El jurado en una tesis doctoral: Funciones, criterios de evaluación e influencia de sesgos editoriales

Carlos Santiago-Torner

doi:10.22490/unad.27452115.10014

Vol. 6 No. 2 (2025)

Published 2025-12-12

license

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Artículos de reflexión

The jury in a doctoral thesis: Functions, evaluation criteria, and influence of editorial biases

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22490/unad.27452115.10014

Carlos Santiago-Torner University of Vic - Central University of Catalonia

PDF (Spanish)

Abstract
References

The defense of a doctoral thesis represents a key moment in a researcher's career, in which a jury evaluates the originality, relevance, and soundness of the work. However, this evaluation is not without challenges, especially due to the incidence of biases linked to extratextual criteria, such as the reputation of the publishers where the articles supporting the research were published. This article analyzes, first, the main responsibilities of the doctoral jury and, second, the influence of editorial biases and other subjective factors on the final grade. It concludes by highlighting the need for clear, standardized criteria focused on the intrinsic quality of the research to ensure fairness in the doctoral process.

keywords: Doctoral examination, Evaluation, Editorial bias, Quality standards, Academic integrity

Biagioli, M. (2016). Watch out for cheats in citation game. Nature, 535(7611), 201–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/535201a DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/535201a

Chetcuti, D., Cacciottolo, J., & Vella, N. (2022). What do examiners look for in a PhD thesis? Explicit and implicit criteria used by examiners across disciplines. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(8), 1358–1373. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2048293 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2048293

COPE. (2019). Core practices. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

Lovitts, B. E. (2007). Making the implicit explicit: Creating performance expectations for the dissertation. Stylus.

Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, J., Barbour, V., … & Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLOS Biology, 18(7), e3000733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000733 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737

Mullins, G., & Kiley, M. (2002). ‘It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize’: How experienced examiners assess research theses. Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507022000011507 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507022000011507

Powell, S., & Green, H. (Eds.). (2007). The doctorate worldwide. McGraw-Hill Education.

Roos, L., Löfström, E., & Remmik, M. (2021). Individual and structural challenges in doctoral education: An ethical perspective. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 16(1), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.28945/4738 DOI: https://doi.org/10.28945/4738

Sverdlik, A., Hall, N. C., McAlpine, L., & Hubbard, K. (2018). The PhD experience: A review of the factors influencing doctoral students’ completion, achievement, and well-being. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 361-388. https://doi.org/10.28945/4113 DOI: https://doi.org/10.28945/4113

license

How to Cite

Santiago-Torner, C. (2025). The jury in a doctoral thesis: Functions, evaluation criteria, and influence of editorial biases. EducaT: Educación Virtual, Innovación Y Tecnologías, 6(2), 103-108. https://doi.org/10.22490/unad.27452115.10014

Download Citation

Almétricas