留学生博士研究生申请学位工作细则

发布时间:2012-03-20浏览次数:4961来源:哈尔滨工业大学研究生院


 

                             

    根据《中华人民共和国学位条例》和《中华人民共和国学位条例暂行实施办法》,结合我校博士生培养及博士学位授予工作的具体情况,制定本工作细则。
一、申请博士学位论文答辩的条件
博士生在申请博士论文答辩前应完成以下工作:
(1)培养计划中规定的全部课程,且考试成绩合格;
(2)与博士学位论文有关的课题研究任务;
(3)在博士学位论文工作期间按学校规定发表的学术论文;
(4)博士学位论文。
二、博士学位论文预答辩
学位论文初稿完成后,经导师审阅认可,由学生向所在学科点提出预答辩申请,同时填写《博士学位论文预答辩情况表》学生部分。
博士学位论文预答辩是切实检查博士学位论文工作、保证博士学位论文质量的重要环节,各学科应对预答辩给予充分的重视,认真组织、落实这项工作。预答辩程序如下:
1.学科点负责人根据博士生的研究方向、论文特点,组织本学科及相关学科的博导、教授5~7人,经学位分委员会批准,组成预答辩委员会。
2.博士生按学位论文答辩的正规方式进行报告及回答问题(可利用多媒体、投影胶片、幻灯、挂图等)。
学生进行报告的时间应为40~60分钟。
3.预答辩委员会委员应对博士学位论文进行严格、认真的审查,着重检查博士学位论文中的创新成果及创新水平、论文工作量等,并详细指出论文中存在的不足和问题,提出改进意见。
4.预答辩委员会采取评议的方法做出通过预答辩、未通过预答辩或经修改后通过预答辩的决议。对有争议者,可采用无记名投票方式做出决定。
5.预答辩委员会应将评议意见填入《博士学位论文预答辩情况表》。
6.博士生应根据预答辩委员会提出的意见对论文进行修改和完善。修改后的论文经导师签字批准后,方可向分委员会提出答辩申请。
三、学位分委员会对博士学位论文答辩申请的审查
1.博士生须持以下材料向有关分委员会提出答辩申请:
(1)《博士学位论文预答辩情况表》;
(2)经预答辩通过或修改后通过的博士学位论文;
(3)填写完的《申请博士学位论文答辩资格审查表》;
(4)学位论文工作期间发表的主要学术论文原件;
(5)博士研究生课程成绩单(含讲座、学术活动等的考核结果);
(6)答辩申请书。
2.分委员会审查重点:
(1)学位论文创新点、创新水平及结论;
(2)在攻读博士学位期间发表的学术论文;
(3)学位论文格式。
四、博士学位论文的专家评审
1.博士学位论文需由5名教授或相当专业技术职称的专家评审,其中应有至少4位是工作单位在外省的专家,且应在不同单位。学位申请者的导师不能被聘为论文评阅人。论文评阅人原则上应为博士生导师。
2.应聘请在论文涉及的研究方向上有较深学术造诣并熟悉论文研究领域的专家为论文评阅人。鼓励聘请国际同领域知名专家作为博士学位论文评阅人。论文评阅人名单由博士生导师提出,并经有关分委员会或分委员会指定的专家组讨论通过。
3.由答辩委员会秘书负责向评阅人寄送博士学位论文及论文学术评议书,并负责接收论文学术评议书。学位申请者本人不得直接向评阅人寄送论文、索要评阅意见及收拆学术评议书。应保证评阅人有不少于1个月的评阅时间。
4.专家评议意见及处理办法
(1)返回的5份评议书中,评议意见均为可以申请答辩或对论文内容及文字进行适当修改后可以申请答辩。
此种情况下,博士研究生需写出修改说明,经导师审核并签署意见后,由学位分委员会主席或其指派的专家审核并签署意见,可以申请答辩。
(2)部分评议专家对论文有较大异议,建议对论文内容进行较大修改后方可申请答辩。
如博士生及其导师同意专家意见,则需按照评审意见修改论文并写出修改说明,经导师审核并签署意见后,送研究生院转呈原专家复审。若原专家认可修改意见,可以申请答辩。若原专家不认可修改意见,则由校学位委员会指定专家组,对该博士学位论文、评审专家意见、博士生及导师回复意见等一并进行复议;
如博士生及其导师不同意专家意见,可提出申辩理由,经学位评定分委员会审核通过后,研究生院将另请两位专家以匿名方式再审。
(3)专家意见中如有两位或两位以上评议人的反馈意见为不同意答辩,则申请人本次学位申请无效。如有一位不同意答辩,则增聘两位评议人对论文进行匿名评议。若增聘的评议人中仍有不同意答辩者,则本次学位申请无效。
5.答辩委员会秘书整理论文评议书的汇总材料(学位申请者本人不得经手整理)。
有增聘评议人时,需将其评议意见及原评议人意见一并汇总。
博士研究生对论文评阅人提出的问题及论文存在的不足须给予明确答复,并将答复材料附于汇总材料之后。答复材料应签有导师及分委员会主席审阅意见。
五、评审意见汇总
1.答辩委员会秘书整理论文评审意见汇总材料(学位申请者本人不得经手整理)。汇总材料的内容包括:
(1)对论文选题的评价;
(2)对论文的创新成果的评价;
(3)对论文的总体评价;
(4)论文中存在的问题、不足及建议。
有增聘评审人时,需将其评审意见及原评审意见一并汇总。
博士研究生对论文评阅人提出的问题及论文存在的不足须给予明确答复,并将答复材料附于汇总材料之后。答复材料应签有导师审阅意见。
2.汇总材料按学位办要求的格式撰写,且必须经分委员会主席审阅和签字同意。
六、博士学位论文答辩
1.博士学位论文答辩委员会的组成
博士学位论文答辩委员会由七名教授或相当专业技术职称的专家组成,且应满足以下要求:①博士生导师应占全体成员的半数以上(至少四名);②校内同一学科专家不得超过三人;③导师或副导师只能有一人参加,且不得任答辩委员会主席;④必须有其它学院相关学科专家或校外专家。答辩委员会秘书应具有讲师以上职称。对具有研究生毕业同等学力的申请博士学位人员,其论文答辩委员会中需至少有二人是我校和申请人所在单位以外的专家,且申请人的导师和推荐人不能作为论文答辩委员会成员。
《博士学位论文答辩委员会成员审批表》在经分委员会主席同意、校学位办审查通过后方可生效。如审查批准后的答辩委员会中有委员更换,需重新履行审批手续。
2.博士学位论文答辩程序
博士学位论文答辩一般应公开进行,程序如下:
(1)答辩委员会主席宣布答辩开始,宣布答辩委员会组成名单,并逐一介绍各位委员;介绍博士学位申请人简况(思想品德、学习成绩、简历、学位论文工作情况及学术论文发表情况);
(2)答辩
      ① 博士学位申请人报告论文主要内容(约40~50分钟);
  ② 答辩委员会委员提问,博士生答辩;
  ③ 宣读导师评审意见;
      ④ 宣读论文评阅人对论文评价的汇总意见;
(3)休会,答辩委员会召开单独评议会
  ① 评议论文是否达到学位条例所要求的学术水平;
  ② 无记名投票表决是否建议授予博士学位;
  ③ 讨论并通过答辩委员会决议;
  ④ 主席签署决议书;
(4)复会,答辩委员会主席宣布答辩委员会决议;
(5)答辩人表态;
(6)答辩结束。
3.答辩委员会决议
(1)答辩委员会应以无记名投票方式,决定答辩是否通过及是否建议授予申请人博士学位。在答辩委员会成员三分之二以上(含三分之二)同意时方可做出建议授予博士学位的决定。
(2)论文答辩未通过,但答辩委员会认为可以考虑进一步修改论文时,应经无记名投票,全体成员过半数通过,做出在两年内修改论文、重新答辩一次的决议。
(3)如果答辩委员会未做出修改论文后重新答辩的决议,任何人无权组织重新答辩。
(4)答辩委员会认为申请人的论文虽未达到博士学位的学术水平,但已达到硕士学位的学术水平,而申请人又尚未获得该学科硕士学位时,可以做出建议授予申请人硕士学位的决议。
七、博士学位论文公示期
1.博士学位论文公示期原则上自学位论文预答辩通过之日起,至校学位委员会审核博士学位论文时止,时间不得短于一个月。
2.博士学位论文公示期期间,学位申请人公示其博士学位论文的相关信息,接受并回复有关人员提出的问题。
3.博士学位论文公示期期间,校学位办也同时接受并处理有关人员提出的问题。
八、答辩申请无效的处理办法
若答辩申请无效,申请者或按结业离校,或重写学位论文,在半年之后、两年之内再次提出答辩申请。若再次申请仍未通过,学校不再受理其学位论文答辩申请。
九、评审专家意见的保存
评审意见的原件由研究生院按保密文件存档,复印件或打印件以隐名方式在博士生答辩前返回博士生所在院(系),与其它答辩材料一起由各院(系)汇总存档。
 
Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT)
 
The rules and regulations for the application of doctoral degree are formulated in accordance with the《Academic Degree Ordinance of People’s Republic of China》and the《Temporary Regulations for Academic Degree of People’s Republic of China》taking into account of the concrete conditions of doctoral education and doctoral degree award at Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT), China.
 
I. Conditions for PhD Viva Voce Examination
 
Prior to PhD viva voce examination, the candidate should complete the following work:
 
(1) Complete all curriculums for doctoral education, and successfully pass all examinations;
(2) Accomplish the research project tasks pertinent to the doctoral dissertation;
(3) Have academic papers published as requited during the period of doctoral study;
(4) Submit PhD dissertation.
 
II. Preliminary PhD Viva Voce Examination
 
After completing the draft of PhD dissertation, the candidate should submit a preliminary viva voce application to the discipline PhD program with the approval of the supervisor, and meanwhile fill in the《Form for Preliminary PhD Viva Voce Examination》. Preliminary PhD viva voce examination is a key step to oversee the work of dissertation and to guarantee the quality of academic degree theses. Therefore, an emphasis is placed on PhD viva voce examination and the related implementation. The procedures of preliminary PhD viva voce examination are described as follows:
 
1. With regard to the research direction and the thesis characteristics of the candidate, the convener of the discipline PhD program has the duty to organize 5-7 supervisors of PhD candidates and professors in a given discipline or related disciplines, constituting a preliminary viva board, which should be authorized by the branch committee of academic degree.
 
2. The candidate should conduct a formal presentation and answer the questions raised (multimedia, projectors, films, slides and pictures may be used). The time for the presentation should be 40-60 minutes.
 
3. The board members of the preliminary viva should conduct a serious and stringent examination of the dissertation, emphatic on the original achievement, the level of creativity, and the amount of work involved in the dissertation. Furthermore, the weakness and problems in the dissertation should be pointed out in detail, with recommendations for improvement proposed.
 
4. In the form of review, the board of preliminary viva makes the resolution of “pass”, “not pass”, or “pass with amendments” of the preliminary viva voce examination. In the case of difference, a ballot is adopted to determine the result.
 
5. The board members of the preliminary viva should fill their reviews in the《Form for Preliminary PhD Viva Voce Examination》.
 
6. The candidate should revise and modify the dissertation according to the reviews of the board members of the preliminary viva examination. The revised dissertation should be approved and signed by the supervisor. Then, a viva application can be submitted to the branch committee of academic degree.
 
III. The Inspection of the Branch Committee of Academic Degree for PhD Viva Voce Application
 
1. The candidate must provide the following materials when submitting his/her viva application to the branch committee of academic degree.
 
(1) 《Form for Preliminary PhD Viva Voce Examination》
(2) The dissertation or revised dissertation through preliminary PhD viva voce examination.
(3) A completed《Qualification Form for PhD Viva Application》
(4) Major research papers published during the period of doctoral study (Original versions).
(5) Doctoral candidate’s exam grades (including the academic records of lectures and academic activities).
(6) 《Application Form for Preliminary PhD Viva Voce Examination》
 
2. Inspection Key Points of the Branch Committee of Academic Degree
 
(1) The originality, level of creativity, and conclusions;
(2) Research paper published during the period of doctoral study;
(3) Format of PhD dissertation.
 
IV. Specialist Reviews for PhD Dissertation
 
1. A PhD dissertation should be reviewed by 5 professors or equally qualified specialists, among them at least 4 should be external examiners from other provinces, and furthermore they should not work in the same institution. The supervisor of the candidate should not be invited to serve as reviewer. In principle, the reviewers should be supervisors of PhD candidates.
 
2. Reviewers should be specialists with profound knowledge or those familiar with the research direction of the dissertation in a specific field. In this regard, international renowned specialists are preferred. The supervisor of the candidate should propose a list of reviewers, which are discussed and appointed by the related branch committee or a designated specialists group.
 
3. The secretary of the viva board has the duty to send the review forms and collect the reviews. In this regard, the candidate should not get involved, and s/he is not allowed to send, ask for, open or read the reviews. The review period should be no less than one month.
 
4. Specialists’ reviews and management
 
(1) The returned five reviews should be used for viva application, or used to modify the dissertation for viva application. In this case, the candidate should explain in written form the reasons for modification. This should be checked and commented by the supervisor, and then inspected and commented by the chairman of the branch committee or a designated specialist. Under this condition, the candidate can apply for PhD viva voce examination.
 
(2) If some specialists show considerable difference about the dissertation, it is suggested that substantial revision or modification must be done before submitting PhD viva application.
 
If the candidate and the supervisor agree with the reviewers’ opinion, the candidate should revise the dissertation accordingly and write an explanation for the revision or modification. Being checked and commented by the supervisor, the dissertation should be sent to the Graduate School of HIT, who would ask the same specialists for re-examination. If the specialists approve the revision or modification, a viva application can be submitted. If disapproved, HIT Academic Degree Committee (the Senate) will designate a specialists group to re-examine the candidate’s dissertation, the reviews of specialists, the opinions of the supervisor and the candidate together.
 
If the candidate and the supervisor disagree with the reviewers regarding the reviews, they can state their reasons. Inspected by the branch committee of academic degree, the Graduate School of HIT will invite another two specialists to re-examine the dissertation by means of anonymity.
 
(3) If the feedback from two or more than two specialists concerning the viva voce is negative, the candidate fails in terms of viva application this time. If one specialist disagrees regarding viva application, two additional specialists will be invited to review the dissertation by means of anonymity. If they disagree, the viva application fails this time.
 
5. The secretary of the viva board sort out the collected materials related to the dissertation reviews (the candidate is not allowed to get involved in the collection). In the case of additional reviewers, their reviews and the original reviews should be collected together.
 
The candidate should give definite answers to the questions raised or the weakness identified by the reviewers. The materials should be attached to the above collected documents. The materials should be commented by the supervisor or the chairman of the branch committee of academic degree.
 
V. Collection of Reviews
 
1. The secretary of the viva board sort out the collected materials related to the dissertation reviews (the candidate is not allowed to get involved in the collection).
 
The collected materials include:
 
(1) Comments on the chosen research topic;
(2) Comments on the creativity of the dissertation;
(3) Overall evaluation of the dissertation;
(4) Problems and weakness identified in the dissertation, plus recommendations.
 
In the case of additional reviewers, their reviews and the original reviews should be collected together.
 
The candidate should give definite answers to the questions raised or the weakness identified by the reviewers. The materials should be attached to the above collected documents. The replies should be commented and signed by the supervisor.
 
2. The collected materials should be written according to the requirements of the Academic Degree Office of HIT. They should be checked and signed by the chairman of the branch committee of academic degree.
 
VI. PhD Viva Voce Examination
 
1. PhD viva board
 
A PhD viva board consists of seven professors or equally qualified specialists, meeting the following criteria: (1) Supervisors of PhD candidates should be more than half of the total board members (at least four). (2) HIT specialists in the same discipline should not be more than three professors. (3) Only one of the supervisors or co-supervisor is allowed to attend the viva, and the one could not serve as the chairman of the viva board. (4) Specialists related to the discipline from other schools or external examiners must be invited. The secretary of the viva board should be lecturer or plus. For the PhD candidate with the same qualification of master degree, the viva board should include at least two specialists from other institutions, who are not from HIT or the institution where the candidate serves. Furthermore, the supervisor of the candidate or the person who recommends the candidate should not serve as the viva board members.
 
《Form for PhD Viva Board Members》must be approved by the chairman of the branch committee of academic degree, and authorized by HIT Academic Degree Committee (the Senate). If anyone is to be replaced, the procedures to renew must be observed.
 
2. PhD viva procedures
 
In general, PhD viva should be open, and the procedures are stated as follows:
 
(1) The chairman of the viva board declares that the viva starts, with the introduction of each board member; then gives a brief account of the candidate in terms of moral character, academic records, curriculum vitae, the work of the dissertation, and the research papers published.
 
(2) Viva voce examination
 
1) The presentation of the PhD candidate (about 40-50 minutes);
2) Questions from the board members and the answers of the candidate;
3) The review of the supervisor is announced;
4) The collected reviews of the dissertation are announced.
 
(3) Adjournment, the viva board holds an independent meeting.
 
1) Discuss and judge whether the dissertation meet the academic standard required by the academic degree ordinance;
2) Ballot for whether or not to recommend that the candidate be awarded PhD degree;
3) Discuss and pass the resolution of the viva board;
4) The chairman signs the resolution.
 
(4) Resuming the viva, the chairman announces the resolution of the board;
 
(5) The candidate expresses his/her attitude.
 
(6) The viva voce examination ends.
 
3. The resolution of the viva board
 
(1) The viva board should have a ballot on whether or not the candidate passes the viva voce examination, and whether or not to suggest awarding the candidate PhD degree. If two thirds (including two thirds) of the board members agree, a decision can be made to award the candidate PhD degree.
 
(2) In the case of “not pass” in the viva voce examination, the viva board considers further amendment of the dissertation. A ballot is conducted to determine whether or not the candidate has another viva voce examination in two years’ time. It is possible only if more than half of the board members approve.
 
(3) If the viva board makes no resolution to have another viva voce examination after revising the dissertation, no one is entitled the right to arrange another viva voce examination.
 
(4) If the viva board maintains that the candidate fails to meet the requirements for a doctoral degree but reaches the academic level of master degree, they can make a resolution to award the candidate a master degree (only if the candidate holds no master degree in a given field).
 
VII. Period of Public Notice for a PhD Dissertation
 
1. In principle, the period of public notice for a PhD dissertation dates from the date of pass in the viva voce examination to the date on which HIT Academic Degree Committee (the Senate) inspects the dissertation. The period should be no less than a month.
 
2. During the period of public notice, the candidate should publicize the information relevant to the dissertation, answering the questions raised by the people concerned.
 
3. During the period of public notice, HIT Academic Degree Committee (the Senate) also accepts and deals with the questions arising from the people concerned.
 
VIII. Settlement of an Ineffective Viva Application
 
If a viva application is ineffective, the candidate may leave the university as scheduled, or rewrite his/her dissertation. In a half year or two years’ time, the candidate can submit a viva application again. If the application fails, the university will no longer accept candidate’s application.
 
IX. Storage of the Specialists’ Reviews
 
The original documents are stored as confidential files by the Graduate School of HIT, and the copies, either print or typed, are returned to the school or department where the candidate studies before the viva voce examination. They are collected and stored with other viva documents at the related school or department.