Section 4. Manuscript assessment by the Manuscript Committee

Article 3.14. Setting up the Manuscript Committee

1. After the PhD supervisor and, where applicable, the co-supervisor are appointed, the dean sets up a Manuscript Committee and appoints its members.
2. During the composition of the Manuscript Committee and the appointment of its members, the dean will ensure that the Manuscript Committee will be able to make an objective and expert decision. The dean observes the following:
   a. A Manuscript Committee consists of three or five members, including a chair.
   b. The majority of the Manuscript Committee consists of professors.
   c. All members of the Manuscript Committee are experts with a doctorate, unless stated otherwise by the chair of the Doctorate Board.
   d. The chair of the Manuscript Committee is employed as a professor at Radboud University.
   e. At least one member of the Manuscript Committee – with a composition of at least two and at most five members – is an external member.
   f. The Manuscript Committee has a balanced and, if possible, diverse composition.
   g. Members of the supervision team are not eligible for appointment.
3. During the composition of the Manuscript Committee, the dean will verify, in light of the relationships and interests of the individual members, that all of the members of the Manuscript Committee are individually capable to decide without undue pressure or influence. A person who is co-author of an article that forms part of the manuscript will not be appointed, unless, in the opinion of the dean, the appointment of that person is required due to the expert composition of the committee and the dean has ascertained that an independent opinion from the Manuscript Committee with the appointment of this person is not in question.
4. The dean notifies the members of the Manuscript Committee in writing of their appointment.
5. The dean informs the PhD candidate and the PhD supervisor about the establishment of the Manuscript Committee and the appointment of the members of that committee.
6. The dean may provide guidelines and instructions to the members of the Manuscript Committee in the framework of these regulations. The members of the Manuscript Committee supply the requested information to the dean.
7. If a member of the Manuscript Committee resigns as a member in the interim, the dean will arrange his or her replacement. The chair of the Doctorate Board will be informed of the replacement, stating the reason for resignation.

Article 3.15. Forwarding the manuscript to the Manuscript Committee

1. After the establishment of the Manuscript Committee, the PhD candidate will ensure that all members of the established Manuscript Committee receive a copy of the manuscript as approved by the PhD supervisor in a timely fashion.
2. If the results of the manuscript are partly based on research data, then the Manuscript Committee will in principle be given access to the research data. In situations where, in the opinion of the PhD supervisor, it is not feasible to provide access for all of the members of the Manuscript Committee, access will be provided for at least the chair of the Manuscript Committee. At the request of the PhD supervisor, the chair of the Doctorate Board may, in very exceptional cases and only for compelling reasons, decide that the chair of the Manuscript Committee will not be granted access to the research data either.

Article 3.16. Decision-making in the Manuscript Committee – manuscript assessment

1. 1. No later than five weeks after receipt of the manuscript, the Manuscript Committee will decide on the proof of competence to conduct independent scholarship as referred to in Article 2.3.
2. The Manuscript Committee takes its decisions based on majority voting.
3. The proof of competence is provided when each of the following assessment criteria has been passed:
   a. The problem definition is clear and well-defined.
   b. The manuscript demonstrates that the PhD candidate has familiarised themselves and has worked with the principles and methodologies of international scientific practice and theory formation, methods and studies of the relevant discipline.
   c. The structure, analysis, and incorporation of the material are correct.
   d. The methodology was adequately chosen and implemented.
   e. The results have been achieved in a transparent manner and the research data management is adequate in accordance with the standard applicable in the relevant discipline.
   f. The manuscript contributes to new insights and/or perspectives in the relevant discipline.
   g. It involves a critical confrontation between the conclusions drawn and existing insights or perspectives.
   h. There is a clear relationship between the problem definition, the theoretical framework, the methodology, the result, the conclusion, and the discussion.
   i. The manuscript has an orderly structure.
   j. The manuscript has a clear style that befits the academic discipline.
   If proof of competence has been provided in the opinion of the Manuscript Committee, the manuscript has been established as a dissertation.
4. The chair of the Doctorate Board may supplement the assessment criteria referred to in paragraph 2 if the dean considers it necessary to set these additional assessment criteria within the relevant discipline. In that case, the additional assessment criteria will be added as an appendix to these regulations.
5. Each member of the Manuscript Committee shall use the assessment form in Appendix IV for the assessment.
6. The decision of the Manuscript Committee includes a synthesis of the assessments by the committee members prepared by the chair of the Manuscript Committee.
7. The completed assessment forms are attached with the decision. Notwithstanding this, the chair of the Manuscript Committee may decide not to attach the completed assessment forms.
8. The chair of the Manuscript Committee informs the dean in writing of the decision by the Manuscript Committee. Upon receipt, the dean forwards the decision to the PhD candidate and the PhD supervisor, as well as to the secretary of the Doctorate Board.

Article 3.17. Decision-making process of the Manuscript Committee – Advice for establishment of the Cum Laude Committee

1. In addition to the provisions of Article 3.16, the Manuscript Committee advises on the establishment of a Cum Laude Committee.
2. It is recommended to set up a Cum Laude Committee if, in the opinion of the Manuscript Committee, the adopted thesis is among the best five to ten percent of theses in the relevant field.
3. The Manuscript Committee offers advice based on majority voting.
4. Each member of the Manuscript Committee shall use the assessment form in Appendix V for this advice.
5. The advice of the Manuscript Committee includes a synthesis of the assessments by the committee members prepared by the chair of the Manuscript Committee.
6. The completed assessment forms are attached with the advice. Notwithstanding this, the chair of the Manuscript Committee may decide not to attach the completed assessment forms.
7. The chair of the Manuscript Committee informs the dean in writing of the advice of the Manuscript Committee. Upon receipt, the dean forwards the advice to the PhD supervisor, as well as to the secretary of the Doctorate Board. The advice remains secret for the PhD candidate.

Article 3.18. Re-examination

If the Manuscript Committee has ruled on the basis of Article 3.16 that the proof of competence cannot be provided, the PhD candidate will be given the opportunity once to make adjustments to the manuscript within a period set by the Manuscript Committee and to review the manuscript, with due observance of the provisions of Article 3.12, to be submitted once again to the Manuscript Committee for assessment.