Important note: This form must be completed in one session. It is therefore recommended that examiners prepare their report in a document and then transfer their answers/comments onto the online form when ready to submit.

Guidelines for Thesis Examination

Doctoral and Master’s degrees

Criteria for examination and consideration of the award

In accordance with the Australian Qualifications Framework, for the award of a doctoral degree the candidate must demonstrate: 

1. a substantial, original and significant contribution to the knowledge or understanding in the field of study; 
2. an expert understanding of theoretical knowledge and the ability to reflect critically on relevant theory and practice; 
3. intellectual independence in evaluating existing knowledge and ideas, and planning and undertaking systematic investigation to generate original knowledge; 
4. technical and creative skills, including use of relevant research principles and methods, applicable to the field of study or learning; 
5. communication skills to explain and critique their field of research, including the ability to present a sustained argument; 
6. an ethical approach and a high level of research integrity. 

For the award of a Master of Philosophy (MPhil), the research thesis must:

1. demonstrate advanced mastery of research skills relevant to the field of study;
2. demonstrate specialist knowledge in the area of research;
3. technical and creative skills, including use of relevant research principles and methods, applicable to the field of study or learning; 
4. communication skills to explain and critique their field of research, including the ability to present a sustained argument; 
5. an ethical approach and a high level of research integrity.

Please complete this report and indicate whether the criteria above have been satisfied and, if not, what amendments are necessary to reach this standard. 

Examiner’s recommendation

After examination, the examiner shall make one of the following recommendations: 

C1 passed with no changes. 

C2 passed with minor changes – candidates have two months to complete the changes and resubmit to the Graduate Research School Director for approval, including a report of the revisions completed by the candidate.

C3 passed with major changes – candidates have four months to complete these changes and resubmit to the Graduate Research School Director for approval, including a report of the corrections and amendments completed by the candidate. If the Graduate Research School Director is dissatisfied with the changes, the candidate might be asked to make further minor changes or to revise and resubmit to the Graduate Research School Director.

C4 revise and resubmit - candidates must resubmit for examination a revised thesis/portfolio after a further period of research, substantial reorganisation or reconceptualisation. Candidates have up to 12 months to complete these changes and then re-submit the thesis/portfolio for examination. Only one resubmission is allowed. Resubmission of a thesis/portfolio follows this process:

1. Either the initial examiners or alternate examiners are invited to examine the revised work at the end of the 12-month revision period.
2. Examiners of the research are provided with the revised version of the thesis/portfolio and a document from the candidate listing amendments made and justification for any recommended amendments not made.
3. Theses/portfolios will follow the usual examination process and be graded according to the guidelines.

C5 fail - the thesis/portfolio is not of the appropriate standard for an HDR award and no further submission is allowed.

Please provide the grounds for your recommendation by detailing the strengths and weaknesses of the research. This feedback will be used by AC to advise the candidate on any revisions needed to improve the research. 

If you make a recommendation of C5, please keep in mind that candidates may appeal against a final examination classification at AC. Your examination report should therefore provide clear evidence of the failure of the candidate to meet the required standards of the degree and the reasoning behind not recommending a classification of C4. 

Third Examiner

If the examiners’ reports are substantially different and irreconcilable, a third examiner is appointed by the Graduate Research School. The examination result will be determined by the majority position of the three reports according to the AC Classification of Examinations Schedule 1. If two of the three examiners do not substantially agree, then an Examination Advisory Committee (EAC) may be convened.

Integrity of the examination process 

During the examination process, there should be no direct contact between an examiner and the candidate or supervisors. Only the Graduate Research School may communicate with an examiner on matters of assessment, and the thesis/project should be treated as a confidential document. 

All examiners are required to submit independent reports and should not consult other examiners in making their assessment other than in exceptional circumstances, either following the approval (or at the request of) the Graduate Research School. 

Examiner names will only be revealed to the candidate after the examination has concluded if the examiner has given their approval. 

Determination of outcome 

The examiners shall individually and independently assess the thesis/project, prepare a brief assessment report for the guidance of the candidate and make a recommendation to the Deputy Vice President Research and Standards (DVP R&S). The DVP R&S will use the examination classification schedule to determine the examination outcome, based on the collective examiners’ recommendations. 

If the thesis/project receives a final classification of C4 (Revise and Resubmit), all examiners are asked if they agree to re-examine the revised thesis/project when it has been revised, within 12 months of the initial examination. The only recommendations available for re-examination are Passed or Failed. Examiners are asked to indicate their agreement to re-examine a revised version of the thesis/project at the bottom of this form.

Honours degree

Criteria for examination and consideration of the award

For the award of a Bachelor of Advanced Studies (Honours) (BAH):

1. The candidate must be able to demonstrate an advanced competence in descriptive, critical and analytic skills with respect to the topic of their research;  
2. The research thesis must be clearly expressed, well-structured and well-argued relative to the topic, and appropriately engages the peer-reviewed literature in the area;
3. The research thesis must demonstrate advanced mastery of research skills, specialist knowledge in the area of research, and critical engagement with the topic.
4. The thesis must demonstrate an ethical approach and a high level of research integrity.

Examiner’s recommendation 

After examination, the examiner will indicate whether the relevant criteria above have been satisfied and, if not, what amendments are necessary to reach this standard. The examiner will assign a percentage mark to the candidate’s work with one of the following grades: 

High Distinction (85-100%)	Denotes performance that deserves the highest level of recognition as it meets all examination criteria in an exceptional way and with marked excellence.
Distinction (75-84%)	Denotes performance which clearly deserves a very high level of recognition as an excellent achievement.
Credit (65-74%)	Denotes performance which is substantially above average.
Pass (50-64%)	Denotes performance which satisfies the examination criteria.
Fail (<50%)	Denotes performance which does not meet the examination criteria. The candidate is invited to revise and resubmit.

In case of a “Fail” (Revise and Resubmit) result, candidates must resubmit for examination a revised thesis after a further period of research, substantial reorganisation or reconceptualisation. Candidates have up to six months to complete these changes and then re-submit the thesis for examination. Only one resubmission is allowed. Resubmission of a thesis follows this process:

1. Either the initial examiners or alternate examiners are invited to examine the revised work at the end of the six-month revision period.
2. Examiners of the research are provided with the revised version of the thesis and a document from the candidate listing amendments made and justification for any recommended amendments not made.
3. The revised thesis will follow the usual examination process and be graded according to the guidelines.
4. If after resubmission the thesis is not of the appropriate standard for an HDR award, no further submission is allowed.

The examiner will provide the grounds for their recommendation by detailing the strengths and weaknesses of the research. This feedback will be used by AC to advise the candidate on any revisions needed to improve the research. 

Note: Candidates who receive a Fail (Revise and Resubmit) grade may appeal against a final examination classification at AC. The examination report should therefore provide clear evidence of the failure of the candidate to meet the required standards of the degree and the reasoning behind not recommending a “pass” grade. 

Third Examiner

If the examiners’ reports are substantially different and irreconcilable, a third examiner is appointed by the Director of the Research Graduate School. The examination result will be determined by the majority position of the three reports according to the AC Classification of Examinations Schedule 1. If two of the three examiners do not substantially agree, then an Examination Advisory Committee (EAC) may be convened.

Integrity of the examination process 

During the examination process, there should be no direct contact between an examiner and the candidate or supervisors. Only the Graduate Research School may communicate with an examiner on matters of assessment, and the thesis/project should be treated as a confidential document. 

All examiners are required to submit independent reports and should not consult other examiners in making their assessment other than in exceptional circumstances, either following the approval (or at the request of) the Graduate Research School. 

Examiner names will only be revealed to the candidate after the examination has concluded if the examiner has given their approval. 

Determination of outcome 

The examiners shall individually and independently assess the thesis/project, prepare an examination report, and make a recommendation to the Graduate Research School.

Examiners are asked to indicate their willingness to re-examine a revised version of the thesis/project, if necessary. If the thesis/project receives a “Fail” grade (Revise and Resubmit), all examiners are asked if they would be willing to re-examine the revised thesis/project within six months of the initial examination. The only recommendations available for re-examination are Passed or Failed.