Doctoral and MPhil Handbook

Policy changes

Thesis and examination matters (Chapter 7)

Revised policy approved by Research Graduate School Committee.

Former policy

7.13.1.3 Revise and resubmit

(a) Where a PhD candidate has been required to revise and resubmit a thesis subsequent to the receipt of an adjudicator's report, the resubmitted thesis shall normally be examined by two examiners who shall be appointed in the usual way on the recommendation of the relevant head of department. As the revised thesis is deemed to be a new thesis, one of the examiners so nominated may be an original assenting examiner. Only in the most exceptional circumstances, or circumstances described in (b) following, will the Research Graduate School Committee approve the appointment of only one examiner to review the resubmitted thesis.

(b) Where a candidate has been required to revise and resubmit a thesis on the basis of one dissenting report only and without the involvement of an adjudicator, the relevant advisory panel may recommend the appointment of only one examiner.

(c) The examiner(s) recommended for appointment in accordance with (a) and (b) preceding shall normally include the dissenting examiner(s) or, if appropriate, the adjudicator. Such examiners will generally be restricted in their assessment options and will not be authorised to recommend a further revision and resubmission of the thesis. Advisory panels are reminded that the appointment of new examiner(s) to review the resubmitted thesis may prolong the assessment process as new examiners must be given the full range of options, including revise and resubmit. However, the Steering Committee has recommended that where a revised thesis is examined by both an original examiner/adjudicator and a new examiner, the former should still receive a restricted range of options which excludes the ‘revise and resubmit' option. However, the new examiner should be given the full range of choices.

7.13.1.4 Appointment of adjudicator

7.15.2 Triggers for applying special review process

The review process, including the convening of an Examination Review Board (see below), may be initiated by either the Steering Committee or the director of the Monash Research Graduate School, if in their opinion:

the examination has taken too long
the requirements or views of a dissenting examiner are considered unreasonable
the report of the adjudicator is inappropriate or inadequate, or
there is an irreconcilable divergence between the views of the Steering Committee and the relevant advisory panel. (In such cases, however, the director of the Monash Research Graduate School may first convene a joint meeting of the Steering Committee and the relevant advisory panel to determine whether agreement may be reached on appropriate action.)

The Research Graduate School Committee will be advised of the proposed course of action to achieve an examination outcome.

Revised policy (changes have been highlighted in italics)

7.13.1.3 Revise and resubmit

(a) Where a candidate has been required to revise and resubmit a thesis on the basis of one dissenting report only, the advisory panel may recommend the appointment of only one examiner.

(b) Where a PhD candidate has been required to revise and resubmit a thesis on the basis of two dissenting examiners' reports or subsequent to the receipt of an adjudicator's report, the resubmitted thesis shall normally be examined by two examiners who shall be appointed in the usual way on the recommendation of the relevant head of department.

(c) The examiner(s) recommended for appointment in accordance with (a) and (b) preceding shall normally include the dissenting examiner(s) or, if appropriate, the adjudicator. Examiners of resubmitted theses will be given the full range of recommendation options, regardless of whether they are an original or a new examiner. The original assenting examiner will be notified that the candidate has been advised to revise and resubmit the thesis and will be informed of the general nature of the adjudicator's recommendation, following endorsement of that recommendation by the advisory panel and the Monash Research Graduate School Steering Committee.

7.13.1.4 Appointment of adjudicator

An adjudicator is asked to provide reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with examiners. It should be reiterated that in making an assessment on the appropriateness of the two examiners' reports, the adjudicator is not being asked to set additional requirements for the candidate. In the case where an adjudicator recommends revision and resubmission, they are asked to specify to which examiner(s) the thesis should be sent after revision, and whether they would be willing to act as an examiner for the revised thesis, should the circumstance arise.

7.15.2 Triggers for applying special review process

the examination has taken too long
the requirements or views of a dissenting examiner are considered unreasonable
the report of the adjudicator is inappropriate or inadequate, or
there is an irreconcilable divergence between the views of the Steering Committee and the relevant advisory panel. (In such cases, however, the director of the Monash Research Graduate School may first convene a joint meeting of the Steering Committee and the relevant advisory panel to determine whether agreement may be reached on appropriate action.)

An Examination Review Board will be convened for all examination cases where a recommendation of revision and resubmission is returned after the second round of the examination.

The Research Graduate School Committee will be advised of the proposed course of action to achieve an examination outcome.