thesis minor corrections

How to deal with post-viva PhD thesis corrections

Jun 1, 2019

We like to think that the viva is the end of the doctoral process; the final step in the long journey to a PhD. However, for most, it isn’t the final hurdle. The outcome of the viva in most cases is another three to sixth months work to deal with corrections (which may range from correcting typos, to rewriting or adding entire chapters). This means you need to preserve some energy and be prepared to exert some considerable post-viva brainpower.

Wait for the committee’s report

You’ll leave your viva with a good understanding of what revisions you’re going to be required, and, no doubt, many, many notes summarising the main discussion points and areas for improvement. However, as tempting as it may be to start picking apart particular sections or chapters, wait until your examination committee send over their report, which will be the formal record of the revisions that they recommend.

Read through it carefully several times. I left mine for a day or so and then came back to it to reread it. I found this an effective way to pick up on some of the more nuanced aspects of their suggestions.

When you first receive it, you may be alarmed at its length and the detail that the examiner has gone into. Try not to be disheartened; in some ways, having detailed feedback on each suggested revision can help you, as it is providing you with clear (hopefully) instructions on how to proceed.

Try not to be disheartened

Either way, you may feel disheartened. It’s hard to have someone critique our work , especially when we’ve put so much energy into it in the first place. However, critique is part of the academic process. It is not intended to shame you for any real or perceived shortcomings, but instead to make your work as effective and academically rigorous as it can be.

There are two things to bear in mind. First, through engaging with such critique and making the necessary changes (or refuting them, where appropriate) you are developing not just the quality of your study, but also your critical thinking skills. The process of receiving, digesting and responding to reviewer critique in this way is a valuable skill and, in some ways, a necessary part of the doctoral journey.

The challenge you will have is in understanding which of the reviewer’s comments are practical, appropriate and based in an accurate reading of the thesis and the wider discipline, and which are refutable or that you don’t agree with. When you submit your revised thesis, you are within your rights to exclude a particular revision, but you need to very carefully and convincingly justify your decision to do so. Perhaps your examiner has misunderstood something or has failed to take something into consideration that renders their suggestion mute. Point this out diplomatically, drawing on your own text and the wider literature to back up your response.

How to deal with unhelpful feedback

Sometimes though you may have more serious grievances with the nature of the examiner’s comments and you may feel unfairly treated. In these instances, it is vital that you talk to your supervisory committee and department leads. They will be able to offer you advice tailored to your context and institution.

The fantastic ’Thesis Whisperer’ blog has written a useful post on how to deal with unhelpful or conflicting feedback. You can find it here .

Only do what the examiners ask for

When you sit down to work on your revisions, it is easy to spot additional problems and flaws with your thesis. As you approach completion, your critical thinking skills are very well developed, so it is only natural that you will be critiquing your own work. It is tempting to change things that aren’t listed in the examiner’s report in our ongoing quest for perfection. Do not do this. Only do what the examiner asked for.

Why? Two reasons. First, you may be limited for time. Two, you may be created additional problems.

You’ll have plenty of time to iron out any additional changes in a post-doc.

Your PhD thesis. All on one page.

Use our free PhD structure template to quickly visualise every element of your thesis.

Don’t freak out

Just because you get major corrections, isn’t the end of the world. Examiners have subjective views on what classes as each type of correction. Some may think that problems with page numbering or typos constitute minor corrections, some may turn a blind eye. While most universities have guidelines on what should be classed as, say, a major or minor correction, often the lines can be blurred. I have known students be told they have minor corrections to make to then be presented with twenty pages of suggested revision. Conversely, I have seen students successfully address major corrections in less than one week.

I’ve also seen outstanding PhDs be awarded major corrections just because the examiner wanted to push the student to turn a brilliant piece of research into something world-class.

I’ve also seen weaker PhDs awarded minor or even no corrections.

Every examiner is different, and some will be expecting more of students than others. This is particularly the case if your examiner has particular expertise in a particular approach your thesis is taking (of course, examiners will be subject-experts, but in some cases, they may be leading experts on, say, a particular theoretical approach too, or your methodology). In these cases, they might be more liable to call you out on things that the other examiner may have missed or not realised the significance of.

One upside of this is that a strict examiner can push your research to a higher level. This is useful if you plan on turning it into a book, or carry on research in a post-doc.

Create a matrix

You should list all of the suggested revisions in a spreadsheet, together with your notes. This will allow you to create an audit trail as you work through them.

To start, create a spreadsheet with three columns. In column one, you list each revision listed in the report on a separate row. In column two, you can write your notes or, where relevant, the final text that will make it into your revised thesis. In the third column, note the priority that that particular revision has (more on this below).

This serves four purposes. First, you can easily see every single step required and track your progress, making sure you don’t miss anything out. Second, it lets you break down longer, more detailed comments into manageable chunks. Third, you can create an order of priority, so you know what to focus on first. Fourth, you can use the table to write up your response to the examiners (more on this below).

When you have finished your revisions, you can use the matrix to double check that you have dealt with everything listed in the report.

Get started quickly

Decide which amendments you have to do, and which you won’t. You may not agree with a particular suggestion, or you may be able to explain any misunderstanding. In these cases, you shouldn’t just change things to satisfy your examiners. Instead, you need to stand your ground when you think it necessary but, importantly, you need to argue your case. Like a Doctor. Tell the examiner exactly why you have chosen not to make a suggested revision, in as much detail as possible and with reference to both the existing thesis and, if necessary, the wider literature.

However, there may be comments that you don’t understand. If that’s the case, you should talk to your advisory committee or department administrators to see what the protocol is for contacting the examiners to seek further clarification.

Check the paperwork

There may be a lot of final paperwork that you need to submit alongside your corrected draft. Check what your institution requires well in advance of resubmission.

Read through the entire thesis

Once you have finished your revisions, read through the entire thesis one final time. When you do, try not to focus on the revisions you have just made, but instead on how the document reads.

This serves two purposes: first, you can make sure the flow has been maintained after your changes, and that you have avoided repetition. Second, it’s a chance to deal with any stray typos. If you struggle to proofread your work, reading it out loud may help.

Create a cover letter

It is likely that your institution will require you to prepare a cover letter to submit alongside the revised thesis. This document summarises your response to every comment, detailing what changes you made and, importantly, which of the suggestions you haven’t taken on board, and why.

Make sure to maintain a polite tone, even if you disagree with some of their suggestions. You should thank them for their hard work, and respond thoroughly to each suggestion that they made. It isn’t enough to simply say, ‘I made change number 1 on page 50’. Instead, you should spend some time talking about the nature of the change, and offer any other comments or thoughts you have.

If you can, summarise the changes you made in a table, complete with page numbers. This will make the examiners’ life easier by allowing you to quickly show how you responded to each comment and where exactly the changes are in the thesis. They may not have time to read through the entire thesis again, so providing them with an easy-reference guide to where each change can be found can speed the whole review process up considerably.

When creating this cover letter, use the matrix we discussed above to keep track of your revisions.

The corrections your examiner suggests are not a personal attack; they are instead a reflection of the process of peer review that characterises modern academia. Yet, academia is also characterised by ongoing debate. That means you are within your rights to contest particular suggestions, but in a rigorous, logical and, where appropriate, evidence-based way. You have pushed the frontiers of knowledge in your PhD and now have authority to speak as an expert.

Prepare for your viva. One question at a time.

Prepare answers to the most common PhD viva questions with this interactive template. It’s free to download and it’s yours to keep forever.

Hello, Doctor…

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Be able to call yourself Doctor sooner with our five-star rated How to Write A PhD email-course. Learn everything your supervisor should have taught you about planning and completing a PhD.

Now half price. Join hundreds of other students and become a better thesis writer, or your money back.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

Most popular articles from the phd knowlege base.

Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

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

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

Minor Corrections: How To Make Them and Succeed With Your PhD Thesis

Image with a title showing 'How to make PhD thesis corrections' with a cartoon image of a man writing on a piece of paper, while holding a test tube, with a stack of books on the desk beside him

When you think forward to the end of your PhD you’ll likely focus on submitting your thesis and attending your viva. What you may not have considered is the likely need to then make corrections based on feedback from your examiners.

While it’s possible to pass your viva with no corrections, the vast majority of us will need to make some corrections before you’re completely done with the PhD. Most often these will be minor corrections. All of the advice can also be applied to major corrections, alongside other protocols which you should be alerted to by your examiners, supervisor, and university.

In this post we’ll cover how to approach any PhD thesis corrections and I’ll share my top tips for knowing how to stay organised and where to turn for support.

So read closely as we discuss the final hurdle before you can officially say your PhD is done!

Intro to the PhD viva

Before we dive into how to approach thesis corrections I wanted to quickly do a high level recap of the PhD viva for anyone who may be unfamiliar. You’ll find a lot more detail in my introductory guide to the PhD viva article.

The PhD viva is an exam which takes place at the end of your PhD, during which you’ll defend your PhD thesis to a panel of examiners. They will have read your thesis in advance and will ask in-depth questions about your work.

As I detail in the post linked to above, there are several possible outcomes to the PhD viva. For most universities, in the UK at least, there are:

Pass with no corrections
Pass with minor corrections
Referral for resubmission (major corrections)

The focus of this post is for those receiving outcome 2 ‘Pass with minor corrections’, which is what most people will receive. The great news if you receive this outcome is that the examiners have decided that your work is worthy of your receiving a doctorate, there are just some small changes required before this will take place.

If you receive this outcome there will therefore be a list of changes that will be sent to you, typically by the internal examiner. You then need to make these changes before being awarded your PhD. To get a clear picture of what is required, check out the list of steps to completing a PhD .

It’s worth noting that there will usually be two types of thesis corrections you’ll end up making. The first are corrections your PhD examiners want you to make and the second are changes you want to make.

Let’s cover both of these in more depth.

Minor corrections your PhD examiners want you to make

Shortly after your viva you should receive a list of corrections your examiners want for you to make before you are to be awarded your PhD. This list shouldn’t come as a surprise: it should be composed of at least some of the points that examiners raised during your viva.

The required corrections will typically be discussed at the end of your exam and it’s important that you understand what these suggestions are. So make sure to ask any clarifying questions during your viva.

Also make sure that you’re able to make the changes. It’s no good agreeing with them that it’d be a good idea to do more of a particular analytical technique* if this is completely unfeasible! You’re not putting yourself in a great position if you can’t actually make the changes, so it’s best to discuss feasibility during your viva ideally.

*Things like rerunning experiments are usually reserved for major corrections. Most often minor corrections doesn’t involve much in the way of altering the experiments already presented.

The minor corrections I was requested to make for my own PhD thesis

Here is a brief overview of the corrections I had to make to my own thesis:

Inconsistent terminology, spelling and grammar
Adding more detail and explanations
Linking between the chapters more

Presentation

Rearranging content
Moving a few bits to an appendix for a more clear story
Adding a new figure

Note: When you receive the list of corrections this may not include everything they suggested during the viva. For me personally the viva was over 5 hours long and I had several pages of notes with suggestions, but I only received a short list of required corrections.

So there may be a difference between the mandatory required corrections to complete your PhD and suggestions mentioned to make the work better. To be clear: the former are a requirement whilst the latter are optional and will not be included in the list of corrections to be made.

Minor changes you want to make

When you read your thesis ahead of the viva you may realise that there are some small changes that you would like to make. I’ll be honest: reading my thesis in the day or two before my viva was the first time I’d properly read through the assembled thesis. Before that it had been simply individual chapters as I was piecing the document together.

Small changes you may want to correct cloud include:

typos/ grammatical errors
formating issues
minor sentence rephrasing
additional detail/ clarity

If you realise that you want to make changes which are more substantial than those listed above then be sure to discuss these with your supervisor and the internal examiner before investing effort. For example, restructuring sections, removing or modifying results or figures. You have to be mindful to not change the document to a point where it is substantially different from what you were examined on.

You can make changes such as listed above (which aren’t contentious) alongside the ones required by your examiners in preparation of submitting the finalised version of your thesis.

Documenting changes to your thesis

As soon as you receive the list from your examiners you can start making the corrections. Be sure to ask the internal examiner how they want the changes to be documented. By default I would do it as if it’s revisions for a paper where you should do three things:

Track changes and submit a copy of this tracked changes document so that it is clear to the examiner what has changed
Additionally submit a clean copy of the corrected thesis – i.e. all changes accepted.
Prepare an itemised list of how the examiners’ correction requests have been addressed. It is good to also acknowledge any other small changes you have made such as correcting typos that you spotted yourself.

Examples of how to describe your thesis corrections

Here are a few examples for the itemised list mentioned above. You should aim to address each required correction separately, just like with reviews for a paper. For some examples of that process read my separate guide: Example Peer Review Comments & Addressing Reviewer Feedback .

Request: Provide more details on the experimental set up described in section 3.2

Response: Further details added on page 58

Request: Give clarification on the motivation for chapter 4

Response: Additional clarification provided on page 120

Request: Modify figure 12.1 to include a legend.

Answer: Legend added to Figure 12.1 (page 78)

How long does it take to make thesis corrections?

It depends a lot on the changes your examiners have requested!

For me it took most of one day’s effort to make the changes. Most of the corrections could simply be made in Word or Photoshop. However, of course if the examiners want further analysis, significant changes to figures, new tables etc then it could easily take a lot longer than a day.

The process after making corrections

Once you’ve made the changes, you may wish to run these past your supervisor first, before passing them to the internal examiner.

It’s important to note that once it goes to the internal examiner no further changes can typically be made. In other words: the copy you send to them is the finalised copy. Therefore you should make sure you’re fully happy with the thesis at this stage. I personally didn’t (and still don’t!) worry about having a 100% perfect copy. Instead I wanted to spend that time working on papers, which for me seemed a lot more important.

Once your supervisor has looked at it you send it off to the internal examiner. They’ll then spend some time reviewing it. Once reviewed they will email the relevant people in the university to confirm that you have successfully defended your PhD and should be awarded the degree.

You would also at this stage normally upload the final copy of your thesis which the university will store online for people to access.

The university then confirms that it’s all done and that you’ve finished your PhD. All that’s left then is to celebrate that you’re done with the PhD, await your graduation ceremony, and collect your certificate!

You’ll officially be a doctor once you’ve received the confirmation from the university that you’ve finished.

Note: If you’re reading this prior to initiating the process of submitting your PhD then I’d also suggest spending some time considering what your title should be. My choice of title was one of my few PhD regrets (read the post here ). I’ve since written a guide with examples to help you to come up with a PhD title you can be happy with.

Timeline for making minor thesis corrections

You might be wondering how long you get given to make your minor corrections. Typically it’ll be about three months but do check your university guidelines.

Of course you don’t need it to drag out for that long, so if you have capacity (i.e. not already in another job!) you can make the corrections much quicker. This is what I chose to do since I was trapped at my girlfriend’s parents house in a COVID lockdown!

One motivation to consider is that universities will often process all pending PhD requests and award PhDs on a particular day of the month. For Imperial this was the first of the month. In other words: submit your PhD by the end of the preceding month if you want it to be finalised quickly. This is particularly true if you’re aiming to attend a particular graduation ceremony, since there are cut-off dates you need to be aware of.

My timeline for making minor corrections to my PhD thesis

My timelines for making the minor corrections are as follows:

Viva took place (25th March 2020)
List of changes received from the internal examiner within 24 hours
Within 48 hours I made the changes and submitted them to my supervisor, who was happy with them.
I then immediately sent them to the internal examiner who was also happy with them, and they emailed the central university examination team to confirm this.
Final copy submitted to university (~30th March)
Awarded PhD (1st April 2020)

Screenshot of an email from my university confirming that my examiners had recommend that I be awarded my PhD.

Since I finished my PhD at the start of COVID, I then waited another 2 years to actually attend my graduation ceremony!

General tips for making minor corrections

Ask at the start of the viva whether you should be making notes or if one of the examiners (likely the internal) will be. Either way you may find it useful to make some notes yourself. Personally I found this helpful for having detailed clarity on what changes should be made just in case the examiner’s list is vague. They also gave some useful advice on suggestions relating to submitting papers – so not strictly to do with enhancing my thesis and these suggestions weren’t included in my list of corrections to make.
Before agreeing to make changes, ensure you’re in a position to do so. I couldn’t make a few of mine because I was no longer able to access my university computer so couldn’t run certain software.
Ideally get the changes done while the comments are still fresh in your mind.
Make sure all your changes are tracked and well documented to make it as simple as possible for your examiner.
Reach out to your supervisor and/or internal examiner should further support be needed.

I hope that’s helped demystify how to approach thesis corrections and I wish you the best of luck with the final stages of your PhD!

Do you have any other suggestions for approaching minor PhD thesis corrections?

Let me know in the comments!

Thesis Title: Examples and Suggestions from a PhD Grad

23rd February 2024 21st July 2024

Privacy Overview

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?

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!

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
12,207,696 hits

Discover more from The Thesis Whisperer

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

Type your email…

Frances Ryan, PhD

Human Information Behaviour • Online Information • Social Media Use • Personal Reputation & Identity • Social Informatics

Passed, with minor corrections

I am very pleased and extremely relieved to be able to (finally!) announce that I have passed my PhD viva – and with only minor corrections! This good news comes after more than five years of hard work and emotional turmoil, and I am just so thankful that my PhD Dreams are almost a reality.

The preamble:

I submitted my PhD thesis at the end of October. At the time, I had hoped that my viva (oral examination/defence) would be just before Christmas. However, there was a slight glitch that meant everything was delayed. But the outcome is such that I will still make the July graduation ceremony , so it all worked out in the end!

Because of the delay, I mostly ignored my thesis for nearly three months after submission. (Part of that was due to a post-submission illness .) It wasn’t really until the start of February that I started to really prepare for The Big Day, as blogged about here .

On the day of my viva, I woke up at 5am (after a slightly disrupted sleep). I showered, put on a suitable dress for the occasion, and painted my nails. I arrived at my office just before 8am and unpacked my bag, then I headed down to the canteen for a full breakfast (with extra bacon!). Then, I waited nervously for my 10.30am start time.

My thesis was examined by Sheila Webber , Senior Lecturer at the University of Sheffield iSchool (external examiner) and Dr Laura Muir , Associate Professor at the Edinburgh Napier University School of Computing (internal examiner). My Panel Chair ( viva moderator) was Professor Ben Paechter , Director of Research in the School of Computing.

My Director of Studies, Professor Hazel Hall , also joined me at the viva to take notes. She sat behind me so that I would not be tempted to look towards her for input, but also so that any facial expressions she might have made didn’t throw me off.

I went into the room prepared with my trusty water bottle ( my medication makes this a necessity! ), two pens, several sheets of blank paper for notes, a handkerchief (in case of tears), and my thesis. I also brought with me a tummy full of butterflies and a mixture of fear, excitement, worry, and hope.

The gritty details:

At the start of the viva, the plan for the examination was explained. The plan was to go through my thesis chapter-by-chapter, with questions alternating between the examiners (for the most part). As the questions were lobbed at me, I found myself examining the motivations behind them. Is this a question about clarifying a confusing sentence? Is it because they were trying to tease out the finer details about my methods? Is the question meant to challenge something that the examiners held different views about? Or is it because they want to see how (clearly) I can defend my position?

Some questions were easy for me to understand (assume) these motivations. Especially when in the process of answering it was clear that my response was “the right” response. But the motivation of others was a little harder to pin down, especially when it because clear(ish) that the examiners were coming at the thesis from a different perspective to my own.

Throughout the process, I found myself gauging how well the viva was going. I felt that I was heading towards a “pass, with corrections” but I couldn’t quite pin down if that would be minor corrections or major corrections.

It all felt quite positive and I felt (mostly) confident when answering questions and defending my work. I even felt that I stayed (mostly) on point and didn’t go off into a rambling tangent, something that I sometimes do when I am nervous.

And then I was blindsided by a bus! One of the examiners started down a path of inquiry that I was absolutely unprepared for. There was a back-and-forth that lasted what felt like about 5 minutes at the end of the viva that made my heart sink into the pit of my stomach. From that point on, I was no longer able to control my fragile emotional state and the tears started to fall (good thing I had that hankie, right?). I was certain that this was the thing that was going to take me from a pass with corrections to a resubmit (with or without a new viva). It was a horrible feeling and was, by far, the worst moment of my viva.

[Note: This isn’t to say that I think the questions were unfair or unwarranted. The examiners were fair, kind, and encouraging throughout the entire experience.]

At the end of that line of questioning, there was a very short (1-2 minutes) wrap-up chat where I was asked if there was anything I would like to add about my thesis as a whole. This was my opportunity to give my work a final sales pitch. But by that time, I was too emotional and felt too defeated to say anything more.

With that, I was asked to leave (along with my Director of Studies) so that the examiners could chat with the moderator to confirm the outcome. During that time, I sat in Hazel’s office, unable to stop the tears because I was certain I would be resubmitting my work based on the “bus” questions. Hazel, however, felt that I was still in the passing lane. She walked me through some of the (many, and high quality!) notes that she took during the viva and shared her own interpretation of the outcome. That helped to dry my tears a bit, although I wasn’t as convinced as she was.

The wait in Hazel’s office felt quite short. It might have been about 10 minutes – 15 at the very most. We were then invited back to the examination room by the chair. I was feeling a little more positive by that time (thanks, Hazel!) but I was still quite sure it wouldn’t be the result I was hoping for.

However, when I walked in the room I was greeted with smiles, a “congratulations”, and the words “passed, with minor corrections”. I was extremely surprised at that outcome, given the bus that had knocked me over just a few minutes earlier. But a short conversation followed about the “bus” incident and it was made clearer to me what the examiner was hoping for from that specific line of questioning.

The conversation to follow was about the general next steps in the process. The first of these steps is that the examiners will write a formal letter outlining the corrections that need to be made. That letter will be sent to the research office at my university before a copy is sent to me. It is at that time that my official corrections time will begin.

With minor corrections, I will have two months to complete the changes before sending an electronic version of the amended thesis for my examiners to sign off on. After that, I will have my final thesis bound for submission before graduation – which should be in July, barring any hiccups along the way. My Panel Chair reassured me that we could revisit my current non-PhD workload to ensure that I have time to make my corrections. (Although I don’t think that there should be an issue, I felt very supported to have been told this help is available.)

Once the viva was officially over, I was invited out to lunch with my examiners and Hazel. We enjoyed a wee toast with some lovely prosecco followed by a nice conversation about a wide range of topics not related to my PhD . (Which was nice!) After lunch, I made my way home as I was completely exhausted.

The personal reflection:

In a nutshell, my viva was not a fun experience. I know that isn’t what people want to hear, but for me, that is the truth. Although, I do acknowledge that my reflections might have been more positive without the aforementioned “bus” incident! (Also, it wasn’t a completely horrible experience.)

In the lead-up to the Big Day, I knew that my viva might be an emotional and exhausting experience. Like many of life’s big moments, I had invested my heart and soul into this. Thankfully, I know myself well enough that I knew I would be shattered from the experience. And that means that I didn’t make any plans to celebrate the day.

And I was right! The experience was so draining that I couldn’t truly be happy on the day. In fact, when I got home, I donned my pyjamas and cried a bit. I then had another glass of prosecco and called my parents to share the good news with them. Then I shared the news on Facebook ( Twitter was saved until the following morning). That was the limit to my celebrations. (But not the limit to my tears!)

The following day I returned to the office and politely thanked everyone who congratulated me. But I still couldn’t celebrate because I was still too dazed by the experience. And now, three days later, I am still a bit “meh” about it all.

Maybe these feelings of apathy are because I know that there is still much work to be done before I graduate. Or maybe they’re because I am too busy worrying about what my next steps will be after graduation (there are so many questions about jobs, post-docs, and locations!). Of course, maybe these feelings are simply a bit of exhaustion.

But, ultimately, I have passed my PhD (subject to minor corrections) and that does make me happy – even if I can’t quite celebrate that happiness just yet.

Thank you, again, to all of my lovely cheerleaders who’ve encouraged me along the way. My PhD Dreams aren’t over quite realised yet, but they are almost a reality!

Be social and share!

Related posts:, 3 thoughts on “ passed, with minor corrections ”.

Congratulations Frances, and I look forward to reading your older blog posts as I start my own PhD journey. Thanks for sharing.

Congrats. I’ve passed mine with similar outcome yesterday. So…so happy.

Totally relate to your feeling Frances. Thanks for sharing

Join the conversation! Cancel reply

World leading higher education information and services Home News Blogs Courses Jobs function vqTrackId(){return'0a14b8cb-e32a-4bc4-ab7d-ff2b3cfe7090';}(function(d,e){var el=d.createElement(e);el.sa=function(an,av){this.setAttribute(an,av);return this;};el.sa('id','vq_tracking').sa('src','//t.visitorqueue.com/p/tracking.min.js?id='+vqTrackId()).sa('async',1).sa('data-id',vqTrackId());d.getElementsByTagName(e)[0].parentNode.appendChild(el);})(document,'script'); function vqTrackPc(){return 1;} (function(d,e){var el=d.createElement(e);el.sa=function(an,av){this.setAttribute(an,av);return this;};el.sa('id','vq_personalisation').sa('src','//personalisation.visitorqueue.com/p/personalisation.min.js?id='+vqTrackId()).sa('async',1).sa('data-id',vqTrackId());d.getElementsByTagName(e)[0].parentNode.appendChild(el);})(document,'script');

What nobody tells you about ‘minor corrections’.

| March 5, 2019 | 0 responses

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.

Author Bio: Dr Mary Frank , holds a PhD in Translation Studies from the University of Bristol, England.

Tags: minor corrections

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 2024-25 this will be £365 for a resubmission without oral examination and £440 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

I had a brutal PhD viva followed by two years of corrections.

Here is what i learned about vivas, phds, & myself..

Jimmy Tidey

The Faculty

Here is what I learned from a grinding, traumatising and occasionally comic journey towards getting a PhD. In the UK, a viva is a verbal defence of your thesis; unlike other countries, it is not a formality, there are lots of ways it can go wrong.

[You can contact me at [email protected] if you’d like to chat about this article.]

For me, getting a PhD was a deflating struggle across an arbitrary finish line; a relief rather than a cause for celebration.

Writing the thesis took four years of challenging but satisfying work. The subsequent corrections, however, were exceptionally unpleasant — I woke up every day knowing that my sense of self-worth, not to mention years of work, hung in the balance. My weekends were spent at my laptop, sometimes physically struggling to type through anxiety, responding to feedback written by two examiners with whom I could not communicate, who are accountable to no one, and whose feedback nobody was able to confidently interpret. Even though I’d moved on to a full-time job, undertaking the corrections dominated my life more totally than any other part of the PhD process.

Before I’d submitted my thesis, I wish I’d read a frank account of a PhD viva that didn’t go to plan. Such accounts seem to be relatively uncommon, perhaps because drawing the curtain back and showing the grim details of how you got permission to put ‘Dr.’ before your name ruins the mystique — especially if you are an academic with admiring students.

I hope that if you are doing a PhD, or considering one, my experience can provide a useful perspective on what the end game is like — perhaps even a warning. Of course, there is also an aspect of catharsis in relating this story.

I don’t want to scare anyone unnecessarily, two years of corrections is an unusual outcome. On the other hand, while I might not be typical, I’m also not that atypical. At the Royal College of Art, in 2018 and 2019, around 25% of students got major corrections. Whether or not they were as long-winded as mine, they will have been a nightmare for the recipient.

If I could convey one thought about doctoral research, it would be this: there is a colossal disparity between how you think about your PhD and how the university thinks of it. For you, the thesis will become a profoundly personal endeavour, embodying your most careful reflections on a subject that you are devoted to. The heroic effort involved will make your emotional bond with the thesis even deeper. By contrast, from the perspective of a university, the thesis is a disposable dummy run, a formal training exercise, a prelude to any actual research.

No matter how hard you try to remember that a PhD thesis is a bureaucratic formalism, it’s hard not to become personally invested. A classic refrain — one that I tried to keep in mind at all times to ward off loss of perspective — is that no one will read your thesis except your supervisors and examiners. None the less, everything about the writing process fosters the delusion that you are creating something that will be treated, at least by that tiny audience, with a modicum of respect.

In my viva, the personal investment that had driven me forward for so long train-wrecked into a wall of indifference. I am an extreme case, but I expect other PhD veterans will recognise some echos in their own experience.

In case you aren’t familiar with the details, I’ll briefly describe the process of doing a PhD. I did my PhD at the RCA, in design research, focusing on software design. Approaches vary by institution, but the RCA system will give a flavour. First, you’ll need to write a thesis — in the UK, that might take between three and five years. Then, two’ external examiners’ from other universities, selected for their expertise in your area of research, read your thesis and interview you about it.

This interview is called a ‘viva’, or a ‘defence’. A chairperson oversees your viva. Your PhD supervisor — the university professor who is in charge of you throughout the PhD — may also attend, but cannot speak. At the RCA, your supervisor sits behind you so you cannot make eye contact; however, they are allowed to make notes to help you interpret the feedback. At the end of the viva, the examiners will decide between four options: pass with no corrections, minor corrections, major corrections or failure. Minor corrections are those that the examiners anticipate can be completed in three months, and the candidate can be nearly certain of passing. Most candidates can expect some minor corrections, as small as nit-picks about grammar, occasionally more extensive re-writes. Major corrections are those anticipated to take longer than three months, and a significant possibility of failure remains.

I got major corrections. When I submitted my response to the corrections, I got a further round of corrections, taking two years to complete in total. I believe experiences similar to mine could occur in many disciplines, but, in case you are curious, I built a social media analytics tool intended for use by local government, called ‘LocalNets’. LocalNets filtered and visualised Twitter data to give insights into local civic issues — crime, planning, policing, etc. My thesis reflected on design principles for social media analytics tools, drawing on my experience with LocalNets.

Just before we stepped into the room where the viva took place, my supervisor reassured me that the examiners would not have turned up to the viva unless they saw at least some merit in my work. I couldn’t comprehend what I was hearing — supervisors have to approve your thesis before you can submit. Why would they have approved my submission if such significant doubts remained? At the time, I chalked it up to nerves on the supervisors’ part; looking back it was the first hint of the risk that I had been allowed to take.

In the run-up to the viva I was preparing for — looking forward to, in fact — being grilled on every arcane technical nuance of my work — could I explain Arrow’s impossibility theorem? How does Nussbaum’s account of capability diverge from Sen’s? All the things I’d been filling my head with for four years. I was exhilarated at the prospect of having my work taken seriously and defending my ideas.

This expectation was misplaced; my viva ignored nearly every substantial aspect of my research with exquisite deftness. The examiners focused almost exclusively on the periphery of my work, the structure of the appendices or questions about disciplinary boundaries. Was my thesis truly a work of design research, or was it sociological? I expected this question and had a prepared answer. We circled this issue for what seemed like a large proportion of the viva. I still have no idea what was at stake here, none of the corrections I was given related to this topic.

On only one occasion did we discuss something I considered to be a significant component of my thesis. I was critical of the way contemporary design research fails to engage with fundamental ethical philosophy. I knew I was in contested territory, and I was anticipating having to defend my views. One examiner suggested that my ethical argument was a ‘straw man’ because design researchers often specify their ethical framework. I said that what was frequently missing, in my view, was an account of how they had selected that ethical framework. The examiner looked at me and said a single word — ‘ok’. In the corrections, I was asked to remove the ethical discussion from my thesis en bloc. ‘Ok’ did not indicate, as I had assumed, a clarification successfully communicated, but instead was more akin to a psychiatrist muttering ‘ok’ as a patient elaborates a paranoid fantasy.

If the examiners were indifferent to the intellectual aspects of my work, they were even less interested in the basic facts of what I had done. The first question in my viva was, “Does your software collect tweets automatically?” I could not have been more stunned if the examiner had hit me round the head with a frying pan. The software I created processed approximately 28 million tweets. Did the examiners think I had copy-pasted 28 million tweets? I had written whole chapters about automating the collection and processing of tweets, what else could my software have been doing? I don’t know if I misinterpreted, but in the viva and the corrections, I saw evidence that the examiners had only the most distant understanding of what I’d done during my practical work.

At the beginning of the viva, as is required, I gave a presentation. It was like going for a jog on dry sand. Every bit of energy I projected was absorbed without the slightest reaction. The examiners were like black holes — as I spoke, each syllable sailed over their emotional event horizon without a ripple of rapport left in its wake. I was left with the feeling that every word I said was a waste of their time. One examiner avoided eye contact throughout the viva, directing their gaze almost exclusively at the floor. It’s nearly impossible to give an answer to someone who won’t meet your eye. I don’t know if this is an established interrogation technique, but it is an excellent way to destabilise someone. The disdain the examiners evinced throughout the viva was far beyond anything I have experienced in any other setting.

When the chair told me the result was major corrections, neither of the examiners could look at me. Their failure to acknowledge me had a lasting impact on my emotional response. I did not leave the viva feeling that I’d handed in substandard academic work, as you might expect. Instead, I had the visceral sense that I was the object of physical disgust. When I say physical disgust, I’m not using that turn of phrase only to convey intensity — I mean very literally that I felt as I might have done if I’d vomited down myself. I had an almost primordial sense of being repulsive, as though the examiners had gagged at the smell of me. The feeling lasted for weeks.

There was a feeling of shame, but also anger — anger at the examiners’ personal cowardice in failing to meet my eye after having been so enthusiastic in dismantling years of my work. It’s a detail, but it seemed to make the experience doubly pathetic — pathetic on their part and mine. In the longer term, I felt grief, compounded by the fact that I had brought the situation on myself. I also experienced kindness from friends and strangers that I found incredibly moving.

The examiners may have been brutal, but they could make a case that they were fulfilling their academic duties. Their role is to judge whether your work reaches the standard of a PhD. They can, and in my case did, do this with very little interest in the research itself. Again, a question of perspective: for you, it’s deeply personal; for the examiners, it’s a dispassionate dissection. Their lack of interest was, for me, more psychologically damaging than their hostility.

Immediately after my viva, my supervisor and I wanted a private room to discuss the outcome with the chair of the exam. Bear in mind that we’re in art school. There was only one room available, and, presumably as part of someone’s art project, it was knee-deep with balloons. I sat there, shattered like a dropped wine glass, wishing I could drown in the primary colours bobbing around me, waiting for the chairperson to deliver the gruesome post-mortem details. She arrived with a beaming smile. She loves balloons! She started to tell a story of the time she saw a funny balloon. She looked through her phone for some considerable time, finding a photo of the funny balloon. We looked at the funny balloon. I’m sorry to disappoint — I cannot remember what was funny about the balloon; my brain must have capsized.

For you, the viva is the pinnacle of years of research; your thesis is a timeless contribution to the stock of human knowledge. For the university, it’s just behind an amusing balloon in terms of significance. I understand the chair was looking for a moment of lightness in a dark situation, but the infantilising tactlessness of it captures the absence of empathy and decency that characterised the examination process.

Reflecting the total lack of importance the university accords to the whole enterprise, all kinds of logistical mistakes occurred in my examination process. Perhaps most egregiously, my examiners were not told that my examination was ‘by practice’. By practice exams are relatively uncommon outside of the world of art and design research, and mandate an unusually low 40,000-word limit. When the examiners received my 40,000-word thesis, it must have seemed perplexingly, probably lazily, short. The word count I was working to only became apparent to the examiners mid-viva when I mentioned it. It is impossible to know how this failure of communication affected the outcome. Again, that question of perspective: I’ve been haunted for years by the thought that I might have a better outcome had this mistake not been made; from the university’s point of view, the mistake is just an inconsequential admin glitch.

The corrections

A candidate given major corrections will receive a list of the improvements the examiners expect them to make. In theory, the candidate can ask for clarification from the examiners if there is any ambiguity; however the discussion will be mediated by the chair, who has no specialist knowledge of the PhD subject area, so this channel of communication is limited. Within one year, the candidate is expected to resubmit the corrected PhD thesis, accompanied by a commentary connecting their amendments to the list of corrections issued by the examiners.

Some of the corrections I received led to clear improvements to my thesis. Some of them asked me to remove sections altogether — a disappointing necessity I was not going to contest. Other corrections were harder to understand: asking me to add a chapter that already existed, or to explain in more detail prosaic aspects of research I’d already addressed at mind-numbing length. One correction seemed to be asking that I change the shape of the arrows in a diagram, so, through tears of disbelief, I replaced right angles with curves. After the first round of corrections — and months of anxious waiting for an outcome — a second round was required.

Often, when I added text to address the corrections, I had to remove something else to stay within the word limit. Was I removing content the examiners considered essential? Given my track record of anticipating the examiners, every edit felt like a spin of the roulette wheel.

One December evening, months after I had submitted the second round of corrections, I received an email telling me the PhD had been accepted. Beyond the examiners’ decision to accept the thesis, I have no idea what they thought of it — they do not give feedback. PhD corrections are Kafkaesque — so much arbitrary and traumatising work without ever being able to imagine a human mind behind the process.

The consequences

Over the two years that the corrections took, everything else in my life was paralysed. I constantly laboured under the impression that I could be weeks away from completion, only to have the finish line recede into the distance as new corrections, or new interpretations of the corrections, arrived from various quarters.

Writing, a crucial part of my life, came to a dead stop because of the knock-out blow to my confidence. Worse — and I understand this is not wholly rational — I was concerned that anything I published might be held against me by the examiners as evidence that I had not sufficiently recanted my views. I mention this to highlight the paranoia of the corrections process; trying to read every interpretation into a few paragraphs of feedback on which so much hangs.

Before the viva, I was setting myself up to continue my research once I’d finished the doctorate — running collaborations, publishing write-ups of my work. I was working on a tool that explored citation networks on Google Scholar — and excited to see it starting to attract users. I watched all my projects collapse as I focused on the corrections and dealt with the psychological fallout. Someone with more mental fortitude than me might have kept all the plates spinning, but I couldn’t manifest the grit.

For me, the viva outcome meshed perfectly with my deepest fears — that no one can understand my writing, that my ideas are perceived as malicious, that my interdisciplinarity has left me with no recognised expertise whatsoever. The topic I had previously assumed would become central to my career became a site of trauma so intense that the whole area was off-limits.

In short, I eventually got the piece of paper to prove I have a PhD, but by precisely the same act, all of the avenues for using the PhD were, at least temporarily, shut down.

What went wrong

I underestimated the risk of major corrections and the awfulness of the corrections process. I overestimated the quality of my writing. My work on design ethics, and other parts of the thesis, were needless hostages to fortune and should have been edited out long before submission. Perhaps the examiners could have been better chosen. All these factors are down to me, although I could have received much better support.

I was lucky that my supervisors were kind and had plenty of time for me, but ultimately our amicable relationship was disguising the fact they were not sufficiently critical of my work. The interdisciplinary nature of my thesis, which mixed political economy, design research and sociology, made it harder to supervise. Perhaps my lack of experience in design research was not taken into account. My background in tech was part of the reason I was offered a place on the PhD program, and it allowed me to produce software that helped the funding program address its overall research goals. However, when it came to supervision, extra support to offset my lack of experience was not forthcoming.

As you can see, I was very naive, though perhaps not quite as naive as I’ve made it sound. Nothing in my PhD process hinted at how the viva would go — I had no issues in my annual interim exams or my mock viva, I had a good relationship with my supervisors and their support when I submitted.

I have painted a picture of a viva as a moment where the university’s understanding of a PhD as a training exercise clashes with the student’s profoundly personal investment in their work. That clash of perspectives is important, but the broader truth is that in a viva, years of complex work are evaluated in a necessarily subjective way over the course of a few hours — casualties are inevitable. Part of what happened was just the luck of the draw; an unfortunate combination of supervisors, examiners, miscommunication, and, of course, the shortcomings of my thesis.

Lessons learned

I have only experienced one viva at one institution; my experience may not generalise. However, there are some practical lessons I would draw on if I ever had another viva. I would:

Ensure I’d had an utterly candid conversation with my supervisors about the risks they perceived in my thesis. For a thesis that crossed disciplinary boundaries, I would also ask my supervisors how confident they were in identifying potential hazards outside their specialist area.
Draw up a list of potential examiners at a formative stage of the research and keep it updated. Picking the examiners is as important as writing the thesis.
Be constantly vigilant for administrative mistakes across the examination process. I regretted not getting legal guidance immediately after my viva, even if only to understand the options. At the same there are lots of risks (and costs) associated with consulting a lawyer. especially if your University finds out about it.

Most of all, as much as is possible, I would brace myself for the combination of indifference and hostility I have described in this account. Universities love looking down their nose at the ethics of the commercial world. For all that posturing, academia has incredibly low standards when it comes to how individuals are treated. I have never encountered a job interview, or any other professional situation, that even approached the complexion of my viva.

When I wrote my application to the RCA, I got help from someone who had just finished a long PhD. They talked about their doctorate with a reluctant mournfulness that I couldn’t understand — probably I didn’t want to. I promised myself I wouldn’t end up that way. I thought people who did PhDs were all otherworldly, idealistic and impractical, where I, coming from the commercial world, was pragmatic and robust. I loved writing, had a rock-solid idea of my research area, funding, and a calm detachment that I thought would see me through. How wrong I was.

Now it’s over. I got an unwanted, but no doubt beneficial, lesson in resilience; a counterpart to realising that I’m fragile in a way I hadn’t understood before. I got an extensive, possibly excessive, lesson in armour-plating my written arguments. I even got a PhD, which I might not have done.

I’m writing again. I love telling a story, and, though I wish this one was not in the first person, I hope it does something to help others understand the risks of the PhD examination process.

If you’ve had a bad PhD viva and need some solidarity, send me a message.

Written by Jimmy Tidey

Civic stuff, network analysis, AI & agents, deliberation, design research, UXR.

Text to speech

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.

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...

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.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How relevant can be the major corrections in PhD dissertation?

My understanding of major corrections in PhD dissertation is that there can be entire chapters to add to the presented dissertation. However for me it's very hard to understand how much these changes might actually impact the thesis.

Specifically to my situation, I negotiated with my supervisor to limit certain contents that I'm not interested in adding to my dissertation. Apparently he agreed. (1)

However, I'm afraid that these contents can pop up again after the viva, in the form of "major corrections" to the dissertation. In that case, I guess, I will have no chance to negotiate again and I can just accept them or quit the PhD, probably in the worst moment possible. (2) So, can I anticipate this to happen? How can I make sure that "major corrections" will not be used to turn my research to the personal will of the supervisor?

Moreover, since I saw that "minor corrections" could just be revised by the internal committee, I'm afraid that this can happen as well as in the case of "major corrections". But, maybe in this case the corrections cannot be that radical to change the direction of my research. Is this actually possible?

(1) these contents have been forced to me by manipulative moves and have nothing to do with the thesis itself. I added some of them as a compromise to make my supervisor happy enough. I'm rejecting these contents because of the manipulation and because of my personal ethic.

(2) I would not rely too much in the other components of the committee , since they are all under the influence of my supervisor

supervision
thesis-committee

3 It is unclear from this where your supervisor stands. Who is doing the manipulating? – Buffy Commented Apr 21, 2020 at 15:33
1 @Buffy it would be a very long and uninteresting story, with manipulation I mean agreeing into something and ending up doing something else. As long as someone has clear tasks one can agree or not and take its decision, when these are not clear and they comes during the way by design, I believe them to be manipulations. – pat Commented Apr 21, 2020 at 15:49
1 To begin to answer this, though, I'd need to know whether your advisor is currently on your side and supportive or not. Without that support everything becomes difficult to impossible. – Buffy Commented Apr 21, 2020 at 15:57
1 @Buffy sorry, now I understand... presumably the supervisor in not on my side. (things might be different and more complicated, but for the moment would be hard to consider them) – pat Commented Apr 21, 2020 at 16:02
1 I don't see how you can get helpful advice about what revisions you might be given from somebody who has not read your thesis and discussed it with the examiners. – Anonymous Physicist Commented Apr 22, 2020 at 6:09

2 Answers 2

I have to say I agree with Buffy. Easier just to accept in the end that you have to please the people with the power. Particularly if your supervisor, and your whole thesis committee/examers agree. More than that - adding stuff you think is unneccesary to appease some outside assessor is the daily bread and butter of academia, where reviewers are always asking for things the author thinks is unreasonable.

I'm still not sure what system you are working in, but the way you talk about viva's and thesis corrections makes me think you are in the UK or a similar system. Note that while in the US, I don't think corrections following the defense are common, in the UK almost all candidates are asked to make correction before being awarded the degree.

Corrections at my university come in three flavours. You can read the details here: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.435461!/file/Guidance_Notes_for_Examiners.pdf

Your univeresity should have something similar.

The extracts for minor/major/rewrite are below. Note in all cases the phrase " to the satisfaction of the examiner(s) ". The examiner decides how relevant the corrections are. The examienrs decide if you have done enough. There is no negotiation. Usually one of them is nominated to make the decision. Usually the internal for minor or simple major corrections, both the internal and external examiners for more substantial corrections. Once you are at this point, you more or less have to do what the examienrs say if you want your degree. You might have a case if the corrections required of you are outside the bounds of the grade (i.e. if they asked for new reserach, but called it major, rather than rewrite), and there is an appeals process. But I have never heard of a university over turning the judgement of an examiner.

That the degree be awarded once specified minor corrections have been completed to the satisfaction of the examiner(s) This option may be chosen where the examiners are satisfied that the thesis meets the requirements for the award of the degree, but where there are minor weaknesses or editorial errors that must be rectified before they can recommend the award of the degree. The nature and extent of the required corrections must be genuinely minor in nature such that they can reasonably be completed within a period of three calendar months from the date the candidate receives notification of the required corrections from the examiners. The candidate will be expected to make the corrections without undertaking any further original research. The examiners are responsible for providing the candidate with the details of the required corrections and must stipulate which of the examiners will be responsible for approving the corrections prior to formal recommendation of the degree. That the degree be awarded once specified major corrections have been completed to the satisfaction of the examiner(s) This option may be chosen where the examiners 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 in excess of 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 6 months to complete the required corrections from the date the candidate receives notification of the required corrections from the examiners. The examiners are responsible for providing the candidate with the details of the required corrections and must stipulate which of the examiners will be responsible for approving the corrections prior to formal recommendation of the degree. 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 This option may be chosen where the examiners do not feel able to make a recommendation for the award of the degree at this time. The thesis requires substantial corrections in order to meet the requirements for the degree, but the examiners feel that the candidate is capable of revising the thesis, to their satisfaction, within one year. The candidate is required to formally submit a revised thesis within one year and the examiners must indicate whether the candidate must undergo a further oral examination. Examiners are asked to consider whether an oral re-examination would help the candidate to justify the additions or alterations that are to be made to the thesis. Where the examiners’ original recommendation specifies that a further oral examination is required, this should take place, regardless of the outcome of the examiners’ preliminary assessment of the resubmitted thesis. The examiners should provide the candidate with full written details of the required revisions to the thesis, normally within two weeks of the oral examination. The same examiners will normally re-examine the candidate.

1 I'm going to accept this answer because it clarifies the formal process and the agency of examiners. My university does not have these guidelines, or they do not share them. Indeed, it seems like many regulations are made ad personam. Anyway, yes, the system should be similar to UK. – pat Commented Apr 22, 2020 at 11:52
1 "in the US, I don't think corrections following the defense are common" I'd say that in the US pretty much anything could happen with respect to corrections. academia.meta.stackexchange.com/a/4478/13240 – Anonymous Physicist Commented Apr 23, 2020 at 8:24
I'm in the U.S. All I had to do is correct a few spelling errors -- I had the wrong version of principal/principle! – JosephDoggie Commented Sep 13, 2022 at 12:40

From this and your other questions, I think you want a fight you can never win. If I remember correctly, you have actually already moved to a different institution and it is just a question of finishing your degree so that you can move on with your career.

When a king has life and death power over you and makes a demand, the only response is "Yes, your majesty". And you say it with a smile. Even that may not be sufficient, but any other response has a guaranteed outcome.

I suggest that you write the thesis in such a way that the advisor will accept it. Even, dare I suggest, accept it gladly. Fair it is not. But, you will get to live for another day.

I don't know exactly how your viva will work or whether you get a chance to respond to any objections made. I hope so. And make the required changes to please the "court". But if not, and the deck is stacked, don't present them with an excuse to condemn you.

If the situation were otherwise with your advisor being on your side and major revisions suggestions made at the viva (in the public session, not written comments later), I would respond to the reviewers that we (my advisor and myself) considered those and rejected them already for the reasons...

But that doesn't seem like the situation here. Bowing before a tyrant isn't pleasant. But, perhaps the "madness of the king" will be obvious to others.

I suspect that, having seen the worst of academic advising, you have some incentive to do a better job of it yourself, provided that you get the chance. Get past this hurdle, however you must. Good luck with it.

1 It makes sense... but the thing that for me is more frustrating is that: it is not enough to just write and pretend that you are believing to the same things that someone imposed to you, but you also need to defend them! It's something like: stab yourself and pretend you like it. I could be fine in writing something, sending it and forgetting about it, but the fact that I'll also have to defend it, is a violence that I hear it could just happen in dictatorships. Anyway thanks for this reality check. – pat Commented Apr 22, 2020 at 11:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd thesis supervision thesis-committee defense ..

Featured on Meta
Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

How to make outhouses less icky?
Can the plasma jet emitted from a supermassive black hole form a naturally-occurring Tipler cylinder?
Print lines between two patterns where first pattern appears more than once before second pattern
Kyoto is a famous tourist destination/area/site/spot in Japan
How many people could we get off of the planet in a month?
Tipped Wages: What is a Tip
How did this zucchini plant cling to the zip tie?
Adverb for Lore?
Is there a law against biohacking your pet?
Using 尊敬語 and 謙譲語 without 丁寧語?
Is magnetic flux in a transformer proportional to voltage or current?
On the definition on almost sure convergence
Which better conducts vibration: wood or metal?
What is the origin of this quote on telling a big lie?
Are there any well-known political considerations for having a friend on the job market come for a visit and talk?
10th-order Runge-Kutta Method
Multiplicity of the numbers less than 100
Fitting the 9th piece into the pizza box
Short story about a dentist trapped in the past
Is there a way to say "wink wink" or "nudge nudge" in German?
Where exactly was this picture of a huge solar eruption taken?
Is "UN law" a thing?
Problem with enumeration in Texlive 2023
Is sudoku only one puzzle?

PhD thesis minor corrections

Hi, I recently got minor corrections for my PhD thesis (very happy with this result!). I am aware that it is important to do all of the corrections that the examiners have suggested, as this almost 'guarantees' success. However, one of the corrections they have suggested is not possible - they have suggested that I show some data in a way that I cannot do as it will be very unreliable and will not make sense. Is it ok to not do this as long as I support why I haven't? I do not want to offend them but I really cannot do what they asked! Thanks for any advice : )

Hi there, congratulations! Great result. You do not need to do all of the corrections listed provided you provide a good reason and argue your case. With your university, does a minor corrections result require you to show your corrections to your panel chair (or equivalent). If so, you would generally make a table that lists the corrections, lists where you have made corrections, and then indicates the page or section and you would then provide them with this table and the corrections made. You should have received a written email or letter that outlines what you have to do along with your results from your department admin personnel. If you are making most of the corrections and have a good argument as to why you can't make one, then this should be okay. However, what do your supervisors say? Are you expected to meet with them to decide which corrections you will make and which you will argue? (When I say argue-I don't mean write an essay on it, I mean make a short but relevant point on the table under that item that refutes the need for that correction, and explains very briefly why it does not apply to your study.)

Minor changes means the external doesnt need to see or approve your changes. Simply argue away the things you wont be changing. I didnt change every single comment either. I suspect most of us will do the same thing.

Quote From pm133: Minor changes means the external doesnt need to see or approve your changes. Simply argue away the things you wont be changing. I didnt change every single comment either. I suspect most of us will do the same thing. Just clarifying something from my comment that might be unclear. When I mention Panel Chair, I don't mean an external, I mean the internal person/academic who checks through your thesis and corrections for the admin personnel before they process your thesis-finalise awards and things. That person is called the Panel Chair or Committee Chair at my university. However, I know that other universities may not use this terminology, and/or have a slightly different version of the processes or committees and have often subtly different versions of what constitutes the different levels of corrections. And just confirming again what PM133 has said. You don't have to make all of the corrections provided you can argue why. There were some corrections suggested by one of my examiners, for example, that really don't apply in my study and I have stated why I won't make these on my table. My supervisors told me that this was common practice and agreed with me completely on the points. (I am just finalising my corrections and table this weekend. My corrected thesis does not need to be checked by externals).

My goodness! Congratulations on such a happy outcome (the one we all hope for, by the way!). I have also heard it said that minor things do not have to necessarily be changed because this is your research and you are the expert on this topic. So you should know better than anyone else if a suggested change is appropriate or not. Have confidence in your expertise.

Post your reply

Postgraduate Forum

Masters Degrees

PhD Opportunities

PostgraduateForum Is a trading name of FindAUniversity Ltd FindAUniversity Ltd, 77 Sidney St, Sheffield, S1 4RG, UK. Tel +44 (0) 114 268 4940 Fax: +44 (0) 114 268 5766

Welcome to the world's leading Postgraduate Forum

An active and supportive community.

Support and advice from your peers.

Your postgraduate questions answered.

Use your experience to help others.

Sign Up to Postgraduate Forum

Enter your email address below to get started with your forum account

Login to your account

Enter your username below to login to your account

Reset password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password

An email has been sent to your email account along with instructions on how to reset your password. If you do not recieve your email, or have any futher problems accessing your account, then please contact our customer support.

or continue as guest

Postgrad Forum uses cookies to create a better experience for you

To ensure all features on our website work properly, your computer, tablet or mobile needs to accept cookies. Our cookies don’t store your personal information, but provide us with anonymous information about use of the website and help us recognise you so we can offer you services more relevant to you. For more information please read our privacy policy

Recommended pages

New staff intranet
Student Welcome
Online registration
MyUoB mobile app
Campus maps
Lecture timetables
Study spaces
Student digital services
Student support
Student printing
Car parking
Room bookings
Core systems
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 Medicine and Health
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

Slip to main content

Lex Academic®

Blog & Resources

How Common is Passing with Major Corrections from a PhD? | Lex Academic Blog

19 August 2022

In the UK, a study of over 26,000 PhD candidates revealed that only 16% of students were awarded major corrections, while 3.3% of students failed their viva outright. Nevertheless, receiving major corrections presents a much-feared outcome for doctoral candidates. Before we think about how major corrections can be avoided, it is worth looking at them from a different perspective, addressing the fear itself by understanding the mechanism they are part of.

If you’re reading this, there’s a good chance you’re nervous about the prospect of making ‘major corrections’ to your PhD thesis. Before we think about how you can avoid this, it’s worth looking at them from a different perspective, addressing the fear itself by understanding the mechanism they are part of. Many education systems don’t have a concept of ‘corrections’. German and Swiss institutions, for example, traditionally grade PhDs. In France, a report is more common. In Italy, where research doctorates only came about in the 1980s, a candidate is awarded a pass/fail. If you’re part of a system that embraces ‘corrections’, it’s sobering to think that your argument, thesis, structure or method might have fundamental flaws, but passing with ‘major corrections’ allows you to do something about them. It may be a daunting outcome, but it’s arguably preferable to have the chance to ‘correct’ your work than having mistakes and missteps enshrined in a grade or report.

Still, there are plenty of reasons to avoid major corrections . With minor corrections – more-or-less limited to fixing referencing problems, editorial or presentational concerns, and small adjustments here and there – it’s easy to see them as a necessary, routine task; almost administrative (though these are easily preventable with the help of a professional PhD editing service ). But major corrections can be traumatic. They require you to pick apart and reconstruct entire sections. And, unless you’re extremely fortunate, you may not have the time, money, or family networks to support yourself through the months it’ll take to satisfy your examiners. And, even in the best of circumstances, to be asked to intellectually engage with a project you thought you’d finished can make you feel like a soldier ordered back to the front, when you really just want a cup of tea, a warm blanket, and maybe a biscuit.

Whatever stage of the PhD journey you’re at, there are things you can do to help avoid major corrections. The first is to make sure you have a thesis – advice that sounds obvious, but you’re unlikely to be awarded ‘major corrections’ if you have arrived at one. PhDs call for some kind of invention, which might be a new discovery, a new composition, or more likely – especially in the humanities – a new interpretation; an invention of significance. You could think of your PhD as a process of arriving at a position about that perspective or interpretation that you must defend from the examiners, who will in various ways attack it (the word ‘thesis’ is from the Greek ‘θέσις’ [ theios ], meaning putting or placing; a proposition, affirmation). It’s particularly important to articulate your thesis – or position – if your PhD is interdisciplinary, since in such contexts you can be attacked from many more perspectives.

Your thesis should also be constructed appropriately. Your examiners will be expecting to see some kind of literature review, statement of methodology, an introduction, conclusion, and several other sections specific to your discipline. It should explain and tackle the viewpoints you expect to encounter as you articulate your thesis. There are, of course, many valid ways to write up your thesis, but more experimental structures are difficult to read and examine – it can help to keep your examiner in mind, and let the structure of your thesis work as an effective vehicle for your ideas. If you’re reading this early enough in your PhD, you could deal with everything in this paragraph – and the last one, for that matter – with the practical advice ‘make sure you have the right PhD supervisor’. A good supervisor won’t let you progress to your viva without making sure you have a broad understanding of your field, are able to convincingly articulate your position, and can counter the arguments you’re likely to confront. Similarly, your supervisor should be satisfied that your thesis is well structured, with all the sections relevant to your discipline. A good supervisor should also have strong ideas on who should examine your PhD.

In some systems – the US and Canada, for instance – choosing examiners won’t be an issue. Your examination committee will already know you and your work because you’ll have been more comprehensively examined over the course of your PhD. In the UK system, however, you won’t know your examiners, even though you (and your supervisor) have the opportunity to request them. You should have one examiner external to your institution, and one internal, and they need to be chosen with care, especially if your thesis is interdisciplinary. An examiner should be in your discipline and at least conversant with your field and sympathetic to your methods. And this brings us to the viva itself.

This blog began by arguing that the ‘major corrections’ outcome could be interpreted as an opportunity – one that non-UK systems rarely present. The flip side of this argument is that much can go wrong in such a system. A viva in the UK lacks the pomp and ceremony of the ‘defence’ and ‘opponent’ systems we see in many other countries. A three-way chat in a basement room seems infinitely more casual and less nerve-inducing than the begowned, ceremonial and public affairs of Scandinavian, Dutch and German institutions. But British casualness belies an austere system. Your outcome can be severely damaged by how you perform in your viva, though this isn’t something to obsess over. (In the UK, a study of over 26,000 PhD candidates revealed that only 16% of students were awarded major corrections, while 3.3% of students failed their viva outright.) If you’ve been brought here after frantically googling for strategies to avoid major corrections, you may be afraid it’s too late. But there are still strategies to avoid major corrections in preparation for the viva and even in the viva itself.

Before your viva, you should read your thesis in detail, making notes of every weakness, even significant flaws that you think might result in major corrections. You might even walk into the exam room clutching your well-thumbed, worn copy of your thesis, covered with scribbles and stuffed with Post-it notes. It’s a sign that you’ve done your working out, you’ve prepared, you’re taking it – and your examiners – seriously. Annotating your document in this way goes well beyond presenting yourself well. It also prepares you to design the conversation itself. Your viva is, of course, partly an examination of your knowledge, but also your attitude to research. If you identify a weakness in the work you’ve submitted, then it’s an excellent thing to note and bring up. So, you should write it down and look for opportunities to tell your examiners what’s missing. ‘If I was to rewrite this chapter’, you might say, ‘I’d probably place less emphasis on Foucault, and maybe consider Agamben’s perspective’. Then, you can go on to explain why you’d make that particular change. This way, you take command of the conversation, show confidence in your thesis and exhibit an evolving perspective. You might also search for relevant new work published since you submitted your thesis, and speak about how it may (or may not) influence or even confound your position. If you show such engagement with your field, and with the process of research, it would be difficult to justify passing you with major corrections.

In the end, even if you do receive the award of ‘major corrections’, you still have cause to celebrate. The word ‘correction’ is harsh, though, especially when accompanied by the word ‘major’. Throughout the academic year, it can feel like Twitter is populated by people bragging about their no-corrections PhDs, and it can feel that any kind of correction puts you at a disadvantage when compared with your peers. It’s worth remembering that the severity of your corrections is not a judgement on your worth. It isn’t even necessarily a measure of your thesis’s quality (you may have had the wrong examiners or supervisor, or thought more deeply than you had the words to articulate on the day). Assuming you have the material support to complete your corrections, you will still have passed your PhD viva, and have plenty to offer as a scholar and member of the academic community.

Be notified each time we post a new blog article

IMAGES

Thesis Corrections
Thesis / Related Forms
Thesis or Dissertation Correction Report Form
Thesis defense summary of panelist corrections suggestions and
SOLUTION: Final thesis defense stevenson with corrections final format
Effective Strategies for Addressing Major PhD Thesis Corrections

COMMENTS

How to deal with post-viva PhD thesis corrections
The fantastic 'Thesis Whisperer' blog has written a useful post on how to deal with unhelpful or conflicting feedback. ... Some may think that problems with page numbering or typos constitute minor corrections, some may turn a blind eye. While most universities have guidelines on what should be classed as, say, a major or minor correction ...
Thesis outcomes and 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. ... Thesis corrections. After your viva you are likely to have some corrections to complete before you are awarded your doctorate. The extent can ...
When can a thesis get rejected or asked for a major revision?
Yes, a good examiner will read the thesis line by line. There are five possible outcomes from the examination of a thesis. Accepted without corrections. Minor corrections - generally textual changes only - 3 month time limit. Major corrections - might involve some reanalysis, but no new experiments - 6 month time limit.
Minor Corrections: How To Make Them and Succeed With Your PhD Thesis
My timeline for making minor corrections to my PhD thesis. My timelines for making the minor corrections are as follows: Viva took place (25th March 2020) List of changes received from the internal examiner within 24 hours. Within 48 hours I made the changes and submitted them to my supervisor, who was happy with them.
What should I do if I find a mistake in my submitted master's thesis?
Moreover the thesis would presumably come back for (hopefully) minor corrections so the typos can be fixed when these minor corrections are made. - ZeroTheHero. Commented Sep 29, 2019 at 3:52. ... My thesis was hand typed by me (using an early computer - CDC Cyber 6600 actually) without the benefit of modern word processors and proofing tools
Minor corrections
The examiners appeared to like my thesis and said 'this is a major contribution to knowledge' at regular intervals. They gave me 'minor corrections', which in my university means a three-month deadline which begins when we receive the list of corrections (I still haven't).
The Thesis Whisperer
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.
Correcting mistakes in PhD thesis that examiners missed
8. I finished my thesis defense and my examiners recommended minor corrections, all of which are based in the lit review and results chapters. However, after they approved the corrections I made, I spotted mistakes they overlooked in my materials chapter. These mistakes were accidental and they included things like incorrect amounts of ...
Difference between minor and major corrections?
Both the external and internal check that candidates have met every correction before awarding PhD. b) Major corrections. This outcome involves the candidate to carry out more work, ie more analyses, more structural work, adding more studies. More substantial changes needed than minor corrections. Candidates are given 6 months to make changes.
Passed, with minor corrections
With minor corrections, I will have two months to complete the changes before sending an electronic version of the amended thesis for my examiners to sign off on. After that, I will have my final thesis bound for submission before graduation - which should be in July, barring any hiccups along the way. ...
What nobody tells you about 'minor corrections'
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.
(PhD Report) Is this a minor correction, major, or revise and ...
It depends on your institution's definition of revise and resubmit; my institution doesn't have a 'major corrections' option, it's either minor corrections or revise, so for me, having to rewrite to clarify, cut 150 pages, and reworking the connections between your resource material is a revise. Only your final comment would be minor ...
How to Avoid Minor PhD Corrections
There's no shame in passing your PhD with corrections. On the contrary, in the UK at least, most students pass their viva voce - that is, the verbal defence of their thesis - with 'minor corrections'.You receive a list of corrections from your examiners, attend to them and resubmit your thesis for a last look-through, usually within three months.
How to Avoid Major PhD Corrections
Whereas minor corrections encompass relatively straightforward issues like typos and formatting (for which we keenly recommend our PhD proofreading service), as well as small amounts of rewriting, major corrections involve substantial rewriting and restructuring. Passing with minor corrections shows that your thesis is at the right standard.
Examination outcomes and reports
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 ...
I had a brutal PhD viva followed by two years of corrections
Within one year, the candidate is expected to resubmit the corrected PhD thesis, accompanied by a commentary connecting their amendments to the list of corrections issued by the examiners.
Corrections PhD
minor, straightforward corrections- you usually have up to 3 months to complete these; ... 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 ...
Effective Strategies for Addressing Major PhD Thesis 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 ...
thesis
That the degree be awarded once specified minor corrections have been completed to the satisfaction of the examiner(s) This option may be chosen where the examiners are satisfied that the thesis meets the requirements for the award of the degree, but where there are minor weaknesses or editorial errors that must be rectified before they can ...
PhD thesis minor corrections on PostgraduateForum.com
Hi, I recently got minor corrections for my PhD thesis (very happy with this result!). I am aware that it is important to do all of the corrections that the examiners have suggested, as this almost 'guarantees' success. However, one of the corrections they have suggested is not possible - they have suggested that I show some data in a way that I cannot do as it will be very unreliable and will ...
Corrections to your thesis
Your corrected thesis should be submitted electronically by email to your examiner (s), copying in Research Student Administration ( [email protected] ). The date on the cover page for a corrected thesis (examiners decision of minor or major corrections) should be the original submission date.
Can you fail minor corrections (UK) : r/PhD
You can't fail minor corrections - you might be asked for a second round of corrections at worst. The whole "not perfect" thing..no one's thesis is perfect. My PhD was in electronic eng (2022), my husband's (2017) in experimental physics..there's things looking back now that we definitely would have done differently or more fully.
How Common is Passing with Major Corrections from a PhD?
19 August 2022. In the UK, a study of over 26,000 PhD candidates revealed that only 16% of students were awarded major corrections, while 3.3% of students failed their viva outright. Nevertheless, receiving major corrections presents a much-feared outcome for doctoral candidates. Before we think about how major corrections can be avoided, it is ...

How to deal with post-viva PhD thesis corrections

Wait for the committee’s report

Try not to be disheartened

How to deal with unhelpful feedback

Only do what the examiners ask for

Your PhD thesis. All on one page.

Don’t freak out

Create a matrix

Get started quickly

Check the paperwork

Read through the entire thesis

Create a cover letter

Prepare for your viva. One question at a time.

Hello, Doctor…

Share this:

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Search The PhD Knowledge Base

The PhD Knowledge Base Categories

Thesis outcomes and corrections

Thesis corrections

Thesis resubmission

Bookmark & Share

Minor Corrections: How To Make Them and Succeed With Your PhD Thesis

Intro to the PhD viva

Minor corrections your PhD examiners want you to make

The minor corrections I was requested to make for my own PhD thesis

Minor changes you want to make

Documenting changes to your thesis

Examples of how to describe your thesis corrections

How long does it take to make thesis corrections?

The process after making corrections

Timeline for making minor thesis corrections

My timeline for making minor corrections to my PhD thesis

General tips for making minor corrections

Share this:

Related Posts

Thesis Title: Examples and Suggestions from a PhD Grad

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Privacy Overview

What nobody tells you about ‘minor corrections’

Share this:

Whisper to me....

Discover more from The Thesis Whisperer

Passed, with minor corrections

Be social and share!

Join the conversation! Cancel reply

Examination outcomes and reports

Pass with minor corrections

Pass with major corrections

Resubmission of a thesis

Related information

I had a brutal PhD viva followed by two years of corrections.

The corrections

The consequences

What went wrong

Lessons learned

Written by Jimmy Tidey

Study at Cambridge

Meeting dates

Corrections PhD

Types of correction

Making corrections

Submitting corrections

Correction approval

Student Status while making corrections

Office closures

Essential Links

[email protected]

Effective Strategies for Addressing Major PhD Thesis Corrections

Strategy 1: Systematic Revision Roadmap

Strategy 2: Thorough Literature Review Integration

Strategy 3: Rigorous Methodological Scrutiny and Validation

PhD Thesis Correction Reasons

1. Conceptual Clarity:

2. Methodology:

3. Literature Review:

To solve these problems, researchers can

Elevate Your Thesis with iThesisEdit: Your Partner in Academic Excellence

FAQ Questions

2. How to present PhD correction?