Recommendations for assessing doctoral theses Dr. sc. hum.

The reporter and the reviewers should generally take the following criteria into account when assessing a thesis:

1. The doctoral candidate's ability to conduct scientific work and think critically. This also

includes the ability to independently develop solutions to the specified problems based on

knowledge gained from studying the literature and the methodological principles taught by the doctoral supervisor, personal commitment and the timely completion of the thesis.

1. The relevance of the topic, the originality of the question or task and the expected scientific gain in knowledge.
2. The systematic planning of the procedure. In observational studies and experimental work, this includes adequate study or experimental planning.
3. The quality of the results achieved. In observational studies and experimental work, this

includes an adequate methodology for evaluation.

1. Editorial aspects of the dissertation: length and proportioning of the work, presentation of the fundamentals, the research material and methodology, as well as the results (including tables and illustrations), discussion of the results, also in relation to the literature, style and expression, structure of the work.

In addition to these general criteria, the following recommendations are given for grading:

3 = rite

a) Observational studies (e.g. simple case compilations), case studies of rare cases.

b) Experimental works, essentially reproducible, carried out under guidance using established methods.

c) Theoretical works of a simple, predominantly referential nature.

2 = cum laude

a) Independently conducted observational studies, if possible with a clear presentation of new scientific aspects, especially through the examination of control and experimental groups to verify and falsify existing views.

b) Experimental works involving a wide variety of established but difficult methods, with independent execution of the experiments, sensible work planning and structuring of the task complex by the doctoral candidate.

c) Works as mentioned under 3c) which, given a specific scientific problem, demonstrate a clear degree of initiative on the part of the doctoral candidate in developing scientific solutions.

1 = magna cum laude

a) Challenging observational studies that have led to new scientific findings and have been planned and carried out independently by the doctoral candidate.

b) Experimental, methodologically difficult works that have led to new scientific findings, incorporating new methods or methods modified by the doctoral candidate, with the work being planned and carried out largely independently.

c) Theoretical works which, based on comprehensive reviews of the literature and critical analysis of existing views, have led to new scientific knowledge or views developed independently by the doctoral candidate and convincingly substantiated.

The following applies in each case:

A further requirement is the acceptance of a publication that describes original research work in a recognised international scientific journal reviewed by experts and in which the doctoral candidate is the first or second author. Exceptions require detailed justification. Review articles can only be counted towards these publication requirements if they meet the criteria under point c) (theoretical work).

In the Votum informativum, the doctoral supervisor must clearly state the contribution made by the doctoral candidate to the publication in the form of a list of the respective contributions, taking into account content-related distinctions, in order to justify the recommendation of the grade ‘magna cum laude’. On this basis, the doctoral committee makes a decision in each individual case.

summa cum laude

a) Works that have led to significant scientific findings with new, original methods of investigation or observation that go beyond 1a) and have been developed and carried out independently by the doctoral candidate.

b) Experimental works with new significant scientific findings that also go beyond 1b) in that these findings were obtained on the basis of an independently developed experimental plan and with independently developed research methods.

c) Theoretical works that have led to new significant scientific findings. These were made possible by a new, original approach and a complex theoretical model developed and convincingly presented by the doctoral candidate themselves.

The following applies in each case:

A further requirement is the acceptance of a publication in a recognised international peer-reviewed scientific journal with the doctoral candidate as the sole first author. Exceptions to this, particularly shared first authorship, require detailed justification.

In the Votum informativum, the doctoral supervisor must clearly state the contribution made by the doctoral candidate to the publication in the form of a list of the respective contributions, taking into account content-related distinctions, in order to justify the recommendation of the grade ‘summa cum laude’. On this basis, the doctoral committee makes a decision in each individual case.

Download assessment recommendations Dr. sc. hum (in German, PDF)

Terms

For the purposes of these recommendations, a study is considered experimental if the influencing factors to be studied are controlled by the investigator himself/herself or according to a procedure specified by him/her, e.g. in in vitro experiments, animal experiments and randomised clinical trials.

Studies in which the influencing factors are only determined (observed), such as case-control studies or cohort studies, are summarised here under observational studies.

Theoretical studies are those for which no own data collection has been carried out.