Thesis Examining Panel

Approximately three months before the anticipated date of submission, thesis chair, following consultation with the supervisor, will nominate two thesis examiners for approvals from Head of Enrolling Area/Associate Dean of R&D, Curtin Malaysia Graduate Studies Committee (CMGSC) and ADVCRE.

– For Masters students one examiner will be external to Curtin and the other may be internal or external. Internal examiners will be from a different enrolling school to that of the student and the primary supervisor. At no time will an examiner have been part of the student’s Thesis Committee.
– For Doctoral students both examiners must be external to the University. At no time will an examiner have been part of the student’s Thesis Committee.

In recommending a Thesis Examining Panel, the Head of Enrolling Area/Associate Dean of R&D shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that Examiners are free from bias with respect to the candidate, the Supervisor or the University, and shall preserve the integrity and independence of the examination process.

Examiners shall possess a Doctoral qualification or be deemed by the CMGSC to be of equivalent status with recognised standing in the field of study.

Examiners are requested to examine a thesis within six weeks of receipt. If any Examiner is unable to complete the examination within three months, the Head of Enrolling Area/Associate Dean of R&D may recommend a replacement Examiner to the CMGSC for approval.

The Associate Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research Excellence, upon recommendation from the CMGSC, may appoint a replacement Examiner, or Adjudicator as appropriate, in the following circumstances:

  1. where an examiner or adjudicator is unable to continue their involvement in an examination or re-examination for any reason;
  2. where an examiner or adjudicator has actual or perceived bias with respect to the student, the supervisor or the University in their report(s) or otherwise; and;
  3. where the examiner or adjudicator has not engaged in the examination or reexamination with diligence or appropriate expertise. .

The name of an examiner is not to be released to the student until after the examination process is completed and then only if the examiner specifically approves the release of their identity or where the University is required to by law. Only the Associate Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Research Excellence (or nominee), the Chair of Graduate Studies Committee and Thesis Chair may communicate with the Examiners regarding the examination process while the thesis is under examination.

Conflict of Interest between Nominated Examiners, Supervisors and Students

The Examiners should not have perceived or actual conflict of interest with the candidate, supervisory team and university. Please refer to the details in this link.

Before the thesis is submitted (approximately three months before the anticipated thesis submission date), the supervisory team is advised to nominate at least two (2) examiners. The  Nomination of Examiners form, the Case for the Nomination of Examiners  for HDR Student form and latest CVs for all examiners need to be submitted to the Curtin Malaysia Graduate Studies for approval. Once the nomination is approved by Curtin Malaysia Graduate Studies Committee (CMGSC), the nomination will then be forwarded to Graduate Research School for a final approval.

Typical reasons on why nomination of examiner is disapproved by the CMGSC and/or GRS are as follows:

  • Incomplete application form: incomplete sections, no information on nominated examiners’ ORCID number, and no approval and signature from DGR/Associate Dean of R&D
  • CVs of the nominated examiners: outdated, and no detailed track records on the HDR student supervisions and thesis examinations
  • Case for nomination form: no highlights on the the relevant track records in research projects, publications, HDR supervisions and HDR thesis examinations, many typos and poorly presented document.
  • Track records of the nominated examiners are scientifically and ethically questionable due to having publications in predatory publishers/journals – Beall’s list.
  • Identified perceived or actual conflict of interest between the nominated examiners and the candidate/supervisors/university.