Supplementary Provisions

Doctoral Dissertations 2011

For candidates admitted between 1.01. 2011-31.12.2015

Supplementary Provisions related to Doctoral Dissertations 2011

The provisions apply as guidelines for students admitted prior to 1 January 2011.

For students admitted after this date these are supplementary provisions to the Regulations for the Degree of Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) (hereinafter the Doctoral Degree Regulations)

Section 1 Introduction

1.1 BI has one doctoral programme with several specialisations.
1.1.1 The requirements regarding the quality and form of the dissertation are the same irrespective of specialisation.
1.2 These provisions supplement the PhD Regulations, in particular Section 6.

Section 2 The level of the dissertation

2.1 The dissertation must be an independent, scientific work that meets international standards at a high academic level in regard to problem statements, definition of concepts, methodological, theoretical and empirical basis, documentation and form of presentation.
2.2 The requirement regarding level and scope of a dissertation is the same irrespective of whether it is a monograph or consists of several smaller papers (articles).
2.2.1 The articles must be of a level that is required for publication in recognized (international) journals with peer review.
2.3 The supervisor shall advise as to whether the dissertation has the academic qualities required for submission.
2.3.1 It is, however, the PhD candidate him/herself who is ultimately responsible for the content of the dissertation and for whether it is to be submitted.

Section 3 Article-based dissertations

3.1 Several smaller papers may be approved as part of a doctoral dissertation if by their content they constitute a whole.
3.2 In such cases the dissertation, in addition to the individual smaller papers (articles), shall have a "mantel". This "mantel" consists of an introduction to be placed before the individual pieces of work and a summary to be placed behind them.
3.2.1 The introduction shall describe the research basis of the dissertation and place the topic of the dissertation in the context of existing theory, knowledge and research and state the reasons for its relevance.
3.2.2 The summary shall describe the problems and conclusions presented in the articles in a general perspective and thus document the cohesion of the dissertation. The summary shall also contain a summing up and a concretization of the contribution of the dissertation to the relevant field of research.
3.3 If the dissertation includes previously published articles, the summary must also include academic updates, so that the dissertation as a whole appears to be academically brought up to date.
3.4 The candidate must be the sole author of both the introduction and the summary.
3.5 The introduction, the summary and all the articles must be in the same language.
3.5.1 Since the publishing opportunities for academic articles written in Norwegian are very limited, article-based dissertations should be written in English.

Section 4 The scope of article-based dissertations

4.1 The dissertation, exclusive of the "mantel", should normally correspond to three journal articles of usual length with the candidate as the sole author.
4.2 If co-authors have contributed to one or more of the articles, this may require that the number of articles be extended in order to clearly show the independent input of the candidate and the scope of this input.
4.2.1 The extent of the input shall always (as a minimum) correspond to the general requirement stated in 4.1.
4.3 The candidate shall be the main author and have comprehensive academic responsibility for the majority of the articles constituting the dissertation (the "mantel" is not considered an article). By the term main author is meant the one or several authors responsible for the major input to the article.
4.4 Works that have been published more than five years prior to the submission of the dissertation cannot form part of the latter.
4.4.1 The period of time is calculated from the publishing date of the work in question to the date of submission of the dissertation.
4.4.2 In special cases – such as extended absence due to illness, maternity leave, etc. – exemption from the provision under 4.4 may be granted. In such cases an application describing and documenting the special circumstances must be submitted. The application is to be submitted to the Doctoral Administration. The final decision is taken by the Dean. In the assessment of whether an exemption should be granted, the fact that a dissertation is standardized to two years of full-time work (120 ECTS credits) shall be taken into account.

Section 5 Pieces of cooperative work

5.1 All the publications that form part of a dissertation shall be in compliance with research-ethical rules and conventions for academic quality assurance of research. These obligations apply to all the contributors to a dissertation.
5.2 An application for acceptance of the articles by scientific journals (preferably international journals) with peer review must either be planned, or such acceptance of the articles must already have been obtained at the time when the candidate submits the dissertation.
5.3 Pieces of cooperative work, i.e. articles written by other persons in addition to the candidate may form part of the dissertation provided that the contribution of the PhD candidate is an independent contribution that may be identified to the extent necessary for the evaluation (see 4.1, 4.2, 4.3)
5.3.1 In such cases statements shall be obtained from all the co-authors in order to identify the contribution of the candidate.
5.3.2 These statements shall be submitted at the same time as the dissertation.
5.4 If co-authorship with the supervisor is considered, this should be clarified with the candidate as early as possible.
5.4.1 If the dissertation includes articles written together with the supervisor(s) (the main supervisor or the co-supervisor, or the main supervisor and the co-supervisor), it must also include articles that have not been co-authored with the supervisor(s).
5.4.2 The candidate shall normally be the main author of such papers.
5.5 In case of co-authorship the Vancouver rules, with a couple of minor rewordings, shall apply.
Authorship shall be exclusively based on:
a) Major contributions to conception and design, or the development and analysis of the theoretical model, or data collection, or the analysis and interpretation of data.
b) Drafting of the article or a critical revision of its intellectual content.
c) Approval of the version of the article to be published.
All the criteria (a, b, and c) must be met for acknowledgement of co-authorship.
5.6 A work or part of a work that has previously been considered and approved for the doctoral degree at a Norwegian or foreign university or college cannot be accepted for evaluation even if the work is submitted in a revised form.
5.6.1 Thus, articles written by two or more PhD candidates cannot form part of several dissertations unless defended at the same institution, at the same time and before the same committee.
5.6.2 Submission of a dissertation that includes a work (works) that has (have) formed part of a dissertation evaluated at Norwegian or foreign institutions is regarded as academic misconduct and is dealt with accordingly.

Section 6 Other formal requirements

6.1 In the same way as a monograph, an article-based dissertation must have a table of content and continuous page numbering.
6.2 The different parts of the dissertation must be clearly divided in the form of separating sheets provided with the full reference (the title of the article, author(s), publishing channel, volume, page number, year). Alternatively, information as to where the article has been presented and/or where an application for acceptance has been made/where it has been accepted must be provided.
6.3 In order to make uniform layout possible throughout the dissertation, published articles forming part of the dissertation must be included in post-print version, i.e. the manuscript after the peer review but before printing.
6.3.1 Articles must be edited in such a way that figures and tables, etc. are placed in the text where they are to be presented in the finished work. In other words, they are not to be presented as annexes to the article manuscript.
6.4 The candidate is responsible for obtaining the necessary permits for printing previously published material as part of the dissertation.

Section 7 Submission and evaluation

7.1 The dissertation shall be submitted to the Doctoral Administration and consist of:
7.1.1 The dissertation is to be submitted in a plastic binding as one document with continuous formatting where all the parts are included.
7.1.2 Required statements on:
- co-authorship
- publishing permit(s)
7.1.3 Evidence proving that the course component has been completed (60 ECTS)
7.1.4 Statement proving that the compulsory year has been completed.
All the requirements must be met for the submission of the dissertation to be accepted.
7.2 The dissertation must be submitted within the time limit determined in the written agreement entered into between the relevant Department and the candidate. To be valid this time limit must be within the maximum limit stipulated in the PhD Regulations.
7.3 A dissertation submitted for evaluation may not be withdrawn.
7.4 Together with the manuscript of the dissertation the evaluation committee will receive the guidelines and regulations, which they have to take into account in their assessment of whether the dissertation, with respect to quality and scope, is worthy of public defence.
7.5 If the draft dissertation is not found worthy of public defence, it shall appear from the evaluation report received by the candidate from the evaluation committee what improvements are needed with respect to the manuscript.
7.5.1 A new version of he dissertation cannot be submitted until 6 months after the receipt by the candidate of the evaluation report.
7.5.1 A new evaluation can only be made once.

Section 8 Evaluation and revision of a submitted dissertation

8.1 Together with the manuscript of the dissertation the evaluation committee will receive the guidelines and regulations, which they have to take into account in their assessment of whether the dissertation, with respect to quality and scope, is worthy of public defence.
8.1.1 The committee may require that the doctoral candidate submit background material and additional supplementary and clarifying information.
8.1.2 On the basis of the submitted dissertation and any supplementary materials the evaluation committee may recommend that the institution permit minor changes of an editorial nature before the final recommendation is made. The committee must provide a concrete outline of the revision to be made by the candidate.
8.1.3 Should the institution allow such minor revision of the dissertation, a deadline for the revision that shall not extend three (3) weeks shall be specified. A new deadline for the submission of the committee's final recommendation shall also be specified.
8.1.4 If on the contrary the committee finds that fundamental changes regarding theory, hypothesis, material or method are necessary for the dissertation to be recommended for disputation, the committee shall not recommend a minor revision but reject the dissertation.
8.2 The evaluation committee makes a recommendation as to whether the dissertation is worthy of being defended for the doctoral degree. Grounds shall be given for both the recommendation and any dissents.
8.2.1 The recommendation of the evaluation committee must be available within three months of the committee's receipt of the dissertation. If the committee allows revision of the dissertation, a new deadline will run from the date of the resubmission of the dissertation.
8.2.2 The recommendation of the evaluation committee is sent to the institution to be presented to the PhD candidate. The candidate is given a time limit of ten (10) working days to submit written comments to the recommendation. If the candidate does not wish to submit any comments, the institution must be informed about this in writing as soon as possible.
8.2.3 Any comments by the PhD candidate are to be sent to the institution.
8.3 The institution shall make a decision in the matter in accordance with Section 9.

Section 9 The institution's dealing with the recommendation of the evaluation committee

9.1 On the basis of the recommendation of the evaluation committee the institution, through the Doctoral Programme Committee, shall make a decision as to whether the dissertation is worthy of defence.
9.1.1 Unanimous recommendation
A unanimous recommendation from the evaluation committee shall be accepted provided that a majority of the institution's decision-making bodies vote in favour of this. Should a majority, in spite of a unanimous recommendation of the evaluation committee, find that there is justified doubt as to whether a dissertation should be accepted, the institution shall seek further clarification from the evaluation committee or appoint two new experts who will submit individual statements on the dissertation. Such additional statements or individual statements shall be presented to the PhD Candidate who will be given an opportunity to make his/her comments. If both the new experts agree with the unanimous recommendation of the evaluation committee, this recommendation shall be accepted.
9.1.2 Divided recommendation
Should the committee submit a divided recommendation, and the institution decides to base its decision on the statements of the majority, the institution shall make its decision in accordance with the recommendation of the majority. If the committee submits a divided recommendation and the institution decides to base its decision on the statements of the minority, the institution may seek further clarification from the evaluation committee and/or appoint two new experts who will submit individual statements on the dissertation. Such additional statements or individual statements shall be presented to the PhD candidate who will be given an opportunity to make his/her comments. If both the new experts agree with the original recommendation of the committee, this recommendation shall be accepted. The candidate shall be informed about the result after the statements of the new experts have been considered.

Section 10 Resubmission

10.1 A dissertation that has not been found worthy of defence cannot be evaluated in a revised form until six (6) months after the institution has made its decision. A re-evaluation can only be made once.
10.2 In connection with a resubmission the PhD Candidate must state whether the work has previously been evaluated and not found to be worthy of defence.

Section 11 Printing of the dissertation

11.1 When the dissertation has been found worthy of defence, the PhD Candidate shall submit it to the institution in an approved format and in pursuance of the provisions of the institution (Section 6 and 7).
11.2 An approved dissertation must be printed at an external print shop in the book format 17X24 cm and forms part of BI's series of dissertations (ISSN 1502-2099). The manuscript must be submitted to the Research Secretariat, which is responsible for entering the ISBN for the printing process.
11.3 The printed version of the dissertation must be available four weeks prior to the disputation.
11.4 The dissertation shall be made available for public inspection in the library.
11.5 If the PhD candidate so permits, the Research Secretariat will publish the dissertation electronically at www.bi.no and at BI Brage, BI's institutional archive. In the case of an article-based dissertation the necessary permission must have been obtained from the publisher and any co-authors.

These provisions are based on the Recommended Guidelines for the Philosophiae Doctor Degree (PhD). The provisions have been considered by the Doctoral Programme Committee on October 19th 2012.

The provisions were adopted by the Senate on December 4th 2012. The Norwegian regulations have subsequently been translated into English. In case of any disputes the Norwegian version shall take precedence over the English version.