Grading committee

• The doctoral thesis grading scale will change. Starting August 1, 2025 theses will be graded as failed / pass. However, doctoral theses whose preliminary examination has started no later than at the Faculty Council meeting in June 2025 will receive permission to defend from the Faculty Council and will be graded according to the current grading scale failed / pass / pass with distinction.
• A preliminary examiner can be chosen as the opponent.
• The deadline for preliminary examiners' statements is 4 weeks (previously 2 months).
• Preliminary examiners either support the permission to defend (minor corrections are possible) or identify deficiencies in the manuscript so severe that permission to defend cannot be recommended. Statement, where preliminary examiner requires corrections to the thesis before giving a positive statement, is not an option. A negative statement leads to the discontinuation of the preliminary examination, as before.
• At some faculties (Agriculture and Forestry, Biological and Environmental Sciences, Law, Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Veterinary Medicine) the grading committee is appointed already at the beginning of the preliminary examination, i.e. at the same Faculty Council meeting where the preliminary examiners are appointed. The coordinating academic should propose the grading committee at the same time as they propose the preliminary examiners.
• Permission to defend is valid for 9 months (previously 12 months).
• Doctoral thesis evaluation statements (opponent and grading committee) must be given within a week (previously 2 weeks) after the defense.

Opponent asks the doctoral researcher questions and criticises their doctoral thesis at the public defence, which the doctoral researcher is to respond to. The opponent will submit to the faculty a reasoned written statement on the scientific value of the doctoral thesis no later than one week after the public examination.

The opponent must be a professor, docent or a scholar with equivalent academic qualifications. The opponent is always appointed from outside the doctoral candidate’s home faculty and, as a rule, also from outside the University of Helsinki. The doctoral thesis supervisor may never serve as the opponent. 

When proposing the appointment of the opponent, the principles of disqualification concerning opponents must be observed. The opponent cannot have a relationship with the doctoral candidate, the doctoral thesis or another relevant party that may challenge his or her impartiality. Therefore, for example, the following people are disqualified from serving as an opponent:

• Individuals who have co-authored one of the articles included in the dissertation
• Individuals who are or have been during the dissertation project in research collaboration with the doctoral candidate
• Individuals who have conducted close research collaboration with the doctoral thesis supervisor within three years prior to the examination of the thesis
• Close relatives of the doctoral candidate
• Immediate supervisors and subordinates of the doctoral candidate and the supervisor
• Members of the thesis committee

In exceptional cases, two opponents can be appointed. The appointment of two opponents may be possible when the topic of the dissertation is cross-disciplinary, and a single suitable individual with sufficient expertise for assessing the entire doctoral dissertation is not available. Proposals on appointing a second opponent must always be well grounded.

Person who has served as a preliminary examiner of the doctoral thesis may also be appointed as an opponent. 

Sometimes it can be complicated to interpret the rules and disqualification criteria. If you, your supervisors, or coordinating academic have any questions in relation to appointing a grading committee, please contact your own faculty's doctoral student services.

The custos serves as the regulator of the public examination and completes other duties as provided by the University.

Doctoral candidate’s home faculty council often appoints thesis main supervisor acting as custos of the public examination. Custos should be professor, associate professor (2nd stage of the tenure track) or docent who has an employment relationship to the faculty. If the custos has served as the supervisor or is biased for other reasons, he or she cannot participate in the grading of the doctoral thesis. If the custos has not acted as a supervisor, he or she can also be appointed to the task of faculty representative for the grading committee.

In addition to the opponent and custos, the faculty will, at its discretion, appoint one or two faculty representatives to the grading committee. If the custos has not served as the supervisor or is biased for other reasons, they can be appointed as a faculty representative.  Faculty representatives must be professors or docents of the University of Helsinki or members of the university's teaching and research staff with the academic qualifications of a docent. The faculty representative(s) must be well acquainted with the grading criteria and regulations related to the examination of doctoral theses in use at the University of Helsinki.

It is the duty of the faculty representative(s) to supervise that the grading of the thesis is based on the faculty’s grading criteria and the general criteria of the University of Helsinki concerning doctoral theses. Additionally, they must inform the opponent of the practices of the University of Helsinki.

Certain faculties have guidelines on the appointment of the grading committee that further specify the general provisions set by the University. Below you will find any further provisions by your faculty, as well as a link to your faculty’s instructions for members of the grading committee. In connection with the instructions, you will also find further information on the assessment criteria for doctoral theses at your faculty.

Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry

The Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry has no specific provisions on the appointment of the grading committee. The Faculty’s instructions for members of the grading committee are available on the Faculty website.

Faculty of Arts

At the Faculty of Arts, the first faculty representative is appointed after the decision is made to launch the pre-examination process. The first faculty representative is always appointed from outside the discipline of the doctoral candidate. At the Faculty of Arts, the custos is never appointed as a faculty representative. If the custos has acted as a supervisor to the thesis, two faculty representatives are appointed to assure that there are always three members in the grading committee with a right to vote on the grade. The Faculty’s instructions for members of the grading committee are available on the Faculty website.

Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences

The Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences has no specific provisions on the appointment of the grading committee. The Faculty’s instructions for members of the grading committee are available on the Faculty website.

Faculty of Educational Sciences

The Faculty of Educational Sciences has no specific provisions on the appointment of the grading committee. The Faculty’s instructions for members of the grading committee are available on the Faculty website.

Faculty of Law

The Faculty of Law has no specific provisions on the appointment of the grading committee. The Faculty’s instructions for members of the grading committee are available on the Faculty website.

Faculty of Medicine

Members of the grading committee include the opponent, the custos and one or two faculty representatives. The doctoral candidate will be notified of the composition of the grading committee before the Faculty Council meeting, and he or she has the right to submit an objection to the composition of the grading committee. Members of the grading committee will receive the pre-examination statements for their information. The Faculty’s instructions for members of the grading committee are available on the Faculty website.

Faculty of Pharmacy

The Faculty of Pharmacy has no specific provisions on the appointment of the grading committee. The Faculty’s instructions for members of the grading committee are available on the Faculty website.

Faculty of Science

The Faculty of Science has no specific provisions on the appointment of the grading committee. The Faculty’s instructions for members of the grading committee are available on the Faculty website.

Faculty of Social Sciences

The members of the grading committee are nominated by the Faculty Council in conjunction with granting permission for the public defence. Until further notice, the committee must include at least three members entitled to vote. The Faculty’s instructions for members of the grading committee are available on the Faculty website.

Faculty of Theology

At the Faculty of Theology, proposals on faculty representatives are made by the vice-dean in charge of research at the Faculty. The first faculty representative is always appointed from outside the discipline of the doctoral candidate. At the Faculty of Theology, the custos is never appointed as a faculty representative. If the custos has acted as a supervisor to the thesis, two faculty representatives are appointed to assure that there are always three members in the grading committee with a right to vote on the grade. The Faculty’s instructions for members of the grading committee are available on the Faculty website.

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine

The Faculty of Veterinary Medicine has no specific provisions on the appointment of the grading committee. The Faculty’s instructions for members of the grading committee are available on the Faculty website.

Interpreting regulations and, for example, settling questions of disqualification can sometimes be a bit tricky. If you, your supervisors or the coordinating academic have queries related to the appointment of the grading committee, you can always contact the doctoral student services of your home faculty.

The rector of the University of Helsinki has decided on the composition of grading committees in Rector’s Decision 19700/2024.