View Current

HDR Thesis Preparation, Submission and Examination Procedure

This is the current version of this document. To view historic versions, click the link in the document's navigation bar.

Section 1 - Introduction/Background

(1) These Procedures are designed to enhance the clarity, consistency, quality, and integrity of Higher Degree Research (HDR) thesis preparation, submission, and examination at UOW. 

Top of Page

Section 2 - Scope/Purpose

(2) These Procedures apply to:

  1. all staff involved in the governance and administration of HDR courses and candidates;
  2. all examiners of HDR theses that are appointed by UOW; and
  3. all HDR candidates at UOW.       

(3) These Procedures do not apply to offshore campuses if governed by separate procedures. 

Top of Page

Section 3 - Thesis Preparation and Format

(4) The thesis will usually comprise a series of chapters, sometimes embedded with publications. When candidates choose the format, layout, and referencing style of their thesis, they should generally follow the conventions of their discipline.  Candidates and Supervisors can utilise their judgment to determine some features of thesis design, such as the font and spacing.

(5) Candidates may choose to utilise a range of creative formats to convey their insights, including computer software, digital material, and maps as well as links to videos, audio, or music, as suitable to their discipline.

(6) However, candidates shall follow specific conventions:

  1. The thesis shall include a certification to the effect that “I, [name of candidate], declare this thesis, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the conferral of the [name of degree] from the University of Wollongong, is wholly my own work unless otherwise referenced or acknowledged. This document has not been submitted for qualifications at any other academic institution.”.
  2. The thesis shall include a title page, abstract of fewer than 600 words, acknowledgments, body of text, and bibliography or list of references.
  3. The thesis will often include a list of abbreviations or terms, table of contents, list of tables and figures, and appendices.
  4. The thesis shall be written in English, unless the Dean of Graduate Research, in consultation with the Thesis Examination Committee, approves otherwise and the principal Supervisor can arrange suitable examiners.  

(7) For example, First Nations candidates may be permitted to write the abstract, or even the entire thesis, in their preferred language, if the research is relevant to their community and the principal Supervisor can evaluate the thesis and arrange suitable examiners.

(8) If an examiner requests a printed copy, the thesis should be spiral bound into one volume on A4 paper. 

(9) Supervisors should impart suggestions on how to improve drafts but should not write large passages, such as entire paragraphs, even in the published chapters.  When reviewing drafts, the priority of Supervisors should be to enhance the capacity of candidates to communicate proficiently.      

(10) The thesis of HDR candidates must not include work or material they have previously submitted to attain another degree except:

  1. when a doctoral thesis was rejected but resubmitted to attain a Master of Philosophy;  
  2. if work or material is quoted and acknowledged appropriately, comparable to citing any other publication.         

(11) Although Supervisors, professional editors, and other individuals can offer feedback to improve and to edit theses, the level of intervention must conform to the Australian Standards for Editing Practice and be acknowledged appropriately.  Editors may correct spelling, grammatical, or formatting errors, improve the expression of arguments, and help reorganise these arguments — but not change the thesis substantively.

(12) A doctoral thesis shall not exceed 100 000 words, and a HDR Master thesis shall not exceed 50 000 words.  This word limit relates to the number of words the examiners must read and excludes Appendices and footnotes. An exegesis, when accompanied by a creative output, will tend to be half these lengths. Longer theses or exegeses can be submitted only if the Dean of Graduate Research approves and examiners are notified of this length before they agree to examine. 

(13) If a sufficiently disruptive, unforeseen, and unresolvable adversity impeded progress, candidates may submit an abridged thesis if:

  1. the candidates complete and report at least two thirds of their proposed research or an equivalent scale of research;
  2. the candidates insert a chapter or section that outlines which proposed research activities they could not complete and how the adversity impeded these activities;
  3. the candidates acknowledge the thesis was abridged in the certification page;
  4. the thesis fulfills the criteria that are specified in the Examiner Reporting Form — except the criterion that revolves around the amount of contribution — and thus demonstrates the quality expected at this Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level;
  5. upon the recommendation of the HPS, the AD-HDR endorses, and the Thesis Examination Committee approves, the submission of this abridged thesis.
Top of Page

Section 4 - Thesis Preparation and Format: Thesis by Compilation

(14) Candidates can include one or more publications or works in their thesis as part of their degree, called a thesis by compilation.  These publications or works may include empirical papers, systematic reviews, theoretical papers, methodological papers, or other scholarly works.

(15) These publications can be included only if the original data were collected and analysed during the candidature. The Dean of Graduate Research may approve exceptions if:

  1. less than one third of this research was completed before the candidates were enrolled in this degree;
  2. a relevant ethics committee approved research that involved humans or animals; and
  3. the candidates received supervision of a similar standard to that provided at UOW. 

(16) Within the first year of candidature, and generally earlier, Supervisors and candidates should discuss whether a thesis by compilation may be suitable.  This option may be more suitable when:

  1. the thesis is likely to comprise a series of distinct studies or arguments;
  2. the candidate would like to work in academia once they complete their degree;
  3. the candidate is flexible enough to adapt their plans in response to unexpected feedback from reviewers;
  4. thesis by compilation is common in this discipline; and
  5. the HDR candidate is likely to be the first author on the published material.

(17) Candidates may pursue this option only if their principal Supervisor approves.

(18) Before candidates submit a manuscript, they or their Supervisors should check that any publisher agreement permits:

  1. inclusion of publications in theses that are accessible to the public;
  2. modified versions of these publications can be included in the thesis if the examiner or Thesis Examination Committee request revisions.

(19) The number and status of publications or works to be included in a thesis by compilation depends on personal and disciplinary preferences.  To illustrate:

  1. doctoral theses often include three to four publications;
  2. however, a doctoral thesis might include only one publication together with some unpublished empirical chapters;
  3. Master of Philosophy theses often include one to two publications;
  4. theses may include works that have been published, have been accepted, are under review, or are in preparation; 
  5. theses may include only parts of these publications.

(20) In addition to the publications, a thesis by compilation should include

  1. a title and abstract,
  2. an introductory section or chapter that describes the problem, issues, or questions the research is designed to address,
  3. a review of the literature,
  4. a description of the methodology and methods, either in one chapter or distributed across chapters,
  5. a general discussion or conclusion that integrates the research into a cohesive account, and
  6. appendices, if necessary.  

(21) To integrate the chapters into a cohesive narrative:

  1. the publications do not need to appear in the order they were published;
  2. a thesis by compilation should also include additional text, often at the beginning or end of each publication, to clarify the relationship between this publication and the preceding or succeeding chapter.  

(22) Preceding the main body of text should be a section that:

  1. lists the title, authors, and publication outlet of each publication or work;
  2. indicates whether the work has been published, is in press, is under review, or is in preparation;
  3. outlines the contributions of every author to each work and the degree to which each author contributed, usually represented as percentages;
  4. includes signatures of all co-authors, approving the inclusion of these works.

(23) Candidates may include publications in the same font and format as other chapters or in the original font and format of the published work, depending on the copyright policies of the publisher as well as individual preferences.

(24) Because publishers often limit the word count and thus oblige authors to exclude some details, such as how the statistical assumptions were tested, candidates may include additional material in the publications to augment these works.

Top of Page

Section 5 - Nomination of Examiners

(25) The Principal Supervisor shall nominate and arrange two examiners, but may consult the other supervisors, the candidate, or relevant staff to determine these choices.

(26) The Principal Supervisor should disclose to the candidate four or more possible examiners who were under consideration, but exclude examiners who the candidate believes are not suitable choices.

(27) The nominated examiners should:

  1. have completed significant research or scholarship on topics or methodologies that overlap with the thesis;
  2. be active in research or scholarship at the time of examination;
  3. have attained qualifications in a research degree at the AQF level of this thesis or higher, or in exceptional circumstances, have published work that evidently fulfills this criterion;
  4. have either supervised or examined HDR candidates at this level.

(28) To examine doctoral theses, at least one nominated examiner should live outside Australia, unless the examiners need to observe the works in person or unless the Chair of the Thesis Examination Committee approves a request from the Head of Postgraduate Studies. 

(29) Nominated examiners shall not be biased by an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. To prevent these conflicts of interest:

  1. the examiners should have either never met the candidates and Supervisors or met only incidentally — rather than developed an ongoing personal, working, business, or legal relationship;
  2. the examiners should not be staff at the same institution or be known to have developed an ongoing relationship with one another;
  3. the examiners should not have examined more than two theses from UOW in the last 12 months;
  4. the examiners should not benefit if the thesis passes or fails;
  5. to guarantee independence from UOW, the examiners should not have been assigned an email account at this university over the last five years and are not seeking an email account in the future

(30) The Principal Supervisor should nominate the two examiners before the thesis is submitted. After the examiners are nominated, the Head of Postgraduate Studies should be invited to approve this nomination and then submit this form to the Graduate Research School. The Graduate Research School will contact the examiners to confirm this appointment.

(31) Although candidates may be consulted about the choice of examiners, until the thesis is passed, the identity of examiners should remain confidential to candidates and the other examiner.

(32) The Graduate Research School, in response to advice from the Head of Postgraduate Studies, may rescind the invitation to examine a thesis if:

  1. the examiner has not returned the report within a reasonable time, such as four months, despite several attempts to contact this individual; or
  2. the examiner has breached an instruction and, for example, contacted the candidate or Supervisor or demonstrated a conflict of interest.

(33) In this circumstance, the principal Supervisor will nominate an alternative examiner.

Top of Page

Section 6 - Thesis Submission

(34) Candidates must be enrolled at the time of submission.

(35) Candidates must submit their thesis to the Principal Supervisor. They must accompany this thesis with a report that verifies academic integrity in accordance with the requirements stipulated by Graduate Research School.

(36) After the Principal Supervisor certifies the candidate has fulfilled the prescribed milestones and the thesis is prima facie worthy of examination, demonstrates academic integrity, and has received the relevant ethics clearance the candidate may submit the thesis to the Graduate Research School online.

(37) The Principal Supervisor, if unwilling to certify that a thesis is prima facie worthy of examination, shall discuss the matter with the Head of Postgraduate Studies and the candidate will be advised of their concerns in writing.

(38) After discussions with the Principal Supervisor, candidates who still wish to submit the thesis shall submit a written statement to the Thesis Examination Committee for consideration, outlining why they believe the thesis should be submitted. The Principal Supervisor shall also submit a written statement to the Thesis Examination Committee, outlining why they do not support the submission.

(39) The Thesis Examination Committee, after seeking advice from at least one academic who is conversant in this field but neither a Supervisor nor examiner of this thesis, will determine whether the thesis seems, prima facie, ready to be submitted for examination and communicate the decision, in writing, to the candidate, Supervisors, and Head of Postgraduate Studies. If approved, the candidate will then submit the thesis to the Graduate Research School online.

(40) When the thesis is submitted online, candidates will be prompted to:

  1. enter their name and student number;
  2. enter the title of their degree and thesis; 
  3. certify that the work is their own and has not been submitted to attain a degree at any other university or institution.
Top of Page

Section 7 - The Report of Examiners

(41) The examiners are asked to evaluate the thesis and then submit a report that includes their recommendation and a separate written appraisal in accordance with Appendix 1. Whenever possible, examiners shall submit the report within two months of their receipt of this thesis. 

(42) Freedom of information legislation may override the confidentiality of reports that examiners submit. 

(43) Examiners are advised not to disclose the contents of this thesis including the identity or name of the candidate.

(44) Principal Supervisors, after consulting with candidates, may advise the Graduate Research School to ask examiners to sign a non-disclosure agreement if the contents of this thesis could affect social, national, or industrial security or contains information that is commercially or culturally sensitive.

(45) During the examination process, the candidate and Supervisors shall not contact the examiners; examiners shall be directed to refrain from contacting each other, the candidate, or the Supervisors during this time.

(46) The University will pay examiners an Honorarium after submission of their final report at a rate that complies with the recommendations of Universities Australia.

Top of Page

Section 8 - Response to the Reports of Examiners

(47) The HPS, after receiving the examination reports from the Graduate Research School, shall submit a report to the Thesis Examination Committee that stipulates their recommendation and suggests revisions they consider are not necessary, coupled with justifications.

(48) To prepare this report, the HPS may seek further clarification from the Supervisors or other relevant UOW staff.

(49) Examiners may not always be informed of the connotations of each recommendation.  Therefore, the HPS may indicate when a recommendation of an examiner diverges from the written report, such as a recommendation to pass with minor revisions, despite a written report that suggests major revisions.      

(50) The Thesis Examination Committee usually meets monthly to consider the reports of examiners and the HPS recommendation to reach an outcome. The examination process and information provided to examiners is consistent, regardless of whether the thesis includes publications.  If examiners, HPS, or the Thesis Examination Committee requests revisions to published or accepted works, candidates may need to insert additional words to amend these chapters in their thesis. 

(51) Alternatively, especially if the copyright policies of a publisher preclude these changes, candidates may modify other chapters, such as the general discussion, to counter the concerns the examiners raised.

Top of Page

Section 9 - Responses to Discrepancies between Examiners

(52) If the recommendation of examiners diverge significantly, such as when only one examiner recommends a resubmission to examiners or a less favourable outcome or when marks differ by more than 15 for graded theses, the HPS may request, or the Thesis Examination Committee may recommend appointing, a third examiner.     

(53) The content of the existing examiner reports will not be distributed to the third examiner.         

(54) After receiving the third examination report from the Graduate Research School, the HPS should consult the relevant staff and submit a report to the Thesis Examination Committee.  The report should indicate the recommendation they endorse, identify which suggested revisions are not necessary, and include justifications of these decisions.  The recommendation should primarily derive from the two examiners whose recommendations are most similar.

(55) If all three examiner recommendations diverge substantially, a mid-range recommendation is usually most appropriate.  The Thesis Examination Committee, however, may encourage the candidates to address the concerns of all three examiners. 

(56) The Thesis Examination Committee shall consider the reports of all three examiners and the HPS recommendation to reach an outcome. 

(57) After the Thesis Examination Committee finalises the outcome, the Graduate Research School will notify the candidate of the decision and email a copy of the examination reports.

(58) Candidates may appeal against the HDR thesis examination outcome, according to the process documented in the Higher Degree Research Academic Complaints Policy.

(59) When awarding a percentage mark, such as in the Master of Research, the final mark should usually be the average of the marks that each examiner assigned.  

(60) If two marks are within 5% of each other and both 10% higher than a third mark, the final mark should be the average of the two higher marks. 

Top of Page

Section 10 - Revisions to the Thesis

(61) If the Thesis Examination Committee recommends revisions to the thesis, candidates shall be given 3 months to correct only minor errors, 6 months to correct substantive concerns, and 12 months to complete further work and resubmit the thesis to examiners.

(62) HDR Supervisors shall advise the HDR candidates on how to revise their thesis or how to challenge the suggestions of examiners.

(63) If these revisions are not submitted within 12 months, the candidate shall be awarded a fail, unless the Thesis Examination Committee has approved an extension, requested by the candidate or the principal Supervisor.

(64) If the candidate has been instructed to revise the thesis to the satisfaction of the University, but the HPS is not satisfied with the corrections, the HPS may request further revisions.

(65) If the candidate has been instructed to resubmit the thesis to an examiner, the HPS may then approve this resubmission.  The procedures that are followed to examine a submitted thesis are applied to examine a resubmitted thesis.                

(66) If one or more examiners fail the resubmitted thesis, the Thesis Examination Committee, after consultation with Supervisors and the faculty, may decide to:

  1. award a lesser qualification,either before or after revisions;
  2. submit the thesis to another examiner;
  3. award no qualification;
  4. to request further revisions.
Top of Page

Section 11 - Completion of Candidature

(67) Once the HPS certifies the revised thesis is satisfactory, candidates shall submit a digital copy of the final thesis to the Graduate Research School.

(68) Candidates are not permitted to amend the thesis that was deemed as passed unless they become aware of errors that could mislead readers substantially and have received approval from the HPS to correct these errors.   

(69) Unless restrictions have been approved, a digital copy of the final thesis will be accessible to the public from the relevant University webpage.

(70) The thesis or distinct parts of the thesis may be restricted from the public if:

  1. the thesis is subject to agreements with other relevant bodies, such as a sponsor, that limit the accessibility of this research;
  2. the contents of this thesis could affect social, national, or industrial security or contains information that is commercially or culturally sensitive.

(71) The HPS can approve requests to restrict this content from the public. However, only the Dean of Graduate Research can approve requests to embargo more than one chapter of the thesis for over 24 months.       

(72) When candidates submit a thesis with creative output, they shall, whenever possible, submit a durable record of this creative output, such as video footage of an exhibition or performance.

Top of Page

Section 12 - Roles and responsibilities

(73) The University assumes the responsibility to ensure this Procedure is accessible to all staff and candidates. 

(74) In addition to the responsibilities that are stipulated in this Procedure, the Graduate Research School is responsible for:

  1. helping candidates, supervisors, and each HPS fulfill this Procedure;
  2. ensuring this Procedure is implemented and applied consistently across the University;
  3. ensuring this Procedure is reviewed regularly; and
  4. retaining and disposing of records that relate to thesis submission and examination in accordance with the Records Management Policy.

(75) In addition to the responsibilities that are stipulated in this Procedure, the Thesis Examination Committee is responsible for:

  1. responding to any miscellaneous matters that relate to thesis examination;
  2. contributing to reviews of both this Procedure and local rules about thesis examination; and
  3. liaising with the Graduate Research School to confirm that thesis examination policies, procedures, and practices are appropriately implemented and promoted across the University.

(76) The responsibilities of Supervisors, the HPS, and the Dean of Graduate Research around submission and examination appear in this Procedure.

Top of Page

Section 13 - Definitions

Word/Term Definition (with examples if required)
Academic Unit Academic units that manage HDR candidates are the UOW Schools and AIIM.
Examiner An academic who is not a UOW staff member granted the responsibility to assess a thesis.
Graduate Research School (GRS) Administrative unit responsibility for the administration and management of HDR candidates.
Higher Degree by Research (HDR) candidate A student enrolled in a Doctorate or Research Masters at UOW and whose body of work is incomplete or is under examination.
Thesis A written piece of work that reports on the substantive research undertaken during a HDR degree.
Thesis Examination Committee (TEC) Sub-committee of the Graduate Research Committee that evaluates the reports of examiners.
Top of Page

Section 14 - Appendix 1: Examiner Reporting Forms

Doctoral Theses

(77) Examiners are asked to confirm [Yes, marginal, or no]:

  1. the candidate conducted original research and, for example, includes a novel research question, theory, approach, findings, or conclusions;
  2. the candidate has critically synthesised and evaluated a body of knowledge;
  3. the candidate can communicate the research and approaches effectively, demonstrating a satisfactory literacy standard;
  4. the thesis contains material suitable for publication;
  5. the thesis contains the quality and amount of contribution you might expect in 3 to 3.5 years of research.

(78) Examiners should choose one of the following recommendations:

  1. the candidate be awarded the degree without revision;
  2. the candidate be awarded the degree once minor errors such as problems with spelling, punctuation, or phrasing are corrected to the satisfaction of the University;
  3. the candidate be awarded the degree once substantive concerns such as flawed arguments and any minor errors are corrected to the satisfaction of the University;
  4. the candidate must complete further work and resubmit the thesis to the examiner because this examiner raised serious concerns about whether the candidate can fulfill the five qualification criteria.

(79) If the candidate has completed further work and the thesis was resubmitted to the examiner, the final option should be replaced with “the candidate should not be awarded the degree”.  

Master by Philosophy Theses

(80) Examiners are asked to confirm [Yes, marginal, or no]:

  1. the candidate has critically synthesised and evaluated a body of knowledge; 
  2. the thesis contains material suitable for publication;
  3. the thesis contains the quality and amount of contribution that you may expect from 2 years of research; and
  4. the candidate can communicate the research effectively, demonstrating a satisfactory literacy standard.

(81) Examiners should choose one of the following recommendations:

  1. the candidate be awarded the degree without revision;
  2. the candidate be awarded the degree once minor errors, such as problems with spelling, punctuation, or phrasing are corrected to the satisfaction of this University;
  3. the candidate be awarded the degree once substantive concerns, such as flawed arguments and any minor errors are corrected to the satisfaction of the University;
  4. the candidate must complete further work and resubmit the thesis to the examiner because this examiner raised serious concerns about whether the candidate can fulfill the four qualification criteria.

(82) If the candidate has completed further work and the thesis was resubmitted to the examiner, the final option should be replaced with “the candidate should not be awarded the degree”.  

Master of Research Theses

(83) Examiners are asked to confirm [Yes, marginal, or no]:

  1. the candidate understands the research field adequately; 
  2. the candidate has satisfactorily designed, conducted, and reported an investigation in this research field;
  3. the candidate has communicated the research in a manner and level appropriate to the field of research; and
  4. the literacy standard of the thesis is satisfactory.    

(84) Examiners should choose one of the following recommendations:

  1. the candidate be awarded the degree without revision;
  2. the candidate be awarded the degree once minor errors such as problems with spelling, punctuation, or phrasing are corrected to the satisfaction of the University;
  3. the candidate be awarded the degree once substantive concerns such as flawed arguments and minor errors are corrected to the satisfaction of the University;
  4. the candidate must complete further work and resubmit the thesis to the examiner because this examiner raised serious concerns about whether the candidate can fulfill the four qualification criteria;
  5. the candidate should not be awarded the degree.    

(85) If the degree is to be awarded, the examiner will record a percentage mark for the thesis, in accordance with the Master of Research marking guidelines.           

Written Report

(86) To justify the recommendations, examiners shall submit a written report, usually two to six pages in length, that outlines the strengths of this thesis, concerns that should be addressed before the degree is awarded, and concerns that could be addressed in future publications.