least one of the members of the original committee should be reappointed. Reassessment may only take place once.
2. The final deadline for applying for reassessment is two (2) years after the institution has made its initial decision of rejection.
3. When reapplying for assessment, the candidate must state that the work has previously been assessed and not found worthy of defence, cf. § 14-2.
Trial lecture and public defence
Responsibility for trial lecture, public defence and doctoral dinner
OUC organises the trial lecture and public defence. The public defence chair will normally be the dean or acting dean of the candidate’s faculty. OUC will order lunch for the chair of the defence, the members of the evaluation committee, and - if customary within the relevant academic field - the candidate and the supervisor(s). OUC does not organise a doctoral dinner after the defence.
Venue
The doctoral programme books a venue with sufficient space to accommodate a public audience for the trial lecture and public defence. Flowers on the podium mark the occasion and are presented to the doctoral candidate as a greeting from the academic community.
Dress code
Formal attire is expected by both the doctoral candidate and the members of the evaluation committee. The chair of the public defence - the dean or the acting dean - wears the dean's robe at the public defence.
Printing the thesis
OUC produces the final printed version of the thesis, including a preface and, if applicable, an errata list, once the recommendation has been finalised and the programme board has given formal approval. A minimum of 30 copies will be printed for the programme board, the faculties, the library, the evaluation committee, the chair of the defence, and the supervisors. The candidate will receive ten (10) copies free of charge. If the candidate wishes to order additional copies of the thesis, these can be requested when submitting the thesis. The candidate is responsible for covering the costs of any extra copies.
More information about publication of the thesis after the public defence and publication rights can be found here: Forside biblioteket – Biblioteket – Høgskolen i Østfold
Trial lecture
(Based on Section 20-1 of the Regulations)
The topic of the trial lecture will be announced ten (10) working days before the date of the trial lecture. The trial lecture is held prior to the public defence, usually on the same day. It is delivered in the language of the thesis, unless otherwise agreed. A total of 45 minutes is allocated for the trial lecture, and it is important that this timeframe is observed.
The lecture should be structured so that it can be followed by an audience with prior knowledge equivalent to that expected of advanced students in the subject area. When assessing the trial lecture, emphasis should be placed on both academic content and the candidate's ability to communicate knowledge effectively.
The evaluation committee's assessment of the trial lecture is announced before the public defence.
Public defence
(Based on Section 20-2 of the Regulations)
The time and place of the public doctoral defence are announced at least ten (10) working days before it is held. The public defence is conducted in the language of the thesis, unless otherwise agreed. The chair of the defence is responsible for ensuring that the allotted time is used effectively and that all parts of the proceedings are conducted within the given time frame.
The public defence starts with a presentation of the thesis topic, material, methods, analyses, findings, and conclusions. The presentation may be given by the candidate or by the first opponent, depending on the traditions within the specific academic field. Afterward, the opponents proceed with their questions, which are not necessarily limited to those raised in the committee’s recommendation. The opponents should aim to conduct the discussion in a way that makes it accessible to those unfamiliar with the thesis or the subject area.
The public defence is conducted as follows:
1. Practical information will be given to the audience by a representative of the doctoral programme before the procession begins.
2. Procession: The doctoral candidate meets at the agreed time and place for the procession. At the public defence, the audience should be seated and rise when the doctoral candidate and the rest of the procession enter the room. The leader of the public defence walks in front, followed by the committee chair, the rest of the committee, and the candidate. The members of the committee sit in reserved seats in the front row. The chair of the public defence takes a seat in front of the podium, facing the audience.
The first session ends with a procession out of the room in reverse order of the opening procession (except the leader of the public defence, who remains in front). The second session begins with a procession in the same order as the opening procession. At the end of the defence, the order of the procession will be: the leader of the public defence, the candidate, the committee chair, and then the rest of the committee.
3. Introduction by the chair of the public defence.
4. First part: Approximately 60-90 minutes for the presentation and discussion.
5. Break.
6. Ex auditorio (if applicable): If someone in the audience wishes to ask the doctoral candidate questions about the thesis, they will be given the opportunity to do so. Such individuals must notify the chair of the public defence of their intention to ask questions during the break.
7. Second opponent: Approximately 45-60 minutes.
8. The chair of the public defence concludes the proceedings and provides details about the further process.
9. The assessment committee withdraws to deliberate.
10. The recommended result is announced by the leader of the evaluation committee. The candidate may briefly thank the opponents for the discussion and the institution for the opportunity to defend the thesis. Finally, the chair declares the public defence concluded, traditionally with the phrase: "Disputatio peracta est" and announces that the committee's recommended result will be forwarded to the programme board.
Hybrid or digital public doctoral defences
Østfold University College has established guidelines for hybrid and digital public doctoral defences (currently under construction).
Reception
Immediately following the public defence, all participants are invited to a reception hosted by the doctoral programme.
Doctoral dinner
The candidate may choose whether or not to hold a doctoral dinner, which is a private event. The dinner is usually arranged on the same evening as the defence. If the candidate decides to host a doctoral dinner, they often invite the defence chair, members of the committee, and the supervisor(s). It is also common to invite colleagues and others who have contributed to the work on the thesis.
A doctoral dinner may be formal or very casual. In the formal case, table placements it is customary that the candidate and their partner, the members of the evaluation committee, the defence chair, and the principal supervisor are given central positions at the table.
The defence chair, the third member of the evaluation committee, and the supervisor(s) will normally give speeches. The toastmaster must be informed that the defence chair is the first to give a speech during the doctoral dinner. It is also traditional for the candidate to give a speech, thanking the university, the evaluation committee, the supervisors, the research environment, and other important contributors.
The candidate must cover all costs related to the doctoral dinner. The Norwegian Tax Administration has removed the possibility for deducting a certain amount in the tax return for the doctoral dinner. See the Norwegian Tax Administration’s website on deductions.
News article
A news article will be published on the OUC website about the candidate’s research. The article will be based on the abstract of the thesis.
Conferral and diploma
PhD conferral is the highest formal approval of the PhD work and marks the point at which the candidate is awarded the degree of Philosophiae Doctor. The PhD conferral ceremony takes place at the Annual Academic Celebration at OUC.
The rector leads the ceremony, and a keynote speech is delivered to the new doctors. The deans will give a short presentation of each thesis, and the candidates will receive their PhD diploma from the rector.
The institution will send all new doctors an invitation to the PhD conferral ceremony, and candidates are welcome to invite their closest family and friends to the event.
If the candidate cannot attend, the diploma will be sent to the candidate’s private address after the ceremony.
Digital diploma
A digital diploma will be available in the Diploma Registry (Vitnemålsportalen) and Studentweb. Students who do not have a national ID number will receive printed diplomas sent to their semester address registered in Studentweb. This rule will apply until the Diploma Registry has implemented a login policy for persons without a Norwegian national ID number.