phd thesis major corrections

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

• Log in/Register Register

https://www.vitae.ac.uk/doing-research/doing-a-doctorate/completing-your-doctorate/your-viva/thesis-outcomes

This page has been reproduced from the Vitae website (www.vitae.ac.uk). Vitae is dedicated to realising the potential of researchers through transforming their professional and career development.

• Vitae members' area

Thesis outcomes and corrections

There will usually be a bit more work to do after the viva. Each institution will have its own regulations about viva outcomes and how to inform the candidate of them. Find out before you go into your viva so that you know what to expect. In the UK they typically they fall into one of the following categories:

• Outright pass. Your work needs no corrections
• Minor corrections. Your examiners have a few minor suggestions that they would like you to incorporate
• Major corrections or resubmission. The thesis needs further work to be of doctoral standard. This might include more research, rewriting sections or including new literature
• Suggestion that you resubmit for, or are awarded, a lower degree (MPhil or MSc). Research is of good quality but too narrow for a doctorate
• Outright fail. Usually used only in cases of plagiarism or where the examiners judge that the candidate will never be able to complete a doctorate.

Most candidates fall within the minor or major corrections categories. This means that you will have some corrections to complete. However, regardless of the number of corrections that you have to do most people who reach the viva stage do  go on to get their doctorate relatively quickly.

Thesis corrections

After your viva you are likely to have some corrections to complete before you are awarded your doctorate. The extent can range from a few spelling mistakes to rewriting or adding complete chapters. You may be given a deadline by your examiners or your institution but regardless of this, it is best to aim to complete your corrections as soon as possible to use the momentum acquired during thesis writing.

In order to be sure that your corrections make the right changes:

• take notes during the viva and write them up immediately after
• meet with your main supervisor to discuss the changes that you need to make
• analyse the examiners' report carefully to make sure that you have dealt with all of the issues that they raise
• proofread your work again.

Thesis resubmission

Your examiners, or often just the internal examiner, will check that all corrections have been incorporated, and then you can resubmit your thesis. Your institution will have regulations on the format of the final submitted thesis copy of your thesis, which will usually be deposited in the institutional library. It has become more common for institutions to request the submission of an electronic copy for ease of cataloguing and searching.

Bookmark & Share

Effective Strategies for Addressing Major PhD Thesis Corrections

approached with purpose and proficiency. In this blog post, we will unravel the art of navigating through this critical phase, offering invaluable insights and effective strategies to not only meet the demands of thesis corrections but to emerge stronger, wiser, and poised for academic excellence.

Strategy 1: Systematic Revision Roadmap

Addressing major PhD thesis corrections necessitates a systematic and structured approach. Begin by meticulously cataloguing the feedback and corrections provided by your committee or supervisor. Create a detailed spreadsheet or document that organizes each correction point along with corresponding page numbers and sections. This not only provides a clear visual overview but also serves as a reference point during the revision process. Next, prioritize types of corrections in PhD thesis based on their significance and interdependencies. Start with foundational revisions that have overarching implications for your thesis. These could include theoretical frameworks, methodology, or critical analytical approaches. Once these fundamental aspects are refined, proceed to more nuanced corrections in data analysis, results interpretation, and discussions. Furthermore, establish a revision timeline with specific milestones. Assign realistic deadlines to each correction task, factoring in ample time for review and iterations. This structured timeline ensures steady progress while preventing last-minute rushes. Regularly track your progress against these milestones to maintain momentum and accountability.

Strategy 2: Thorough Literature Review Integration

One of the most common PhD thesis correction reasons is the need for enhanced integration of the existing literature. To address this, embark on a comprehensive review of relevant literature, ensuring it aligns seamlessly with your research objectives, methodology, and findings. Begin by revisiting your literature review section and scrutinize each citation for its direct relevance and contribution to your research. Seek out additional sources that may offer alternative viewpoints or provide supplementary evidence. Pay close attention to recent publications, as they may introduce novel perspectives or data that enrich your thesis. Moreover, weave the literature into the fabric of your thesis by employing effective citation strategies. Integrate key concepts and findings from seminal studies to support your arguments and interpretations. Establish clear connections between your research and the broader academic discourse, demonstrating a nuanced understanding of the field.

Strategy 3: Rigorous Methodological Scrutiny and Validation

A crucial aspect of major PhD thesis corrections often pertains to the methodology employed in your research. To address this, conduct a thorough review and validation of your research design, data collection methods, and analytical techniques. Begin by revisiting your research questions and hypotheses. Verify that your chosen methodology is aligned with these objectives and provides the most appropriate means of data collection and analysis. If necessary, consider alternative methods that may better suit the nature of your research or offer more robust results. Next, scrutinize the data collection process. Ensure that it adheres to rigorous standards of reliability and validity. Evaluate any potential sources of bias or confounding variables, and implement measures to mitigate their impact. Additionally, consider seeking external validation or peer review of your data collection procedures to bolster the credibility of your findings. Furthermore, conduct a comprehensive review of your data analysis techniques. Verify that they align with the nature of your data and research questions. Provide clear justifications for the chosen analytical methods, demonstrating their appropriateness in extracting meaningful insights from your dataset.

PhD Thesis Correction Reasons

The common corrections that the PhD students have to face are:

1. Conceptual Clarity:

– Lack of clear thesis statement or research questions. – Inadequate definition or explanation of key terms and concepts. – Weak connections between different sections or chapters.

2. Methodology:

– Incomplete or insufficient description of research methods and procedures. – Lack of justification for the chosen methodology. – Failure to address potential limitations of the chosen methodology.

3. Literature Review:

– Inadequate coverage of relevant literature. – Failure to critically analyze and synthesize existing research. – Insufficient citation of key sources or overreliance on a few.

To solve these problems, researchers can

– Engage in thorough proofreading and editing. – Seek feedback from advisors, peers, or professional editors. – Use style guides and resources for correct formatting and citation. – Consider hiring professional editing services for a final review.

In the arduous journey towards a PhD, the phase of addressing major thesis corrections stands as a testament to a scholar’s dedication and resilience. Through this comprehensive guide, we’ve outlined powerful strategies to not only navigate this critical juncture but to emerge with a thesis of unparalleled academic rigor. By adopting a systematic revision roadmap, integrating literature with finesse, and scrutinizing methodology with precision, researchers can approach corrections with purpose and confidence. Each correction, each refinement, serves as a stepping stone towards a thesis of exceptional quality, poised to make a meaningful contribution to your field of study.

Elevate Your Thesis with iThesisEdit: Your Partner in Academic Excellence

At iThesisEdit, we understand the significance of presenting a flawless, impeccably crafted thesis. Our team of seasoned editors and subject matter experts specialize in refining academic manuscripts, ensuring that they meet the highest standards of quality and coherence. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to clarity, we assist researchers in addressing major PhD thesis corrections with precision and finesse. Whether it’s fine-tuning your methodology, enhancing literature integration, or polishing the language for utmost clarity, our dedicated team is poised to elevate your thesis to its fullest potential. Partner with iThesisEdit and embark on the final leg of your PhD journey with the assurance of presenting a thesis that reflects your unwavering commitment to academic excellence. Your research deserves nothing less.

FAQ Questions

1. what is the difference between minor and major corrections.

The distinction between minor and major corrections in PhD thesis lies in their scope and impact. Minor corrections typically involve relatively small adjustments, such as clarifications of concepts or minor revisions in language. They do not alter the fundamental structure or conclusions of the thesis. Major corrections, on the other hand, encompass more substantial revisions that may affect the methodology, data analysis, or overall argumentation. These corrections often stem from significant PhD thesis correction reasons, necessitating a more in-depth reassessment of the research.

2. How to present PhD correction?

When presenting PhD corrections, it’s crucial to approach it with a clear and organized strategy. Explore effective strategies to tackle major PhD thesis correction s. Learn about common PhD thesis correction reasons and types of corrections in PhD thesis.Begin by systematically cataloging the corrections based on their nature and relevance to different sections of the thesis. Prioritize major corrections that address fundamental PhD thesis correction reasons, and ensure they are integrated seamlessly into the narrative. Clearly document each correction along with the corresponding page numbers and sections. Providing a concise summary of the changes made and the rationale behind them will demonstrate a rigorous and thoughtful approach to addressing the corrections.

3. How to make a Thesis correction report?

Crafting a comprehensive thesis correction report is essential for transparently documenting the revisions undertaken. Begin by categorizing the corrections according to their nature, such as conceptual, methodological, or linguistic. For each correction, provide a clear description of the original issue, the specific modification made, and the corresponding page numbers. Additionally, elucidate the rationale behind the changes, particularly in the context of the underlying PhD thesis correction reasons. A well-structured and informative correction report not only aids in the review process but also showcases a meticulous and scholarly approach to addressing corrections.Master your PhD dissertation defense preparation with dissertation defense preparation outline to excel in yout dissertation defense preparation.

4. What are the common errors in PhD thesis?

Several common errors tend to surface in PhD theses, often necessitating corrections. These include issues related to conceptual clarity, where definitions or theoretical frameworks may require refinement. Methodological rigors such as validity and reliability of data collection instruments can be areas of correction. Additionally, literature review integration, data presentation, and logical coherence are common points of scrutiny. Furthermore, language and expression errors, including grammar and terminology, may also be flagged. Recognizing these common errors and proactively addressing them can significantly reduce the likelihood of major corrections.

5. How do you avoid major corrections?

To avoid major corrections in a PhD thesis, it’s imperative to adopt a proactive and meticulous approach throughout the research process. Begin by thoroughly understanding and adhering to the specific guidelines and expectations set forth by your institution or committee. Regularly engage with your advisor for feedback and guidance, ensuring that your research aligns with their expectations. Conduct rigorous self-reviews and peer reviews to catch and rectify potential issues early on. Additionally, maintain clear and transparent documentation of your methodology, data collection, and analysis processes. By being vigilant and attentive to potential PhD thesis correction reasons, you can minimize the likelihood of major corrections and ensure a smoother path towards thesis approval.

• PhD Viva Voces – A Complete Guide
• Doing a PhD
• A PhD viva involves defending your thesis in an oral examination with at least two examiners.
• The aim of a PhD viva is to confirm that the work is your own , that you have a deep understanding of your project and, overall, that you are a competent researcher .
• There are no standard durations, but they usually range from one to three hours, with most lasting approximately two hours .
• There are six outcomes of a PhD viva: (1) pass without corrections (2) pass subject to minor corrections, (3) pass subject to major corrections, (4) downgrade to MPhil with no amendments, (5) downgrade to MPhil subject to amendments, (6) immediate fail.
• Almost all students who sit their viva pass it, with the most common outcome being ‘(2) – pass subject to minor corrections’.

What Is a PhD Viva?

A viva voce , more commonly referred to as ‘viva’, is an oral examination conducted at the end of your PhD and is essentially the final hurdle on the path to a doctorate. It is the period in which a student’s knowledge and work are evaluated by independent examiners.

In order to assess the student and their work around their research question, a viva sets out to determine:

• you understand the ideas and theories that you have put forward,
• you can answer questions about elements of your work that the examiners have questions about,
• you understand the broader research in your field and how your work contributes to this,
• you are aware of the limitations of your work and understand how it can be developed further,
• your work makes an original contribution, is your own and has not been plagiarised.

Note: A viva is a compulsory procedure for all PhD students, with the only exception being when a PhD is obtained through publication as opposed to the conventional route of study.

Who Will Attend a Viva?

In the UK, at least two examiners must take part in all vivas. Although you could have more than two examiners, most will not in an attempt to facilitate a smoother questioning process.

One of the two examiners will be internal, i.e. from your university, and the other will be external, i.e. from another university. Regardless, both will be knowledgeable in your research field and have read your thesis beforehand.

In addition to your two examiners, two other people may be present. The first is a chairperson. This is an individual who will be responsible for monitoring the interview and for ensuring proper conduct is followed at all times. The need for an external chairperson will vary between universities, as one of the examiners can also take on this role. The second is your supervisor, whose attendance is decided upon by you in agreement with your examiners. If your supervisor attends, they are prohibited from asking questions or from influencing the outcome of the viva.

To avoid any misunderstandings, we have summarised the above in a table:

Note: In some countries, such as in the United States, a viva is known as a ‘PhD defense’ and is performed publicly in front of a panel or board of examiners and an open audience. In these situations, the student presents their work in the form of a lecture and then faces questions from the examiners and audience which almost acts as a critical appraisal.

How Long Does a Viva Last?

Since all universities have different guidelines , and since all PhDs are unique, there are no standard durations. Typically, however, the duration ranges from one to three hours, with most lasting approximately two hours.

Your examiners will also influence the duration of your viva as some will favour a lengthy discussion, while others may not. Usually, your university will consult your examiners in advance and notify you of the likely duration closer to the day of your viva.

What Happens During a Viva?

Regardless of the subject area, all PhD vivas follow the same examination process format as below.

Introductions

You will introduce yourselves to each other, with the internal examiner normally introducing the external examiner. If an external chairperson is present, they too are introduced; otherwise, this role will be assumed by one of the examiners.

Procedure Explained

After the introductions, the appointed chair will explain the viva process. Although it should already be known to everyone, it will be repeated to ensure the viva remains on track during the forthcoming discussion.

Warm-Up Questions

The examiners will then begin the questioning process. This usually starts with a few simple opening questions, such as asking you to summarise your PhD thesis and what motivated you to carry out the research project.

In-Depth Questions

The viva questions will then naturally increase in difficulty as the examiners go further into the details of your thesis. These may include questions such as “What was the most critical decision you made when determining your research methodology ?”, “Do your findings agree with the current published work?” and “How do your findings impact existing theories or literature? ”. In addition to asking open-ended questions, they will also ask specific questions about the methodology, results and analysis on which your thesis is based.

Closing the Viva

Once the examiners are satisfied that they have thoroughly evaluated your knowledge and thesis, they will invite you to ask any questions you may have, and then bring the oral examination to a close.

What Happens After the Viva?

Once your viva has officially ended, your examiners will ask you to leave the room so that they can discuss your performance. Once a mutual agreement has been reached, which can take anywhere from 10 minutes to an hour, you will be invited back inside and informed of your outcome.

PhD Viva Outcomes

There are six possible outcomes to a viva:

• Immediate award of degree: A rare recommendation – congratulations, you are one of the few people who completely satisfied your examiners the first time around. You do not have to do anything further at this point.
• Minor amendments required: The most common recommendation – you obtain a pass on the condition that you make a number of minor amendments to your thesis, such as clarifying certain points and correcting grammatical errors. The time you have to make these changes depends on the number of them, but is usually one to six months.
• Major amendments required: A somewhat uncommon recommendation – you are requested to make major amendments to your thesis, ranging from further research to collecting more data or rewriting entire sections. Again, the time you have to complete this will depend on the number of changes required, but will usually be six months to one year. You will be awarded your degree once your amended thesis has been reviewed and accepted.
• Immediate award of MPhil: An uncommon recommendation – your examiners believe your thesis does not meet the standard for a doctoral degree but meets the standard for an MPhil (Master of Philosophy), a lower Master’s degree.
• Amendments required for MPhil: A rare recommendation – your examiners believe your thesis does not meet the standard for a doctoral degree, but with several amendments will meet the standard for an MPhil.
• Immediate fail: A very rare recommendation – you are given an immediate fail without the ability to resubmit and without entitlement to an MPhil.

Finding a PhD has never been this easy – search for a PhD by keyword, location or academic area of interest.

What Is the Pass Rate for Vivas?

Based on an  analysis of 26,076 PhD students  who took their viva exam between 2006 and 2017, the PhD viva pass rate in the UK is 96%; of those who passed, about 80% were required to make minor amendments to their thesis. The reason for this high pass rate is that supervisors will only put their students forward for a viva once they confidently believe they are ready for it. As a result, most candidates who sit a viva are already well-versed in their PhD topic before they even start preparing for the exam.

How Do I Arrange a Viva?

Your viva will be arranged either by the examiners or by the chairperson. The viva will be arranged at least one to two months after you have submitted your thesis and will arrange a viva date and venue that is suitable for all participants.

Can I Choose My Examiners?

At most universities, you and your supervisor will choose the internal and external examiners yourselves. This is because the examiners must have extensive knowledge of the thesis topic in order to be able to examine you and, as the author of the thesis in question, who else could better determine who they might be than you and your supervisor. The internal examiner is usually quite easy to find given they will be from your institution, but the external examiner may end up being your second or third preference depending on availability.

Can I Take Notes Into a Viva?

A viva is about testing your competence, not your memory. As such, you are allowed to take notes and other supporting material in with you. However, keep in mind that your examiners will not be overly impressed if you constantly have to refer to your notes to answer each question. Because of this, many students prefer to take an annotated copy of their thesis, with important points already highlighted and key chapters marked with post-it notes.

In addition to an annotated copy of a thesis, some students also take:

• a list of questions they would like to ask the examiners,
• notes that were created during their preparation,
• a list of minor corrections they have already identified from their viva prep work.

How Do I Prepare for a PhD Viva?

There are several ways to prepare for a PhD viva, one of the most effective being a mock viva voce examination . This allows you to familiarise yourself with the type of viva questions you will be asked and identify any weak areas you need to improve. They also give you the opportunity to practise without the pressure, giving you more time to think about your answers which will help to make sure that you know your thesis inside out. However, a mock viva exam is just one of many methods available to you – some of the other viva preparation methods can be found on our “ How to Prepare for a PhD Viva ” page.

Browse PhDs Now

Join thousands of students.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught
• Postgraduate examinations
• Writing, submitting and examination
• PhD, EdD, MSc, MLitt
• Cambridge students
• New students overview
• Pre-arrival courses
• Student registration overview
• Information for New Students
• Information for Continuing Students
• Frequently Asked Questions overview
• Who needs to register
• When to register
• Received registration in error/not received registration email
• Problems creating an account
• Problems logging in
• Problems with screen display
• Personal details changed/incorrectly displayed
• Course details changed/incorrectly displayed
• Accessing email and other services
• Miscellaneous questions
• Contact Form
• First few weeks
• Manage your student information overview
• Student record overview
• Camsis overview
• Extended Self-Service (ESS)
• Logging into CamSIS
• What CamSIS can do for you
• Personal information overview
• Changing your name
• Changing Colleges
• Residing outside the University's precincts
• Applying for person(s) to join you in Cambridge
• Postgraduate students overview
• Code of Practice for Master's students
• Code of Practice for Research Students
• Postgraduate student information
• Requirements for research degrees
• Terms of study
• Your progress
• Rules and legal compliance overview
• Freedom of speech
• Public gatherings
• Disclosure and barring service overview
• Cambridge life overview
• Student unions
• Extra-curricular activities overview
• Registering societies
• Military, air, and sea training
• Food and accommodation
• Transport overview
• Bicycles and boats
• Your course overview
• Undergraduate study
• Postgraduate study overview
• Changes to your student status (postgraduates only) overview
• Applying for a change in your student status (postgraduates only)
• Changing your mode of study
• Withdrawing from the University
• Allowance/exemption of research terms
• Withdrawal from Study
• Reinstatement
• Changing your course registration
• Changing your department/faculty
• Changing your supervisor
• Exemption from the University composition fee
• Confirmation of Study: Academic Verification Letters
• Extending your submission date
• Medical intermission (postgraduates)
• Non-medical intermission (postgraduates)
• Returning from medical intermission
• Working away
• Working while you study
• Postgraduate by Research Exam Information
• Research passports
• Engagement and feedback
• Student elections
• Graduation and what next? overview
• Degree Ceremonies overview
• The ceremony
• Academical dress
• Photography
• Degree ceremony dates
• Eligibility
• The Cambridge MA overview
• Degrees Under Statute B II 2
• Degree certificates and transcripts overview
• Academic Transcripts
• Degree Certificates
• After Graduation
• Verification of Cambridge degrees
• After your examination
• Exams overview
• Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught overview
• All students timetable
• Undergraduate exam information overview
• Postgraduate examinations overview
• Examination access arrangements overview
• Research programmes
• Taught programmes
• Writing, submitting and examination overview
• PhD, EdD, MSc, MLitt overview
• Research Best Practice
• Preparing to submit your thesis
• Submitting your thesis
• Word limits
• The oral examination (viva)
• After the viva (oral examination)
• After the examination overview
• Degree approval and conferment overview
• Final thesis submission
• Examination allowances for certain Postgraduate degrees (except PhD, MSc, MLitt and MPhil by thesis degrees)
• Requesting a review of the results of an examination (postgraduate qualifications)
• Higher degrees overview
• Higher doctorates
• Bachelor of divinity
• PhD under Special Regulations
• Faith-provision in University exams
• Publication of Results
• Exam Support
• Postgraduate by Research
• EAMC overview
• Annual Reports of the EAMC
• Dates of meetings
• Frequently asked questions
• Guidance notes and application forms
• Resources overview
• Build your skills
• Research students
• Fees and financial assistance overview
• Financial assistance overview
• Overview of Financial Assistance
• General eligibility principles and guidance
• Cambridge Bursary Scheme funding overview
• What you could get
• Scottish students
• EU students
• Clinical medics and vets
• Independent students
• Extra scholarships and awards
• Undergraduate Financial Assistance Fund
• Postgraduate Financial Assistance Fund
• Realise Financial Assistance Fund
• The Crane Fund
• Loan Fund I
• External Support 
• Support from your Funding Sponsor
• Guidance for Academic Supervisors and College Tutors
• Fees overview
• Funding overview
• Mosley, Worts, and Frere Travel Funds
• Support for UKRI Studentship Holders overview
• Student loans overview
• US loans overview
• Application procedure
• Entrance and Exit Counselling
• Cost of attendance
• What type of loan and how much you can borrow
• Interest rates for federal student loans
• Proof of funding for visa purposes
• Disbursement
• Satisfactory academic progress policy
• In-School Deferment Forms
• Leave of absence
• Withdrawing and return to Title IV policy
• Rights and Responsibilities as a Borrower
• Managing Repayment
• Consumer information
• Submitting a thesis — information for PhD students
• Private loans
• Veteran affairs benefits
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Student support
• Complaints and appeals

This information is for postgraduate research students.

Notification of the result of the viva (oral examination).

Your Examiners are asked not to give any direct indication of the likely outcome of the viva as the official result can be confirmed only by the Degree Committee (and in certain circumstances the Postgraduate Committee). Student Registry (doctoral and MSc/MLitt students) or your Degree Committee (MPhil) will email you with notification of the outcome.

Process following the oral examination

Degree Committee and Postgraduate Committee meeting dates can be found here . Congregation dates can be found here .

With the exception of being offered a lower degree only or outright failure, the steps following your viva are as follows:

• Your examiners complete a joint report and make a recommendation which is sent to your Degree Committee;
• Your Degree Committee consider the reports at their next available meeting; 
• For doctoral and MSc/MLitt students the Degree Committee forward their decision to the Student Registry who will email you to confirm the result;
• For Master's students the Degree Committee emails you to confirm the result.

If the outcome of your doctoral examination is being offered a lower degree only or outright failure, the first two steps above will apply and Degree Committee will then forward their recommendation to the Postgraduate Committee for consideration at their next meeting. The Postgraduate Committee will email you to confirm the outcome.

Making corrections to a thesis after examination

MPhil by Thesis students:  Your Degree Committee will advise about the process for submission of corrections.

Doctoral and MSc/MLitt students:   You may need to make corrections to your thesis before full approval can be granted for your degree. This decision will be emailed to you by the Student Registry as soon as possible after the Degree Committee confirms their decision to them.

Once you have received your reports you need to undertake the following:

• Check the joint report from your Examiners to see if corrections need to go to the Internal/External or both examiners.
• Put the original and new page numbers on a separate list of corrections for the examiners. For their convenience, the list of corrections should describe precisely how the earlier text has been amended - with page, paragraph and line references. The list should be in page order.
• You are expected to make all the corrections required by your examiners. If any change has been suggested, rather than required, you should indicate, as part of the list of corrections made, the extent to which you have taken account of such suggestions.
• Copy in [email protected]  when submitting your corrected thesis so that Student Registry can update your record.
• Please note that once your Examiner(s) have approved your corrections, it will not be possible to make any further corrections to your thesis - this includes typographical corrections and amendments to preliminary sections. 

If you have been told directly by your examiners or Degree Committee (and not the Student Registry) that you need to undertake corrections, you will need to follow their instructions taking note of the points above.

A brief overview of the corrections process is shown on this  corrections map . NB: MSc and MLitt students are not required to submit a hardbound thesis or upload their thesis to Apollo. If you need more time to complete your corrections you will need to request an extension.

How long do I have in which to submit my corrections?

The time-frame for completing the corrections begins from the date of the email formally confirming the outcome of your examination. 

Do I need to go through another Degree Committee meeting?

Once you have received a conditional approval subject to corrections you do not need to be considered at a further Degree Committee meeting.

What happens next?

See information on submitting your final hardbound and e-thesis (doctoral students only) and  degree approval and conferment .

Once your Examiner(s) have approved your corrections, it will not be possible to make any further corrections to your thesis - this includes typographical corrections and amendments to preliminary sections. 

Revising and Resubmitting the Thesis

Doctoral and MSc/MLitt students: If Student Registry (on behalf of the Postgraduate Committee) confirms that you need to revise and resubmit your thesis for examination, you must respond to the email sent by them to confirm that you intend to do so.

The email from Student Registry will state the deadline for submission of your revised thesis and will have the examiners' reports attached proving details of the revisions you need to make to your thesis.  On completion of the revised thesis, you will have to submit it along with all the submission paperwork - in the same way as for the original submission.  See the pages on  Submitting the thesis  for further information.

Normally the same examiners will examine the revised thesis, but in some cases new examiner(s) may be appointed. If the same examiners are appointed, they will decide whether or not a 2nd viva should be held. If one or both of the Examiners did not previously examine the thesis on its first submission another viva must be held.

If you are unable to meet the submission date for your revised thesis, you must apply for an extension . 

MPhil by Thesis students:  Your Degree Committee will email you with the outcome of your viva and will provide information about the process for re-examination.

Temporary withdrawal/Reinstatement 

If you are unable to undertake corrections or revisions by the given deadline and you have not been granted an extension, you will be temporarily withdrawn from study.

When you have completed your work and wish to submit your corrected or revised thesis, you will need to be  reinstated . 

If you require a visa to return to the UK for reinstatement, or to complete your studies thereafter, please contact the  I nternational Student Office  as early as possible ( [email protected] ) . You must not return undertake your viva and/or complete corrections on a general visitor visa.

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• Docs »
• Thesis, Viva, and Corrections
• View page source

Thesis, Viva, and Corrections ¶

All PGRs must produce a thesis, which describes in full detail the wider context of the research field including a literature review, the motivation for the research, the research which was carried out, an evaluation of the results, and a discussion of the contribution made to the field by the research and what should be done in the future. This needs to be submitted by three days before the end of the fourth year. For the relevant University policies, see ‘Policies’ Chapter.

There are two formats in which the thesis can be produced: traditional format and alternative format. Traditional format is probably what most people imagine a thesis is like, a very substantial report presented as a self-contained exposition. The alternative format thesis “… allows a postgraduate doctoral or MPhil student to incorporate sections that are in a format suitable for submission for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.” Presentation of Thesis Policy 2 . The alternative format thesis is often thought of as a collection of publications, with a short commentary associated with each one, tying the works into a unifying thread, or “thesis”.

Which you use is a decision you will need to make with your supervisor .

The advantages of the alternative format thesis are that if you already have several papers, you can more easily produce a thesis out of them. Also, if you have plans to write several papers, you can write your thesis in such a way that it will be easier to facilitate these plans, because writing the thesis will be build around writing papers. The papers can be submitted after the thesis.

The disadvantage of the alternative format is that it is less widely used in the UK, so many supervisors and examiners may be less comfortable with it.

A Q&A on the Alternative Format Thesis 1 can be found here . Note that it says in Section 4,

“…it may not be until year 2 or 3 that you feel you are in a position to use the alternative format.”

but it says in Section 5 that a request must be made in writing by the end of year 2. Thus, if you are considering using alternative format, apply for it by the end of year 2 . You can revert to traditional format without asking permission formally.

Plagiarism ¶

All PGRs should make sure they are familiar with what the university expects from its PGRs. All PGRs are also required to complete a plagiarism course.

In view of the serious consequences of plagiarism and academic malpractice, it is essential that all PGRs familiarise themselves with the accepted format for referencing work in their discipline, and that they start using the accepted form as soon as possible.

Ignorance of the proper format, or ignorance of the definitions of plagiarism and academic malpractice used by the university, is not a valid defence against a possible claim of plagiarism or other instance of academic malpractice.

Writing Advice ¶

Whichever format you choose, you must give yourself sufficient time to produce the thesis. You must know yourself, and how quickly you are able to write. Six months is a minimum time for most people. Some may need nine.

Be sure to leave enough time in your planning to write the thesis. Most people take between 6 and 8 months, depending on how quickly they write and how much of the writing already exists in papers and reports. Your supervisor can give you advice on how to write the thesis. It’s a good idea to use the LaTeXstyle 3 file for University of Manchester Thesis format.

Do not feel that you need to write it in order; start with the easiest parts first. Usually the technical sections on the research done by you are the easiest, because you know them well. The literature review may be next easiest. The introduction is usually the hardest to write, and many advise that it be written last.

The University COVID 19 Statement below can be included.

COVID Statement ¶

Acknowledging the impact of COVID-19 on postgraduate research programmes: guidance for PGRs, Supervisors and Examiners on inclusion of a COVID-19 impact statement with theses submitted by PGRs at the University of Manchester.

The University of Manchester recognises that the COVID-19 pandemic, and consequent closure of our campus (18 th March 2020) and national and international lockdowns, has directly or indirectly impacted the work of many of our postgraduate researchers (PGRs). Although the campus began re-opening from mid-June 2020, some researchers will be disrupted until all campus research facilities are open, and operational at adequate capacity, fieldwork can resume safely and/or personal circumstances become more manageable.

Many of our PGRs have been/will be able to accommodate the disruption to their research plans by changing the scope, phasing or design or their project; others have/will have circumstances that necessitate an extension to programme or to the thesis submission date.

We encourage PGRs who wish to make their Examiners aware of the impact COVID-19 has had on their research plans and thesis to prepare an Impact Statement for consideration during the examination process.

The University recommends that Examiners take the Impact Statement into account when assessing the thesis, and PGR at viva, albeit without compromising standards as set out in the University’s ordinances and the QAA’s expectations of doctoral outcomes , which emphasise that doctoral degrees should be awarded based on the quality, rather than quantity, of research undertaken and the candidate’s acquisition of intellectual and practical competencies.

Examiners should use their academic judgment when deciding whether, as set out in the Examinations of Doctoral Degrees Policy , the following criteria have been met:

the candidate possesses an appropriate knowledge of the particular field of learning within which the subject of the thesis falls; the research which is reported in the thesis contributes a substantial addition to knowledge; the results of the research show evidence of originality and independent critical judgement; the thesis is presented in a lucid and scholarly manner; the thesis and the work reported in it are the candidate’s own;

whilst bearing in mind that they should judge the ‘ substantial addition to knowledge ’ in relation to what can be reasonably expected within a period of study (3, 3.5 or 4yrs FT) that has been conducted in the context of disruption caused by COVID-19.The Impact Statement should include the following information:

Details on how disruption caused by COVID-19 has impacted the research (for example, an inability to collect/analyse data as a result of travel restrictions/restricted access to labs/additional caring and health responsibilities - 500 words maximum); A description of how the planned work would have fitted within the thesis’ narrative (e.g. through method development, development of analytical skills or advancement of hypotheses - 500 words maximum); A summary of any decisions / actions taken to mitigate for any work or data collection/analyses that were prevented by COVID-19 (500 words maximum).

PGRs are encouraged to discuss the statement with their supervisory team before submitting the statement within the thesis presented for examination and should refer to section 6.3 in the Presentation of Theses Policy for details.

Thesis Writing Advice ¶

Sage advice from Prof Bill Buchanan OBE, PhD, FBCS - Professor at Edinburgh Napier University:

Say up-front what the problem is, what other people have done, and how you have added to it. The Introduction chapter is the most important chapter of all, and you need to grab the reader, and tell them what the problem is, and how you have solved it. If the examiner understands the thesis after the Introduction, you are half way there. I’ve read a few thesis’ where I had no idea what the point was until I actually got to the end, and the contribution was revealed on the last page. This is a major gamble, as some readers may give up before that point, and not know the end contribution. Be fair on the reader and tell them the contribution, and keep telling them. Get rid of those typos! You wouldn’t believe the number of PhD thesis’ I have read that have a typo in the very first line of the thesis. A reader becomes annoyed if they have to keep correcting typos, and the more annoyed the reader, the more time they are taking away from actually reading the content. Try and start off on a good footing, so that the Abstract and Introduction chapter have been read over several times - typically talking them out loud. If possible get someone else to read the Introduction, and see if they understand what the point of work is. Bad grammar shows bad practice and a weak supervision. Part of doing a PhD is learning how to write and present ideas, and how to review and edit. One of the most important things that you learn in a PhD is how to write, so that others can understand your ideas. A good part of this is for supervisors to get involved reading the work, and in giving detailed feedback. It is often a good idea for supervisors to mark up early drafts with red pen, so that PGRs get an idea on the amount of checking and editing that is often required. Superlatives are not very good! A PhD is a scientific study, and the usage of superlatives should be avoided, along with weak words like “big” … “the measure gives a very big number”. If a number is large, define what large actually means, as everything is relative. Significance matters. I’ve read thesis’ that draw a graph, and then gives me values of 10 decimal places, and then to be told that there is an importance of one thing to another. But is it significant? If I move from 100.01254632 to 100.1263241, is that a massive change and why do we need so many decimal places? Every measurement has an accuracy, and this should always be included in the presentation of the values. Examiners want to know the significance of something, and if it isn’t significant, then just tell them. One table tells much more than a whole lot of numbers. Again I’ve read so many thesis’, where the writer continually presents a whole series of numbers and graphs, and where they could all be moved into an appendix, and compiled into a single table (or graph). A good supervisor should be able to spot how to collapse lots series of tables into a single one, as they often have to do it for papers. Many PGRs rely on drawing graphics for presenting trends whereas tables are often better, especially in defining changes within the figures presented. A great tip is to normalise values, and show how the values vary between each other. Relative values are often easier to understand than absolute ones - remember too that most values have units, and that units matter. I’ve quizzed many PGRs on whether they are talking about Mbps or MBps - there’s a difference of eight in there! Draw some pictures. There is no place for trivial graphics and clip art in a PhD thesis, but there is a place for the abstraction of complex ideas, especially in the introduction. There no real need to just copy the graphics from others, as they should come from the ideas inspired by the writer. I’ve read quite a few thesis, where the text just goes on and on. Break the text up every now and then, and give the reader something to ponder over. Break up and but keep a narrative. There’s a careful balance here. If you keep your sections short, it becomes to “bitty”, and if you make them too long, they become long and unwieldy. I personally read whole sections in a single sitting, and try and take in the ideas, and I won’t move on until I understand it. A long section, especially where there are no sub-sections, often introduces too many concepts which can make it difficult to read. I normally recommend a maximum of a page and a half of text before there should be a break (such as a sub-section break). Long paragraphs are not a good thing as it becomes difficult to take in all the concepts introduced. Try, if possible, not to make them too short, but not too long. A paragraph that goes on for half a page is probably too long, and one that has only two sentences is probably too short. Along try and avoid too many sub-sub sections, as it becomes difficult for the reader to put it all into context. Avoid using the words of others too much. A thesis is written by the writer, and it is their words. A long series of indented text items of quoted material becomes fairly generic, where you get little of the sense of the thoughts of the writer. If you must reference others, pull it out, and indent. Be precise. A PhD thesis should be a scientific document which abides to certain standards for the articulation of ideas. It is always sloppy to see a candidate writing 9*6^3, where the “*” is a sloppy way of writing a multiply symbol (x) and ^ should be “to the power off”. If it’s an equation, it should be pulled out of the text, and a proper equation editor should be used, with a proper numbering system for the equation. Every diagram and table should be referenced in the text. I have read many thesis’ (typically drafts) where the writer just assumes that the reader knows how a diagram or table should integrate with the narrative. Every figure and table should thus be referenced in the text, so that the reader knows when to look at it. If possible don’t break up your narrative with a diagram, and move it a little later on, as long as it is after then text which is referring to it. Don’t ever put a diagram in the text before it is actually referred to, as the reader is left confused as to why the diagram is there. Be critical of yourself and others. One of the key things within a PhD is the ability to critically appraise the work of others, both for the strengths and weaknesses of their work, and also of the candidate’s work. I often circle the first signs of critical thought in a thesis. If it happens on Page 50, there’s a problem in not being able to critically appraise work. Along with this some candidates can think that everything is perfect with their work, and that it addresses every single problem in their field. Try to always define both the strengths and weaknesses your own work, and identify how these could be improved. The scope of the impact should never be overestimated, but also not underestimated. If you’ve developed something that completely changed something, be up-front and tell the reader. Most of the times, be honest to say that you are just enhancing something a little bit. A thesis is not a diary! I have read so many thesis’ which are basically just a chronological flow of their research. You can often spot this as the literature review runs out of references which are up-to-date. I have read several thesis’ where the latest reference in the literature review is two years ago, and it points to the fact that it has not been updated since it was initially written. A literature review should be written for the thesis, and many parts of the original literature can be dumped, and replaced with newer references which fit in with the contribution. Focus the literature review on the contribution. One literature review of PhD thesis I read was almost 200 pages long, and my head was spinning at the end of it. It covered so many points, and few of them actually went anywhere in the following chapters. Try and focus the literature review on covering the 4 or 5 key concepts involved in the thesis, and not in the research project. A good supervisor can often spot redundant sections, and advise for them to be cut. If the thesis is still the same by taking something out, there’s no need for it to be there, as every paragraph and every word should count, and be carefully crafted as part of the whole story. Make sure the aim is “of the thesis, and not “of the initial research project”. Many thesis’ start with “The aim of this research project is …” which often is a sign that the original project aim has not changed in the writing of the thesis. Overall the aim is the aim of the thesis, as the research project has finished. Every should be written from a point-of-view that the work has finished, and this is the write-up. Get the flow right. A strong flow of literature, method, build and evaluation helps the flow of the thesis, and where you often see references to literature tailing off as the thesis develops. I’ve seen some thesis’ where there are whole chapters that lack any form of reference to other work. This is poor practice as a PhD thesis should show how every aspect of the work fits in with the work of others. I like to see a reference to other work in the introduction of a chapter, as it shows some key influences for the work. I personally don’t like an introduction that says “Section 1 says this, and Section 2 says that, and Section 3 says something else”, as I can see from the table of contents what the contents are. If possible the reader should tell the reader what is likely to be revealed and what the significance is. A reinforcement of the main drive of the work also helps to bring the focus onto the main contribution of the work. If you don’t know it … don’t say it! This one seems so obvious, but you won’t believe the number of times that you ask in a Viva about the detail of a paper, and the method used, and for the answer to be that they don’t actually know what it does. You always increase your exposure to probing if you include things you don’t quite understand, so dump them (if they are not a core topic). Explain it simply. There’s nothing nicer for an examiner when the candidate takes a complex idea and gives their own viewpoint on it, in a simple way, using new material. It shows that they can articulate complex ideas in a simple way. The standard test for any thesis is that a 14-year old child should, at least, be able to read it, and understand some of the key concepts in it. Show that you love the subject and that it is relevant. Three years is a long time, but the sustainment of interest is a key part of the work, so try and show that this is an important topic and that your thesis is exactly what is required, and in the impact that it could have. Again the Introduction chapter is a great place to grab the reader, and show how important the work is. If possible try and find something that has just happened in the news in the introduction that shows how important your work is. The Introduction chapter, at least, should be readable by all, and where, at the end of it, most readers would want to read on, as it sounds so interesting. Make your thesis a sandwich. With a good thesis, we open with the Introduction and close on the Conclusions. The bit in-between justifies what you have opened with and the conclusions should show what you have uncovered to justify your argument. The same goes for each chapter, where the introduction (half a page, typically) shows what you’re going to tell them, and the conclusion confirms it. Do not make conclusion into a summary, as the reader has no time to read summaries, and just wants you to conclude the most important things that go forward (and so they can dump all the other things that you covered). If possible say why you are not taking some things forward in the conclusions (and justify using the work of others, if possible). Don’t just pick without reviewing and justifying. There is no justification in a thesis for picking something just because it is easy to get. If possible all the things that are selected have at least been reviewed, and a sensible solution is selected (and justified). Try always to select a few competing methods and tools and put them against each other. Validate before Evaluate. You won’t believe the number of Vivas that I’ve done where I’ve asked if they validated their system or software before they went onto evaluating it. So “How do you it takes 5 milliseconds to get from here to there?, the wrong answer is “… because the package said it was 5 milliseconds”. Good experimenters will do “fag packet” calculations, to estimate things and know the limits of what they expect. I always like to see validation tests within the test data, so that the researcher knows that their system is working correctly. There’s nothing work in finding there is a bug in your results, after you have published them … so always have a sanity check. Get that scientific method. There are so many occasions in a thesis where you have no idea what a graph is telling you, as the axis’ are not numbered properly, or where they are poorly scaled. If the variation is between 990 and 1000, don’t draw a graph which goes from 0 to 1000. Work out what the graph is trying to say, and pick the graph type (eg pie chart to show significant of one method against another) to show this. Must be based on a method and be repeatable. There must be a method in the processes used, and designed in a scientific way. Along with this the thesis should outline the procedure in a repeatable way, so that someone else can perform the same evaluation and get the same results. So candidates should always say to themselves… “Is there enough information for someone to build the artefact?”, “Is there enough information to repeat the experiment?”, and “Do I have the data that the examiner can look at, in order to verify the evaluation?” Evaluate your method against others. The standard method to show a contribution is to take your method and evaluate it against other competing methods. The best approach is to use the best competing method and show an improvement. This can sometimes be difficult, so, at least, there is an evaluation against other methods. Showing an improvement is obviously a good thing, but there is often nothing wrong with an evaluation which shows a negative impact, especially if it is backed-up with a strong critical appraisal. Be fair and honest with your experiments. Often an experimental procedure is selected to benefit your own method. If possible be fair on all the methods and do not bias your approach to your one. It does no harm to show weaknesses and downsides to your own contribution, as it gives you a chance to critically appraise and show how future work could improve things. Your experimental procedure and the associated data collection should be repeatable and verifiable, so don’t delete that data you have gathered. If possible, know your examination team. While the thesis should stand-alone you should also know your examination team before the Viva, so avoid patronising them with background theory which they know inside-out, or provide some background which might help the examiners to understand the area. Often an examiner, as part of the Viva, will give advice on moving things between the core material and appendices, in order to address the target audience for the thesis. Show that you are now an expert in your area. People expect those with a PhD to be an expert in the area of study, so make sure you know your core principles in the subject area. If you are doing a cryptography PhD read around the subject, and know the core principles of the most important methods. For me, anyone doing a PhD in electrical engineering, for example, should know Ohms Law, and the same should go for other subjects. Use appendices. Many PhD thesis’ are full of material that is irrelevant to many of the key arguments, and writers are often too sensitive about removing material. If you can, put unrelated material in an appendix, and just refer to it. As a measure, if any material doesn’t help your core arguments, then remove it, as you are wasting the reader’s time. Quality is better than quantity. Some of the best thesis’ I read have been relatively short and sharp, but where the quality is high. A good eye for moving material in appendices is important and helps the examiner. For some reason, candidates like to produce a thick thesis, and they think that the more pages there, the better the material. This is often the opposite, and a thesis written with self-contained papers for chapters - which link together - are often the best in their presentation. Define published work. A key part of PhD study is the dissemination of the work, especially with peer reviewed. The examiner often needs to know what has been published. Watch those unreliable references. In a PhD thesis, the references should be credible and verifiable references, and references to industry-focused white papers or general Web pages cannot be trusted providing credible viewpoints. Look for small-scale to large-scale experiments. A good researcher will often start small scale and prove the principle, and then look for a large-scale experiment. The sign of small experiments, along with a large-scale experiment which properly evaluates the methods presented, is a good sign of a strong research ethos. Few abstracts are actually any good in first draft. For some reason most PGRs struggle to write an abstract, and often it is written more as an introduction rather than a distilled version of the thesis. Remember that the abstract is the first thing that the reader reads, so if it is not focused on presenting the whole of the thesis, you have missed an opportunity to get the reader on your side. If possible an abstract should be a page in length, and outline the problem, the contribution, the most significant methods, the thing that has been designed/modelled, what has been evaluated, and what the most significant result is. Conclusions should conclude the whole thesis. Often the thesis just verifies aims and shows the significance of the results, but it should also recap the key parts of the literature and the other chapters. Mind those commas. Commas seem to be a dying breed, but are there to help speak directly to the reader. Try and read out loud, and if there’s a slight pause, add a comma. End on a high! Don’t spoil your thesis, by adding another chapter after the main contribution. Leave the reader on a high, and get them into the Conclusions, and leave the stage. I’ve read a few thesis’ where the last chapter is a real let-down, and contributes very little to the overall focus of the work. If you want, put your lovely new models in an appendix, and refer them in the main chapters, but try and finish the main chapters with the answer to the question posed at the start. The last dot of the last main chapter cements the argument, so don’t run on into something else that you just happens to be which you are currently looking at, as just feel your thesis isn’t thick enough yet! Sign post your work. Remember the thicker the thesis, the longer it takes to read, and if it doesn’t get to the point, the more annoyed the reader becomes in actually showing how you have addressed the problem and your main contribution. The more focused the thesis, the shorter time it will take to understand it, and the happier the examiner will be when they are reading it. Add pointers to “wake up” the reader and tell them that they really should read this bit … as I’m telling you something important. Guide but stay on the academic track. Guide them through difficult areas, and allow them to learn from your love of the topic and your new insights, but stick to well-defined academic principles for writing a thesis … such as not adding your own opinions in literature review parts. Leave your thoughts for the conclusion section with a chapter. Try not to hint that you’ve solved every problem in the area, and rely on showing your contribution on the back of others, including within the main conclusions. Be humble. Show that you are humble in your writing and respect (and know) the most important people in your area (including your external examiner), and that you want to be an active part of your community, and help them. The PhD is not an end-stop, but shows how you will work in the future … either in academia or industry. So just because you are off to a job in industry, doesn’t mean that your research career ends at the graduation … you have standards and methods to set for others to follow.

Submission ¶

You must submit your thesis within three years and six months (allowing for any interruptions or extensions that you may have been granted). When you are ready to submit your thesis you need to complete a Notice of Submission Form not less than six weeks before submission.This form is available in eProg in the Examination Summary section. You will also need to read Regulations for the Presentation of Theses and Dissertations. Giving notice of submission triggers the process of appointing the examiners, who are then expecting the thesis to arrive on time.

If a thesis is not submitted before the end of the programme or submission pending period, you will not be able submit your thesis without exceptional circumstances.

You must submit an electronic copy of your thesis no less than 3 days before your final submission deadline. You must submit two hard copies to the Faculty Graduate Office by the deadline. The electronic and hard copies must be identical.

If you wish to submit a thesis more than 3 months before the end of your programme (or 6 months if part time) you will require a permission of your supervisor and the University. If you are granted permission to submit early then you will still be required to pay full fees for the degree period for which you originally registered.

Using eProg for everything. You first need to submit a notification that you are ready to submit within 6 weeks - a submission ‘window’ will then be opened. You can then submit at anytime within that six weeks. If you do not submit you have failed.

Open access: submit and share your research

‌Once you have submitted your thesis you should consider how you will share your research more widely. Making your outputs OA can provide important  benefits  to you as a researcher, to the research community, and the wider world.

University of Manchester Postgraduate research students are required to share journal articles and peer-reviewed conference proceedings under the institutional  Publications Policy . Making these outputs Open Access (OA) is also required by Research England in order for papers to be eligible for submission to the REF, and many research funders require OA for these outputs too. Use the  Library deposit form in the Open Access Gateway  to submit your papers for deposit to ensure they are made OA as required.

If you wish to ask a general question about Open Access, you can contact the Library’s OA team using the Open Access enquiry form or via email: uml . openaccess @ manchester . ac . uk

The Thesis Defence (Viva) ¶

You will need to defend your thesis in an oral examination which is often called a ‘viva’ (for viva voce). You will typically have two examiners comprising either (i) an internal examiner (a member of academic staff from Manchester who has expertise in your research area) and an external examiner (a member of academic staff from another university or another suitably-qualified and research-active expert), or (ii) two external examiners and an internal independent chair. The internal examiner or independent chair will arrange the date and time of your oral examination. There may also be an independent chair when one of the examiners lacks experience in examining doctorates and in other situations.

In the oral examination you will be examined orally on the content of your thesis and its wider context. After the examination the examiners will make a recommendation to the Faculty PGR Degrees Panel on the outcome of the exam. The examiners may communicate what their recommendation is to you, but it should be clear that this is unofficial and the final decision is made by Faculty.

The outcomes are:

recommend the award and no corrections are necessary.

recommend the award subject to minor corrections being completed.

refer: the thesis is satisfactory in substance but defective in presentation; allow resubmission without the need for a further oral examination.

refer: the thesis is satisfactory in substance but defective in presentation; allow resubmission and require a further oral examination.

refer: the thesis requires further research to be done; allow resubmission and require a further oral examination.

award MPhil on the basis of the thesis presented.

award MPhil on the basis of the thesis presented, subject to minor corrections being completed.

reject, but invite the candidate to revise and resubmit the thesis for the degree of MPhil within six months. A candidate will be permitted to resubmit on only one occasion. A fresh examination of the thesis will be required and may include a further oral examination.

no award be made to the candidate and no resubmission be permitted.

The most common outcome is A(ii). Normally minor corrections required under A(ii) must be completed within 4 weeks of the result being communicated to you by the Faculty PGR Degrees Panel. Likewise with the outcome C(ii) the minor corrections required for award of MPhil must be completed within 4 weeks.

PGRs with outcomes B(i)–B(ii) and C(iii) normally have up to six months to resubmit their thesis (in the latter case for MPhil). PGRs with outcomes B(iii) have one year to resubmit their thesis. A resubmission fee is charged.

Viva Format ¶

Following the relaxation of national COVID restrictions on 19th July 2021 vivas can now be held either entirely in-person, remotely via video link, or a hybrid approach can be adopted whereby one or more members of the examination appear via a video link.

As the PGR this is pretty much your choice - although we suggest you discuss it with your supervisory team and make sure the examiners are happy with the choice before the agree to whichever ‘flavour’ or viva is chosen.

Viva Advice ¶

Further advice from Prof Bill Buchanan OBE, PhD, FBCS - Professor at Edinburgh Napier University:

Be ready to defend, up to a point. You are unlikely to ever win with a debate with the External Examiner, as they typically have the experience to know when they are right. The Examiner does want to see you putting up arguments against theirs, and not bend. A strategy is often to debate the case, and try different routes of explanation, but then to take on their advice for any changes that would be required. Draw it out and keep it simple. Drawing diagrams and abstracting is a great way to explain your ideas, so wherever possible try to draw an abstraction to show a key point. Try not to over complex things, as they examiner is often looking for you to article complex ideas in a simple and understandable way. The simplest things are often the most difficult to explain. Many candidates go into a Viva thinking they will get probed on the complex areas of their work, but end up having to justify an extremely simple concept, that they have taken for granted. An examiner can often spot a weakness in some fundamental areas and probe around that, in order to see how the candidate thinks through a problem. So candidates should also try and be well versed on the fundamentals areas, especially when it involves maths. Know your examiners. Every examiner is different, and they have their own style. Some go from page to page, others read generally around significant parts of the work. They will generally have expertise in certain areas, so try and understand their motivations in their research, and some of their specialities, as they are likely to draw on these for questions. Don’t leave it too long for the Viva. The best time for a Viva is straight after you’ve written your thesis, so try and don’t leave it too long for the Viva, as you will forget a few things. Stay calm and enjoy. It is your opportunity to lock horns with an expert in their field, so enjoy it, as you’ll probably never have the chance to do something like this in your career. Be humble. A PhD is a long road, and you learn along that road. The end result should setup you up for the even longer road ahead, but you now have all the tools to be ready for a career in research. None of us truly knows the formula for a successful PhD, but the methods applied by examiners and supervisors have stood the test of time, and do actually result in something that can contribute to the body of science. Remember that you are standing on the shoulders of giants. A key thing is knowing whose shoulders you are standing on, and help the others who could stand on your shoulders. Enjoy your time! And finally, for a bit of advice, have a look at Ralph Merkle’s time. He invented key exchange while an undergraduate, but his professor rejected his ideas because he didn’t articulate them properly, and Ralph then tried to publish a paper on it, but it was rejected because he had no literature in the paper. So, try and write well … and perfect the art of speaking directly to the reader, and also follow the rules of research that have been laid down over the centuries, and you’re halfway there.

Corrections ¶

Once you have had your viva you will typically get corrections. Once you have completed the corrections, they send a PDF copy of the corrected thesis directly to the internal examiner for approval.

Once the examiner is happy the corrections have been completed, they need to fill out the Corrections Sign Off Form on eProg. Once that’s been completed, we can open a Final Submission Window for you to submit in eThesis. Once received and acknowledged, We can then produce an award letter and complete yout studies on Campus Solutions.

http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=15216

http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=7420

http://studentnet.cs.manchester.ac.uk/resources/latex/MUThesis/

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Current Students

Degree Committee for the Faculty of Earth Sciences & Geography

• About the DC overview

Meeting dates

• Department contacts
• Prospective Students overview
• Continuing students
• Current Students overview
• Change in student status overview
• Changing course, dept or mode
• Extending submission deadline
• Intermission
• Withdrawal and reinstatement
• Working Away from Cambridge
• Supervision reports
• First year review
• Exams MRes & MPhil (taught) overview
• Rules and Regulations
• After the examination
• Exams MPhil by thesis overview
• Before you submit
• Thesis submission
• The oral (viva)
• Results overview
• Corrections
• Revising a thesis
• Exams PhD overview
• Submitting a hardbound copy
• PhD not awarded
• LWA Research Fund
• Complaints and appeals
• Supervisors overview
• Supervisor appointment
• Roles and responsibilities overview
• Supervisor role: postgraduate admissions
• Supervisor role: current students
• Supervisor role: examinations
• Guidance for supervisors
• Supervision reporting
• Examiners overview
• PhD or MPhil by thesis exam overview
• Examiner appointment
• Pre-viva actions
• Post-viva actions
• Submitting reports
• Fees and expenses
• Examining a revised thesis
• MRes or MPhil (taught) exam overview
• Senior/Chair of Examiners
• External Examiner for taught courses
• Examiners and Assessors
• Plagiarism or poor scholarship
• Appeals procedures
• Higher Degrees overview
• PhD under Special Regulations
• ScD and LittD

Corrections PhD

• Degree Committee for the Faculty of Earth Sciences & Geography

Types of correction

Most PhD candidates have some corrections to make after the oral. They tend to fall into three categories:

• very minor (typos) - these can be completed and approved by the Examiners within a few hours, and the Examiners can then recommend a pass when they submit their reports. You will need to submit your hardbound and electronic final version before the degree can be conferred.
• minor, straightforward corrections - you usually have up to 3 months to complete these; they are usually checked by the Internal Examiner. The Examiners send in their reports before the corrected thesis has been approved so you will be given  conditional approval for the degree. You will only be formally approved for the degree once the corrections have been checked and found to be satisfactory and your hardbound and electronic final version submitted . 
• substantial, less straightforward corrections - you usually have up to 6 months to complete these; they are usually checked by both Examiners. You will be given  conditional approval for the degree. You will only be formally approved for the degree once the corrections have been checked and found to be satisfactory and your hardbound and electronic final version submitted . 

Making corrections

Once you have received the Examiners' reports and know what corrections you need to make, you can start work on them. Do discuss with your supervisor if you need additional guidance. If necessary (s)he can discuss your questions with the Examiners.

The time you have to complete your corrections starts from the date your official result email is sent to you by Student Registry, not the date of your oral. If you do not complete the corrections within the permitted timeframe you will be withdrawn from study. You can still hand in the corrected work for approval when you're ready - you will normally be reinstated for the purpose of degree approval when your Examiner(s) inform the Degree Committee that they approve your corrections.

We know it is often the case that Examiners provide a list of corrections directly to the candidate so they can be worked on immediately after the viva. They are not required to do so.

Submitting corrections

You are expected to make all the corrections required by your Examiners. If a change has been suggested, rather than required, you should indicate, as part of the list of corrections made, the extent to which you have taken account of such suggestions.

When you have made all the corrections the Examiners requested you should prepare a corrected version of the thesis and a separate a list of the corrections made, including the original and new page numbers. For the convenience of the Examiner, the list of corrections should describe precisely how the earlier text has been amended - with page, paragraph and line references. The list should be in page order.

The joint Examiners report (PhD2) will tell you if corrections need to be approved by the Internal, External or both Examiners. Submit the corrected work and the list of corrections directly to the relevant Examiner(s). Student Registry ask that you copy them in if you are submitting your corrections to your examiners by email, so they can update your record.

Correction approval

Your Examiner(s) will check that the corrections have been made to their satisfaction. Corrections are usually approved first time but if the Examiner(s) are not content they can ask you to have another attempt (they will never require additional corrections they had not previously identified). The degree will not be awarded until the Examiner(s) are satisfied.

When the Examiner(s) are satisfied they will inform the Degree Committee of their decision. If your examination reports have already been considered at meetings of the Degree Committee your corrections can normally be accepted as approved without further consideration at a Degree Committee meeting. 

We will let you know when your corrections have been approved. If your Examiner(s) have indicated to you that they are happy with the corrections but you have not heard from the Degree Committee within 10 days please get in contact with us.

You should wait to make the hardbound copy until after the corrections have been approved.

Student Status while making corrections

University working restrictions do not apply to you while you make corrections, although students on a student visa are still expected to comply with the working conditions laid down by UK Visas and Immigration at all stages (see Working on a student visa ). You will need to apply for leave to work away if you are planning to complete the corrections outside Cambridge.

If you can't find the page you are looking for or find a broken link do let us know (please use the email link in the 'Contact us' section below).

Ukraine - University resources

Coronavirus advice from the University

Office closures

The Degree Committee for the Faculty of Earth Sciences and Geography will be closed from 5pm on Thursday 28 March 2024 and will reopen again on Tuesday 2 April 2024. Research degree theses should still be submitted by your submission deadline even if that falls over the holiday period.

Meetings of the Degree Committee and Degree Ceremonies

Essential Links

Cambridge Students portal

Code of Practice for Postgraduate Students

International Students Office

Student Registry (for staff)

Degree Committee for Earth Sciences & Geography, School of Physical Sciences, 17 Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1RX. Tel: 01223 746764 / 746766

[email protected]

Site privacy & cookie policies.

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...

• Research, Partnerships and Innovation
• Postgraduate Research Hub
• Thesis and Examination: The Code of Practice

Examination outcomes and reports

An overview of the potential recommendations concerning the award or non-award of a doctoral degree.

After the oral examination, the examiners must complete a report that is sent to Research, Partnerships and Innovation for faculty approval. This is a joint report, to which the preliminary reports completed by each examiner prior to the examination must also be appended.  If the examiners are unable to agree on a recommendation, a third examiner, external to the University, is normally appointed. Research, Partnerships and Innovation must be informed immediately so that arrangements for this can be made.

Examiners must clearly indicate on the report form their recommendation concerning the award or non-award of the degree. The recommendations open to the examiners following first submission and oral examination are set out on the joint report form, as follows:

• that the degree be awarded without the need for any corrections to the thesis
• that the degree be awarded once specified minor corrections have been completed to the satisfaction of the examiners
• that the degree be awarded once specified major corrections have been completed to the satisfaction of the examiners
• that the degree be not now awarded, but that the candidate be allowed to undergo a further oral examination without modification of the form or content of the thesis
• that the degree be not now awarded, but that the candidate be allowed to submit a revised thesis after such modification of form or content as the examiners may prescribe, with/without oral re-examination
• that the degree be not awarded

In addition, examiners for the degree of PhD may also make either of the following recommendations:

• that the degree of PhD be not awarded, but that the degree of Master of Philosophy (MPhil) be awarded (subject only to the necessary changes to the cover and title page of the thesis)
• that the degree of PhD be not awarded, but that the candidate be allowed to submit a revised thesis for the degree of MPhil after such modification of form or content as the examiners may prescribe, with/without oral re-examination

Recommendations for resubmissions and for other degrees may vary and are specified in the Guidance Notes for Examiners  and on the appropriate examiners’ joint report form. Recommendations other than those specified for a particular degree are not permitted.

Once completed and signed, the joint report form should be returned to Research, Partnerships and Innovation within two weeks of the date of the oral examination. Where minor or major corrections are required, the separate minor/major corrections sheet should be detached and retained until the corrections have been completed to the examiners' satisfaction. One of the examiners will be required to approve the corrections once they have been completed. This is normally undertaken by the internal examiner. The examiner should then sign and date the separate minor or major corrections sheet and return it immediately to Research, Partnerships and Innovation.

Pass with minor corrections

This option may be chosen if the examiners are satisfied that the thesis meets the requirements for the award of the degree, but contains deficiencies that are genuinely minor in nature, such as typographical or presentational errors.  The nature and extent of the required corrections should be such that they can reasonably be completed and submitted to the examiner within a period of three calendar months from the date the examiners notify the student of the corrections.

If more substantial corrections are required before the award of the degree can be recommended, or if the examiners remain in some doubt that the thesis is likely to meet the required standard for the degree after minor corrections, then the examiners should make a different recommendation.

Where minor corrections are required, it is the examiners' responsibility to provide the student with details of the required changes as soon as possible following the viva.

The examiners should also advise the student of the three-month timescale for completion of the corrections.  Students who are undertaking minor corrections to their thesis will have their time limit extended by three months and can request that their UCard is extended by SSiD in line with the new time limit on their student record.

Exceptionally, the time-limit for completion of minor corrections may be extended by the faculty for a further period; however, lengthy, or repeated extensions are unlikely to be approved, as three months should be adequate time to complete minor corrections. Students who need to request an extension should complete the Time Limit Extension form available from Research, Partnerships and Innovation and, if the extension is granted, will be required to pay the standard extension fee for the duration of the extension period.

Examiners must confirm that they are satisfied with the corrections undertaken by the student before the degree can be awarded. If not, they may ask the student to undertake further work to bring the thesis up to the required standard, which may require an extension to the time limit.  If a student is still unable to complete the required corrections to the examiners' satisfaction, and their time limit has passed, then they may be withdrawn.

When the student has completed the required minor corrections, they should send a copy of the revised thesis directly to the examiner who is going to check the corrections (normally this is the internal examiner). It is acceptable for the candidate to email a copy of the thesis directly to the examiner for checking. This is the only circumstance where it is acceptable for candidates to send a copy of the thesis directly to the examiners.

Once the thesis corrections have been approved by the examiner, students must provide a final electronic Library copy of their thesis - see the section on final library copies .

Pass with major corrections

Examiners may choose the recommendation of pass with major corrections if they are satisfied that the thesis has the potential to merit the award of the degree for which it has been submitted, but does not yet satisfy the requirements for award and contains deficiencies that are more than editorial or presentational corrections. This may involve re-writing sections, correcting calculations or clarifying arguments, but should not require the candidate to undertake any further original research.

The candidate will be granted six months to complete the required corrections from the date they receive the list of required corrections. Where major corrections are required, it is the examiners' responsibility to provide the candidate with the details of the required corrections as soon as possible following the viva.

The examiners should also advise the student of the six-month timescale for completion of the corrections. Students who are undertaking minor corrections to their thesis will have their time limit extended by six months and can request that their UCard is extended by SSiD in line with the new time limit on their student record.

Exceptionally, the time limit for completion of major corrections may be extended by the faculty for a further period; however, lengthy or repeated extensions are unlikely to be approved, as six months should be adequate time to complete major corrections. Students who need to request an extension should complete the Time Limit Extension form available from Research, Partnerships and Innovation and, if the extension is granted, will be required to pay the standard extension fee for the duration of the extension period.

When the student has completed the required major corrections, they should send a copy of the revised thesis directly to the examiner who is going to check the corrections (normally this is the internal examiner). It is acceptable for the candidate to email a copy of the thesis directly to the examiner for checking. This is the only circumstance where it is acceptable for candidates to send a copy of the thesis directly to the examiners.

Once the thesis corrections have been approved by the examiner, students must provide a final electronic Library copy of their thesis - see the section on final library copy .

Resubmission of a thesis

Where the examiners' recommendation is for a full resubmission, the joint report should contain detailed advice to the student on the required corrections and improvements and must indicate whether the resubmission is with or without a further oral examination. The joint and preliminary reports should be completed and returned to Research, Partnerships and Innovation within two weeks of the date of the oral examination.  

Research, Partnerships and Innovation will formally notify the student of the requirement to resubmit by letter and will also send the student a copy of the examiners’ report containing the details of the corrections.

Students required to resubmit their thesis will have their time limit amended to 12 months from the date of formal notification from Research, Partnerships and Innovation and can request that their UCard is extended by SSiD in line with the new time limit on their student record.  

A resubmission fee is charged for all resubmissions. For 2023-24 this will be £355 for a resubmission without oral examination and £430 for resubmission with oral examination.

Exceptionally, the time limit for resubmission may be extended by the faculty for a further period; however, lengthy or repeated extensions are unlikely to be approved, as twelve months should be adequate time to resubmit. Students who need to request an extension should complete the Time Limit Extension form available from Research, Partnerships and Innovation and, if the extension is granted, will be required to pay the standard extension fee for the duration of the extension period.

At the end of the resubmission period, the revised thesis must be resubmitted directly to Research, Partnerships and Innovation, following the same procedures as apply to a first submission (see Submitting your thesis ). The resubmitted thesis should also be uploaded to Turnitin at the same time.  The resubmitted thesis must not be sent to either of the examiners prior to formal resubmission.

Research, Partnerships and Innovation can only accept a resubmitted thesis once the student has been formally notified in writing of the examiners' decision on the first submission.

For resubmissions, the title page and front cover should be changed to show the date of the resubmission only, however it is not necessary for the thesis to state 'Resubmission'.  It is recommended that a detailed list of the corrections that have been made following the first submission is included with the resubmitted thesis.

If a resubmission with a further oral re-examination is required, this should normally take place within 10 weeks of receipt of the thesis by the examiners.

If a resubmission without a further oral examination is required, the examiners should aim to complete the re-examination of the thesis within approximately 6-8 weeks of their receipt of the revised thesis.

The same reporting requirements apply to resubmissions as to first submissions, i.e. the examiners must each complete an independent written preliminary report and a joint report.  There are fewer recommendations available to the examiners following a resubmission and, crucially, there is no option for a student to make a further resubmission at this stage. Consequently, the examiners must be confident that the thesis meets the criteria for the award of the degree, or will do so after a period of minor or major corrections, in order to recommend the award of the degree.

Following the viva, the examiners' report forms should be returned to Research, Partnerships and Innovation within two weeks of the date of oral examination (or the date of re-examination in the case of a resubmission without oral). If additional minor or major corrections are required, the examiners should retain the minor/major corrections sheet and return it to Research, Partnerships and Innovation once all corrections have been satisfactorily completed.  

Following completion of the resubmission and re-examination, students must provide a final electronic Library copy of their thesis - see the section on final library copy .

Related information

Contact the Research Degree Support Team

The oral examination (viva voce)

Thesis submission

Recommended pages

• Lecture timetables
• Campus maps
• Student digital services
• Staff Digital Services
• Student support
• Online registration
• Core systems
• Car parking
• Room bookings
• Staff development

Corrections to your thesis

Where you are asked to make corrections or revisions to your thesis, the examiners’ report forms will provide details of these corrections. You may also be given information at the oral examination about the required corrections or revisions. You should make sure that you understand the nature of the required corrections and revisions and discuss them with your supervisor. 

It is important that you understand the differences between minor and major corrections and revision and resubmission of your thesis as the procedures when you have completed the corrections or revisions are different.

• Minor corrections: normally one month (*)
• Major corrections: normally six months (*)
• Revise or resubmit: normally one year (*)

 (*) The examiners may give longer than this.

The email confirming the outcome of the examination will clearly state the deadline for submission of your corrected or revised thesis. 

You should take your deadline seriously, and work towards submitting your thesis by the deadline. You should continue to complete monthly online GRS2 forms to keep your supervisor in order to keep your supervisor updated on the progress of your correction.

If you are unable to meet the deadline, in exceptional cases you may request an extension to your deadline by submitting an extension request form for consideration by the University’s Research Progress and Awards Sub-Panel.

Further information about extensions can be found on the extensions webpages . 

Submission of corrected thesis (minor or major corrections) 

You are permitted one opportunity to complete corrections to the satisfaction of the examiners. You should raise any queries regarding the required corrections with your supervisor who will liaise with the examiner(s) on your behalf.

Your corrected thesis should be submitted electronically by email to your examiner(s), copying in Research Student Administration ( [email protected] ).

• Minor corrections: to be checked by the internal examiner
• Major corrections: to be checked by the internal and external examiner

The date on the cover page for a corrected thesis (examiners decision of minor or major corrections) should be the original submission date.

For information regarding resubmission of your thesis following the recommendation of revise and resubmit, see the revise and resubmit web pages.

The RSA team will provide your examiners with a deadline by which they should complete the checking of corrections and they will be asked to certify that the corrections have been completed to their satisfaction. RSA will then write to let you know whether the examiners are satisfied with the corrections.

Find out more

If you have any questions about corrections that have not been answered on this page, please contact the RSA team by  submitting an online enquiry .

• College of Arts and Law
• College of Engineering and Physical Sciences
• College of Life and Environmental Sciences
• College of Medical and Dental Sciences
• College of Social Sciences

Professional Services

• Academic Services
• Campus Services
• Development and Alumni Relations
• Executive Support
• External Relations
• Human Resources
• IT Services
• Legal Services
• Research Strategy and Services

What nobody tells you about ‘minor corrections’

Have you ever wondered what happens after the examiners give you feedback on your dissertation? In the UK and many other countries, this feedback is given in an oral presentation called the Viva. The viva is becoming more common in Australia, but most people will still get a written report from the examiners. It is your job to make changes based on this feedback, in consultation with your supervisors. It sounds simple, but in reality, making changes to a complete piece of work can be tricky.

This post is by Dr Mary Frank, who holds a PhD in Translation Studies from the University of Bristol, England. Her practice-based research investigated the interplay of translation theory and translation practice and led to three different translations of collection of satirical stories written in the German Democratic Republic in the 1960s. Her research interests are literary translation, the translation of literature from the GDR and prismatic translation (multiple translations of one text).  https://www.linkedin.com/in/mary-frank-0b27619/

In the UK system, the majority of PhD students pass their viva ‘with minor corrections’. Your examiners present you with a list of corrections, you go away and implement them. Easy, yes? Well, no, not necessarily.

If you’re lucky, corrections are simply typos, formatting issues etc. So far, so good. Any thesis will inevitably contain some of those, and you’d definitely want to correct them before submitting the final version. Corrections of that nature can legitimately be considered ‘minor’. But corrections of that kind are only a small part of the story. Much more problematic, in my experience, are corrections that, although still considered ‘minor’, involve re-thinking and re-writing. Nobody warns you that you’ll need to re-gather your energy and brainpower to tackle them. That, for me, turned into a struggle for which I was completely unprepared.

Let’s be clear: getting through your viva ‘with minor corrections’ is a great achievement. Your work is definitely of the required standard, but there are still tweaks to be made, perhaps to make connections clearer or to fine-tune an explanation. After all, you and your supervisors have become so close to your work that you may not realise that a particular point is not entirely clear to somebody reading it for the first time. This means that ‘minor’ corrections are entirely legitimate, and indeed should be welcomed as contributing to the quality of your final thesis. So why, when my examiners reeled off their list, did making those corrections seem like another huge mountain to climb? After all, it was the most likely outcome of the viva, so it wasn’t a surprise.

The problem, I think, was that after six years of researching and writing, and (for reasons beyond my control) a long and anxious wait for the viva, I had simply burned out. I had nothing left to give. While my supervisors cracked open a bottle of bubbly after the viva and people started gathering to congratulate me, I found it hard to celebrate. My brain felt completely drained, yet I knew that I somehow had to address those corrections before I could pass the finishing post. To my examiners and supervisors, those corrections were indeed ‘minor’, but to me they seemed bewildering and daunting.

“Do the minimum necessary,” my supervisors advised. For the first few days, all I could do was stare at my thesis. It was if it was carved in stone. It was only painfully slowly that my energy and brainpower returned and I felt able to tackle the typos, the easiest of the corrections. Once that barrier had been broken, the corrections that involved re-thinking and re-writing followed. In the end, I wrote three additional paragraphs at various points in the thesis and expanded my illustrations of an argument at another. Not, after all, a big deal.

Given that there is so little advice around on how to deal with ‘minor’ corrections, perhaps I’m unusual in having experienced this response. Or perhaps people like supervisors, having come out the other side, quickly forget what it’s like to have to re-visit your thesis at the very point when you may have nothing left to give. In case it helps others to avoid a crisis, here’s my advice:

• Although the viva is the key milestone in your PhD journey, try to bear in mind that it may not be the final one. In the UK and similar systems, you may well need to make corrections, so be sure to preserve some energy.
• When tackling corrections, it’s helpful to distance yourself from your thesis. Imagine yourself as an editor looking critically at somebody else’s work. That way, you’ll find it easier to break through that barrier of being unable to see how anything could be changed.

Thanks Mary! Are you tackling corrections now, or have you completed the ones asked of you? So you have any advice to offer?

Related posts

The wildcard of examination

Doing your ammendments without losing heart (or your mind)

Love the Thesis whisperer and want it to continue? Consider becoming a $1 a month Patreon and get special, Patreon only, extra Thesiswhisperer content every two weeks!

Share this:

The Thesis Whisperer is written by Professor Inger Mewburn, director of researcher development at The Australian National University . New posts on the first Wednesday of the month. Subscribe by email below. Visit the About page to find out more about me, my podcasts and books. I'm on most social media platforms as @thesiswhisperer. The best places to talk to me are LinkedIn , Mastodon and Threads.

• Post (607)
• Page (16)
• Product (6)
• Getting things done (258)
• On Writing (138)
• Miscellany (137)
• Your Career (113)
• You and your supervisor (67)
• Writing (48)
• productivity (23)
• consulting (13)
• TWC (13)
• supervision (12)
• 2024 (5)
• 2023 (12)
• 2022 (11)
• 2021 (15)
• 2020 (22)

Whisper to me....

Enter your email address to get posts by email.

Email Address

Sign me up!

• On the reg: a podcast with @jasondowns
• Thesis Whisperer on Facebook
• Thesis Whisperer on Instagram
• Thesis Whisperer on Soundcloud
• Thesis Whisperer on Youtube
• Thesiswhisperer on Mastodon
• Thesiswhisperer page on LinkedIn
• Thesiswhisperer Podcast
• 12,096,144 hits

Discover more from The Thesis Whisperer

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading