Guidelines for Preparation, Submission, Examination and Dissemination of Research Degree Theses

Introduction

The Academic Regulations note that a Supervisor may make arrangements for the examination of theses presented in alternative formats. These guidelines refer to the alternative format described as: “a collection of papers of publishable/peer-reviewed standard, describing a coherent programme of research, accompanied by a critical and theoretical overview of the work presented in the papers” (UCD Academic Regulations).

Please note that this document presents high-level guidelines on this thesis format. Examination Candidates, in Schools that use this format, should ensure that they take guidance from their supervisor/Research Studies Panel (RSP) on local norms and practices regarding the number of papers, quality of papers and, where relevant, acknowledgement of shared research with other researchers.

Note: These guidelines apply to the Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), the Doctor of Medicine (MD), Research Masters and Professional Doctorate degrees.

Principles of Alternative Thesis Format (Thesis as a Collection of Papers)

1. Decision on Format

Examination Candidates should take guidance from their Principal Supervisor and RSP in deciding the thesis format. It is recommended that the decision is discussed at early RSP meetings and the final decision is made when the Examination Candidate’s research is well advanced.

2. Originality, Authorship & Acknowledgements

In line with the University requirement that doctoral research is ‘original research’, the Examination Candidate should normally be the sole author or the lead/primary author of papers to be included in the thesis. In some disciplines, sole authorship is the norm. In other disciplines, where research is typically undertaken within a research group overseen by the Supervisor(s) or Principal Investigator(s) the papers will include the supervisor(s) as author(s). Where papers have been jointly authored or multi-authored, the nature and extent of the
Examination Candidate’s contribution and the contribution of any co-authors must be described in detail using the ‘Acknowledgement of Authorship Form’. It is recommended that the Examination Candidate discuss college and/or discipline-specific authorship guidelines with their Principal Supervisor and RSP.

Please note: Acceptance of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is not a guarantee of the candidate being successful in the examination, as the thesis examination is a separate process. PhD Examination Candidates are examined by viva voce examination and must be able to explain all data presented in their thesis, irrespective of the primary ownership of that data.

3. Number of Papers

It is recommended that a research master’s thesis would normally comprise a minimum of two publishable papers and a doctoral thesis would normally comprise three or more publishable papers. However, it is acknowledged that a ‘normal’ number may vary across specific disciplines. If it is not possible to identify at least two publishable papers, that can form the basis of a thesis of an appropriate length, then the ‘traditional’ monograph thesis format would be more appropriate. The term ‘publishable’ means that the papers do not necessarily need to have been published. The papers can be drafted for submission to a peer-reviewed journal or submitted to, under review by, undergoing revisions for, accepted by, or published in a peer-reviewed journal.

4. Thesis Structure

i. As in a traditional monograph, candidates pursuing this alternative format should provide an overview of the thesis as a whole and a separate discussion of the research findings. Therefore, typically the thesis will – as appropriate to the discipline – describe the rationale for the research, including a literature review or theory chapter contextualizing the research, a separate methodology chapter as appropriate, and a concluding or discussion chapter. It is recommended that candidates discuss word or page limits for the introductory and concluding chapters with their supervisor(s) and Research Studies Panel, as norms will
vary across disciplines.

ii. Published papers should not normally be included in the body of the thesis as pdf files, but instead should be adapted so that font and spacing are consistent and uniform throughout the thesis.

iii. Narrative review papers that provide background material may be included, but only if the candidate is the first author. Review papers generally do not count as original contributions unless they are systematic reviews or contain meta-analyses of data.

iv. Methods papers may be included as original research where new methods have been developed by the candidate as part of their research degree.

v. Candidates should be aware of copyright issues and discuss these with their supervisor(s) and RSP members. To avoid copyright issues, it is sometimes appropriate that the penultimate version of a paper accepted for publication – rather than the final version – be adapted for inclusion in the thesis. Candidates should include digital object identifiers (DOIs) to link to forthcoming or published papers, so that these may be easily accessed by the examiners.

UCD is a signatory to the National Principles for Open Access and all research degree theses completed at the university are automatically made public following the award of a degree unless a Thesis Embargo has been put in place. See Research Thesis Embargoes Policy for further information.

Acknowledgement of Authorship Form

This form must be completed for each paper to be included and placed in front of that paper
in the thesis. The purpose of this is to ensure that shared authorship is appropriately explained in a thesis. A Word version of this document is available on the Graduate Studies Document Repository.

 Virtual Viva Logistics

Testing the IT Platform

● The Chair of the Examination Committee should organise a preliminary meeting of the Examination Committee using the chosen IT Platform in advance of the viva voce to ensure that everyone can access the platform. The Chair should ensure that the practice meeting with the Examiners is operating correctly and allow sufficient time to do this. After the IT Platform has been shown to work, the Chair should spend time with the
Extern and Intern Examiners discussing how the viva will run.

● The Chair should trial the meeting format (separately) with the candidate, including the ability to give a presentation and being placed on hold on the IT Platform. A trial run with candidates tends to make the student less nervous – so the student is familiar with how the technology works, how screen sharing works, and how to come in and go out of a meeting (which the student will need to do at the end of the viva). Timing

● An examination can run in excess of 2.5 hours from beginning to end, thus a short break may be appropriate after 45 minutes or so. Computer logistics

● The Wi-Fi connection on all sides should be tested in advance to make sure it is functioning solidly.

● If using a laptop computer, ensure that the laptop has sufficient power and access to a power source & functioning charger.

● If a participant does not have a solid Internet connection, they should see if they can safely establish a connection elsewhere. If this cannot be resolved in a timely manner or the connection remains an issue, the viva may need to be rescheduled. IT Platform Logistics

● The Chair should have a contingency plan in place prior to the viva if IT Platform does not work e.g. plan to reschedule or use alternative technology. The viva should not be conducted by phone or audio.

● It is suggested that the Extern Examiner have an e-copy of the thesis to hand and to share the relevant page on screen when posing questions.
● Although the Chair should be on screen at all times, it is suggested that they are muted (with the volume on so they can hear).

● Supervisors, where invited to attend, should switch off video and mute themselves.