thesis report by examiner

Main navigation

• Graduate Students
• Faculty & Staff
• General requirements
• Preparation of a thesis
• Initial Thesis Submission
• Thesis examiners
• Evaluation of written thesis
• Thesis examination failures
• Doctoral oral defence
• Final Thesis Submission
• Thesis Writing and Support Resources
• Letters of Completion/PGWP

Thesis Examiners

Master’s thesis examiner.

For a Master's thesis, the examiner must be a scholar of established reputation and competence in the field of the thesis research. The examiner may be from inside or outside the University. Units* may nominate a member from within the Unit who is not in conflict of interest (see conflict of interest checklist ).

Doctoral Thesis External Examiner

The Doctoral external examiner must be a scholar of established reputation and competence in the field of the thesis research. They must be from outside the University, hold a doctorate or equivalent and have no other conflict of interest (see  conflict of interest checklist ).

Doctoral Thesis Internal Examiner

The internal examiner is expected to be knowledgeable in the area and topic of the thesis, though not necessarily to the same extent as the external examiner. The internal examiner also ensures that the written thesis meets the standards of McGill University.

The internal examiner is usually a McGill faculty member (but not the supervisor) affiliated with the student's Unit*, but they may also be nominated from other Units* at McGill. The internal examiner must not be in conflict of interest according to McGill’s conflict of interest regulations . A member of the student’s supervisory committee may be named as the internal examiner.

The internal examiner must attend the final oral thesis defence.  

Nominating Examiners

Examiners are nominated and invited to evaluate the initial thesis through myThesis. Units may have specific procedures for the selection of names prior to their entry into myThesis. For more information on myThesis, please see here .   

Objectivity of the Examination Process

Once the thesis has been submitted, no one outside of GPS should attempt to communicate with the examiner(s) regarding the thesis, nor should the examiner(s) communicate with one another or with the student or the supervisor(s) until the examination process is complete. Any contact with examiners by the supervisor, student or Unit after the nomination process constitutes a conflict of interest and the examination process will not go forward. All questions regarding the examination or defence should be addressed to the thesis.gps [at] mcgill.ca (GPS Thesis Unit) . 

Examination Procedures

When the thesis is sent for examination, the examiner(s) have a minimum of four (4) weeks to evaluate the thesis and return the thesis examination report(s). When the completed examiners’ reports have been returned to GPS, the procedures for Master’s theses and Doctoral theses are as follows:

Master’s thesis:

• If the examiner has passed the thesis, GPS will send copies of the report to the student, supervisor(s), and the Unit. The student must make any corrections and/or minor revisions in consultation with the supervisor before final submission.
• If the thesis has not been passed, see Thesis Examination Failures .

Doctoral thesis:

• Both examiners must pass the thesis before the examination can proceed to the Oral Defence.
• GPS will give myThesis access to view copies of examiners' reports to all members of the Oral Defence Committee (including the supervisor) approximately 3-5 business days before the defence. The student is not to see the reports until after the oral defence.
• The student will have myThesis copies of all reports 1-2 days after the defence.
• The student must make any corrections and/or revisions, where required, in consultation with the supervisor, or other individual designated by the Oral Defence Committee, before final submission of the thesis.

In cases where plagiarism is suspected, the examiner must return the thesis and report the suspected plagiarism, citing sources of the original material that was allegedly plagiarized. In cases where plagiarism in the thesis is charged, the thesis examination does not proceed and the case is investigated through a University disciplinary process.

*Unit refers to a department, a division, a school, an institute, or a Faculty/University-wide program.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License . Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, McGill University .

Department and University Information

Graduate and postdoctoral studies.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Examiners’ reports on theses: Feedback or assessment

2011, Journal of English for Academic Purposes

Related Papers

Linguistics and Education

Sue Starfield

Sue Starfield , Robert McMurtrie , Brian Paltridge

Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology

Terence Lovat

Ruth Albertyn

The Australian Universities' review

Kerry Dally

Doctoral thesis examination is the litmus test for doctoral quality. Of those candidates who reach examination, most are notified they have more work to do on their thesis. Receiving and responding to feedback are integral parts of a formal learning process that continues until the final thesis is submitted. However, little is known about what happens after examiner reports are received by an institution, how recommendations and feedback are filtered through institutional processes to influence thesis outcomes, or about the roles that candidates and supervisors play in determining and giving action to thesis revisions. This article reports the findings from a desktop review of institutional protocols and policies governing doctoral thesis examination in Australian universities. Given that the PhD Viva, or oral examination, is rare in Australian universities, the authors question whether current examination processes allow adequate opportunities for candidates to actively engage with...

Ansie Lessing

Melbourne Studies in Education

This paper outlines the procedures used in the textual analysis of examiner reports for 101 PhD candidates across disciplines in one Australian University. The method involves the use of QSR software2. Three levels of findings are outlined. The first level is the coding categories that emerged out of reading the report text. There are five broad categories of codes that capture: the structure of the reports, the ways in which examiners communicate, the subject matter of the thesis, the characteristics of examiners' evaluative comment and their comments on their role and the examination process. The second level of findings concerns the frequency of different categories of comment and the prevalence of comment on the analysis and interpretation of the candidate's results. The third extends beyond the individual categories to what we can learn about the utilization of the report. One key finding is that the examiners took on specific roles: mentor-colleague, supervisor-instr...

Studies in higher education

Kirk Agbenu

The Curriculum Journal

oduor olande

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Medical Ethics

Brian D. Earp

Nouvelle Revue Théologique

Arnaud Join-Lambert

MARCOS GONZÁLEZ FERNÁNDEZ

Revista de Chimie

Alexandru Woinaroschy

Carmen Astete

Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Engineering

Samsang You

Tom Serfass

European Journal of Clinical Investigation

Iva Fernandes

Coloquio Baiano Tempos Espacos E Representacoes Abordagens Geograficas E Historicas Issn 2359 1218

Edvaldo Oliveira

Remote Sensing

George Papatheodorou

vera Borges

Tropical Aquatic Sciences

aditya irawan

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Erin Kenneally

Journal of baghdad college of dentistry

Muna Saleem

Harald Gjerdahl

Verkehr im Kapitalismus

Oliver Schwedes

Princípios online

Sara Freitas

Journal of Labelled Compounds and Radiopharmaceuticals

Ravi Seshan

BMGN - Low Countries Historical Review

Maarten Prak

Karbala International Journal of Modern Science

Syam Prasad P

Nordicom Review

Ullamaija Kivikuru

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Graduate School
• Current Students
• Final Doctoral Exam

Doctoral Exam Guide

External examiner's report, workday student support.

Graduate students can find "how to" guides and support information on our Workday support page .

The external examiner's report is submitted directly to the Doctoral Exams team at Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. In cases where the external examiner recommends that a candidate proceed to Oral Defence, Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies will normally distribute copies of the report to the graduate program advisor and all members of the examination committee one week prior to the Defence date. The entire content of the report is confidential and must not be discussed with the candidate prior to the Final Oral Defence. The external examiner's recommendations must be taken into account by the examination committee when providing an assessment of the dissertation during the Final Oral Defence.

Note: a written report and questions for the defence are required from the external examiner regardless of whether they are planning to participate in the Oral Defence.

The external examiner is asked to assess whether the dissertation meets the criteria for a successful dissertation, with reference to the expectations regarding the scope and structure of a doctoral dissertation at UBC and using the criteria outlined in the following documents:

• For Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) examinations -  Instructions for Preparing the External Examiner's Report
• For Doctor of Education (EdD) examinations - Guidelines for the Examination of the Ed.D. Dissertation
• For Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA) in Composition examinations - Instructions for the Preparation of the External Examiner's Report
• For Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA) in Performance examinations - Instructions for the Preparation of the External Examiner's Report

The external examiner is also asked to make an overall recommendation regarding whether or not the dissertation as written is ready for defence. If the external examiner's report recommends major revisions to the dissertation before the candidate proceeds to Defence, the Dean or Associate Dean of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (usually after consulting with external examiner) will make the final decision about whether or not to proceed with the Final Oral Defence.

In order to allow time for the report to be distributed, the external examiner's report is due 10 days before the Defence. The Dean or Associate Dean of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies reserve the right to postpone the Final Oral Defence if the external examiner's report is late.

External Examiner Recommends Major Revisions to the Dissertation

In cases where the external examiner recommends major revisions to the dissertation before proceeding to the Oral Defence, candidates are normally granted exactly one opportunity for major revision and re-examination. External review of the revised dissertation normally involves both the original external examiner and a new additional external examiner (who is not informed of the previous external exam).

The research supervisor and candidate will be notified by email as early as possible if the external examiner recommends major revisions to the dissertation and if the Dean or Associate Dean of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies requires that the candidate address the report and make revisions to the dissertation before proceeding to the Final Oral Defence. A copy of the external examiner’s report will be provided at that time and should be used to guide the revisions. As part of the revision process, Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies strongly recommends that the candidate compose a separate document, to be sent to the original external examiner only, outlining where and how the external examiner’s concerns have been addressed.

Once the revised dissertation has been approved by the supervisory committee, the candidate will be required to submit the dissertation and associated approval memos as outlined under Submitting for Examination . Candidates and research supervisors are asked to notify the Doctoral Exams office well in advance of the anticipated submission date so appropriate arrangements can be made with the external examiners.

If at least one of these two external examiners recommends that the examination should proceed, then the Final Oral Defence will take place.

• Why Grad School at UBC?
• Graduate Degree Programs
• Application & Admission
• Info Sessions
• Research Supervisors
• Research Projects
• Indigenous Students
• International Students
• Tuition, Fees & Cost of Living
• Newly Admitted
• Student Status & Classification
• Student Responsibilities
• Supervision & Advising
• Managing your Program
• Health, Wellbeing and Safety
• Professional Development
• Dissertation & Thesis Preparation
• Final Dissertation & Thesis Submission
• Life in Vancouver
• Vancouver Campus
• Graduate Student Spaces
• Graduate Life Centre
• Life as a Grad Student
• Graduate Student Ambassadors
• Meet our Students
• Award Opportunities
• Award Guidelines
• Minimum Funding Policy for PhD Students
• Killam Awards & Fellowships
• Policies & Procedures
• Information for Supervisors
• Dean's Message
• Leadership Team
• Strategic Plan & Priorities
• Vision & Mission
• Equity, Diversity & Inclusion
• Initiatives, Plans & Reports
• Graduate Education Analysis & Research
• Media Enquiries
• Newsletters
• Giving to Graduate Studies

Strategic Priorities

• Strategic Plan 2019-2024
• Improving Student Funding
• Promoting Excellence in Graduate Programs
• Enhancing Graduate Supervision
• Advancing Indigenous Inclusion
• Supporting Student Development and Success
• Reimagining Graduate Education
• Enriching the Student Experience

Initiatives

• Public Scholars Initiative
• 3 Minute Thesis (3MT)
• PhD Career Outcomes

FTX Bankruptcy Examiner Recommends Probe of LedgerX Deal (1)

By Steven Church

The fraud-tainted crypto firm FTX should face a new investigation into its money-losing deal for derivatives exchange LedgerX in order to determine if any of the original owners can be sued, a court-approved examiner recommended in a report made public Thursday.

Former federal prosecutor Robert J. Cleary concluded that FTX’s main law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell , should not be part of any probe of the transaction because the firm was previously involved in the $300 million purchase that brought LedgerX into the FTX empire in 2021. After new managers put FTX into bankruptcy, the company sold LedgerX for $50 ...

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

North Carolina bill seeks to restrict public and media access to criminal autopsy reports

FILE - North Carolina Sen. Danny Britt, a Robeson County Republican, speaks at the Legislative Building, Feb. 14, 2023, in Raleigh, N.C. Access by the public and the media to North Carolina autopsy reports related to criminal investigations would be significantly restricted under a bill, shepherded by Britt, considered Tuesday, May 21, 2024, by a legislative committee. (AP Photo/Hannah Schoenbaum, File)

• Copy Link copied

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Access by the public and the media to North Carolina autopsy reports related to criminal investigations would be significantly restricted under a bill considered Tuesday by a Senate committee.

The proposal was debated by senators but not voted upon. It would explicitly add written autopsy reports from the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner to the list of documents exempt from public records when they are part of an investigative file held by prosecutors trying to solve a crime. The written reports could be accessed after a probe or prosecution is complete, one of the bill’s proponents said.

Those reports often provide the public with information about the details of a crime while a case is pending.

The bill also would repeal a state law that had allowed people to inspect and review — but not copy — autopsy photos, videos and recordings under supervision. Those records also would be considered within a prosecutor’s private case file if part of a crime investigation.

Robeson County Republican Sen. Danny Britt, a defense attorney and former prosecutor shepherding the bill, said the details were still being worked out between state health officials, a group representing district attorneys and others. An updated version was likely to emerge next week.

But Britt said it was important that autopsy records of all kinds — including written reports — be kept out of the public sphere while a potential homicide crime was investigated or prosecuted in the interests of justice.

Releasing autopsy details or obtaining any access to photos or videos from the death review could unfairly taint jurors or a case, he said.

“I think that due process in the courts is more important than the public knowing about what happened related to someone’s death,” Britt told reporters after the committee meeting. “I also think it’s more important for that person who’s being prosecuted to have due process, and that due process not being potentially denied so that case gets overturned and then that victim doesn’t receive the justice they deserve, or that victim’s family.”

When asked by Mecklenburg County Democrat Sen. Mujtaba Mohammed if the bill would also restrict a victim’s family access to the reports, Britt said they generally wouldn’t have access as a way to prevent images and videos from being shared to social media. They could, however, sit down with a prosecutor to view the photos, he said.

The North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys supports the autopsy record access changes, said Chuck Spahos, the conference’s general counsel. Content in the prosecutor’s investigative file is already exempt from public records law but can be released later.

“We don’t give the investigative file up during a prosecution, and we shouldn’t be giving up the record of the autopsy during a prosecution,” Spahos said. “If all that stuff gets released in the public, a case gets tried in the public, and that’s not fair to the criminal defendant.”

In addition to autopsy report provisions, the bill also would add training requirements for county medical examiners and further outline how examiners can request and obtain a deceased person’s personal belongings as evidence. If changes aren’t made to the bill, it would make current challenges faced by medical examiners “much, much more difficult,” Mark Benton, chief deputy health secretary at the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, said during public comments on the bill.

The measure would have to pass the Senate and House to reach Gov. Roy Cooper’s desk.