Obtaining external reports and approval of the deposit
All theses must be accompanied by at least two reports issued by external PhD holders who are experts in the subject area, who may suggest areas for improvement.
Requirements for external expert reviewers:
Reviewers must be external to the University of Zaragoza, the doctoral programme and, in the case of inter-university programmes and jointly supervised theses, the universities covered by the agreement. Where the thesis is being submitted for the ‘International’ distinction on the Doctorate degree, the aforementioned reports must be issued by individuals belonging to higher education institutions or research institutes, in both cases non-Spanish and distinct from one another. In any case, research must be one of the institution’s main activities, and it shall be the programme’s Academic Committee that must justify this condition to the Standing Committee of the Doctoral School’s Steering Committee, for which purpose it may request as many reports as it deems appropriate. These individuals may not be the same as the researchers who hosted the doctoral candidate and carried out supervisory or research guidance duties at the host institution during the period spent there to obtain the international qualification.
The doctoral candidate must not be listed as a co-author on any publications directly related to the subject of the thesis or closely related to its theme, as provided for each proposed researcher.
The authors of the reports must not be the same as the co-authors of the publications derived from the thesis.
The reviewers may form part of the examination board assessing the thesis.
Once the PhD candidate has submitted the application for the thesis to be accepted for consideration via SIGMA, the thesis supervisors shall validate the application in the system and attach a final report on the thesis, in which they may include a proposal to the programme’s Academic Committee for up to five external reviewers.
It is the responsibility of the host institution of the PhD programme to obtain the external reports referred to in this point. The programme’s Academic Committee shall draw up a list of three to five researchers, providing the following information on each: 1) contact details; 2) the university or institution to which they currently belong; 3) the year and institution of their doctoral degree; and 4) references to two publications directly related to or closely related to the subject of the thesis, in which the doctoral candidate must not appear as a co-author. These may or may not coincide with those provided by the thesis supervisors. The programme’s headquarters will then contact the first two individuals to request this report, which must be submitted within thirty calendar days. It may be written in Spanish or English. Should they decline, they must notify the programme within 5 calendar days. If any of the individuals contacted fail to respond, decline or fail to submit the report within the specified timeframe, the programme office will contact the next individuals on the list in the order indicated by the Academic Committee. Once this list has been exhausted without obtaining the minimum number of reports required, the Academic Committee must draw up a new list with other individuals, and so on, if necessary.
Reports must comply with the form provided for this purpose, on which one of the four possible responses must be indicated:
(a) The doctoral thesis is recommended for defence, without changes.
(b) It is recommended that the doctoral thesis be defended, subject to minor changes (with details of the recommended changes).
(c) It is recommended that the doctoral thesis be defended, subject to substantial changes (with details of the required changes).
(d) The defence of the doctoral thesis is not recommended, with reasons given.
Once at least two reports have been received, they shall be made available to the doctoral candidate, the thesis supervisor and the Academic Committee of the relevant doctoral programme, whilst endeavouring, as far as possible, to maintain the anonymity of the reviewers.
The programme’s Academic Committee, based on the content of the reports, shall proceed as follows:
If both reports are of type (a), the Academic Committee will approve the submission of the thesis and inform the doctoral candidate. In this case, the process will continue with the thesis manuscript submitted with the application for admission to the programme, and an errata sheet may be attached.
If any of the reports are of type (b) or (c), the doctoral candidate will be granted a maximum period of two months to respond and, where appropriate, to incorporate the relevant amendments into the doctoral thesis. Before the end of this period, the doctoral candidate must submit the revised version of the thesis via the SIGMA application, together with a document responding to the external reports and detailing the changes made to the thesis.
2.1. In cases involving reports of type (b), the Academic Committee must validate the final version and decide whether to approve its submission. In the event of a favourable decision, it shall inform the PhD candidate and the process shall continue with the revised version of the thesis. In the event of an unfavourable decision, the PhD candidate may lodge an appeal with the Quality Assurance Committee within 10 academic days.
2.2. Should there be a report of type (c), the Academic Committee must verify that the new version includes the substantial changes required by the examiners and shall decide on the approval of the thesis for deposit in its amended version. If the Academic Committee deems it appropriate, in this case the reviewers may be asked to review the amended version of the thesis and issue a new report on the changes made, within a maximum of fifteen calendar days, before a decision is taken. Finally, if the submission is approved, the doctoral candidate will be informed, and the process will continue with the revised version of the thesis. In the event of an unfavourable decision, the doctoral candidate may lodge an appeal with the EDUZ Quality Assurance Committee for Doctoral Studies via the electronic register within ten academic days of the decision.
Should a report of type (d) be received, the Academic Committee may request a third report and must choose one of the following options:
3.1) Require the rectification of the shortcomings identified in the thesis, as highlighted in the reports obtained.
3.2) Not to approve the submission of the doctoral thesis
In either case, the decision of the programme’s Academic Committee must be justified and communicated to the doctoral candidate, the thesis supervisor and the EDUZ, which, in the event of non-approval, shall inform the examination board. Should rectification be required, this must be carried out in accordance with the provisions for standard reports (c). Should the submission of the doctoral thesis not be approved, the doctoral candidate may continue with their doctoral studies and submit a new application for acceptance of the thesis for consideration when they deem it appropriate, provided that they have not exhausted the period of enrolment in the programme. In the latter case, the doctoral candidate may, at their discretion, lodge an appeal. Once the CAD has authorised the submission, the programme’s host institution shall forward all the documentation to the administrative office of the doctoral school: the authorisation for submission, the final version of the thesis, the reports from the external reviewers and, where where applicable, the document responding to the external reports, detailing the changes made.
In the case of theses under an international co-supervision arrangement where the co-supervising university also requires reports from external experts, and these have been previously obtained by that university in accordance with its own procedures, the PhD candidate may submit them together with the application for the thesis to be accepted for processing at the University of Zaragoza. However, they must be submitted in accordance with the information requested in the EDUZ standard form.
The reports are not binding; the Academic Committee of the relevant PhD programme will decide, on the basis of the reports received and any corrections made by the PhD candidate as a result of them, whether to authorise the submission of the thesis.
Enquiries: tesis@unizar.es | informestesis@unizar.es