FACULTY OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
Doctoral Dissertation Guidelines
1. Scope of Document
•
This document operates within the Doctor of Philosophy – Ph.D. – Degree
Regulations, 2008 and the Bye-Laws of 2010 in terms of the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy - Ph.D. - Degree Regulations, 2008 for the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy under the auspices of the Faculty of Information and Communication
Technology. Whilst in some cases, there is an intentional overlap between this
document and the said regulations, students are expected to familiarise
themselves with both documents and any other document relevant to their
degree.
•
The document is required to further specify generic aspects of the University’s
regulations to the context of the Faculty of Information and Communication
Technology.
•
It is strongly recommended that students familiarize themselves with the
relevant University Regulations and Faculty Bye-Laws governing their
postgraduate degree programme, as well as these Guidelines.
2. Citation and Interpretation
•
•
These guidelines may be cited as the Faculty of Information and Communication
Technology’s Doctoral Dissertation Guidelines – FICT Ph.D. Dissertation
Guidelines.
In these Guidelines, unless the context otherwise requires –
• “the Board” means the Faculty of ICT’s Doctoral Board;
• “the Sub-Committee” is the Ph.D. Sub-Committee appointed by Senate;
• “the Course” means the course of studies leading to a Doctor of Philosophy
Degree, offered by the Faculty of Information and Communication
Technology;
• “the Faculty” means the Faculty of Information and Communication
Technology;
• “the Principal Supervisor” is the main supervisor assigned to students with
responsibilities as outlined in this document and regulation 29 of the Doctor
of Philosophy – Ph.D. – Degree Regulations, 2008
• “the Faculty Ph.D. Bye-Laws” refers to the Bye-Laws of 2010 in terms of the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy - Ph.D. - Degree Regulations, 2008 for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the auspices of the Faculty of
Information and Communication Technology.
3. Milestones relating to a Ph.D. Dissertation
This section outlines all milestones involved in writing and defending a Doctoral
dissertation within the Faculty of ICT. Whilst initial detail about each milestone is
provided here, other sections in this document will further specify deliverables where
required.
Application for the Ph.D. Degree
Applicants are referred to regulation 6 in the Doctor of Philosophy – Ph.D. – Degree
Regulations, 2008 for requirements for admission into the Ph.D. Degree. If an applicant
possesses adequate requirements, he/she may submit an application at any time but
students shall be registered with effect from one of the following dates: 1 October, 1
December, 1 February, 1 April, and 1 June. An application shall include the following:
•
the provisional title of the thesis;
•
a research proposal as per guidelines on Faculty website;
•
a statement on whether the studies will be undertaken on a full-time or a parttime basis, and, in the case of the latter, the number of hours that shall be
dedicated to research work;
•
a statement by a member of staff of the University who has agreed to act as
Principal Supervisor;
•
a recommendation from the head of department that the research topic is
acceptable; and
•
where appropriate, a request to undertake the research outside the University.
Accepted applicants shall register for an M.Phil. Degree in the first instance.
Pre-Acceptance Interview by Faculty of ICT Doctoral Board
Applicants shall be interviewed by the Faculty of ICT’s Doctoral Board with the
participation of the applicants’ designated Principal Supervisor in order to assess the
applicants’ ability and potential to reach doctoral level. Where it is not practical to hold
an interview, appropriate alternative means of judging suitability must be found to the
satisfaction of the Sub-Committee. The result of the interview shall be made available to
the Sub-Committee, together with the Board’s recommendation, for its consideration
Ethical Approval of Research Programmes
In cases where research can be considered ethically sensitive (e.g. contact with human
subjects, use of private data, etc), ethical approval needs to be sought from the SubCommittee and subsequently the Senate. Such proposals shall first be considered by the
Faculty Doctoral Board who will refer the matter to the Research Ethics Committee. The
Sub-Committee and Senate shall only consider such applications if the Research Ethics
Committee has given its approval.
All proposals for research that involve human subjects must first receive approval from
the University Research Ethics Committee(UREC). A student will not be allowed to
register for the degree until such approval (with or without conditions) has been
obtained in writing from UREC. Guidelines, an explanation of the process, and
application forms are available at http://www.um.edu.mt/urec. Students are
responsible for providing the information required for UREC to consider the request. If,
during the research/evaluation phase, it becomes clear that a deviation from the
original, UREC approved, plan is necessary, the student must re-apply, and obtain
written approval, before continuing with the research/evaluation that involves human
subjects. The plan approved by UREC together with the UREC permission must be
included in the dissertation as an appendix.
Boards of Examiners
Theses shall be examined by a Board of Examiners appointed for the purpose by Senate,
on the recommendation of the Board, and shall include a Chairman, a visiting external
examiner, and at least another member, provided that the oral examination of the thesis
shall be conducted by at least three examiners including the external examiner Where
the student is an assistant lecturer at the University, a second external examiner
(normally non-visiting) must be appointed.
Progress Reports and Annual Enrollment
Students are required to enroll with the Faculty of ICT at the beginning of each academic
year throughout their period of study. However, this shall only be allowed upon the
submission of a satisfactory progress report from the students’ principal supervisor.
Progress reports should reach the Faculty Doctoral Board by no later than
_____________________________.
Transfer of Registration from M.Phil. Degree to Ph.D. Degree
As stated in regulation 35 of the Doctor of Philosophy – Ph.D. – Degree Regulations,
2008, Senate may allow the transfer of registration from the M.Phil. Degree with respect
to the Ph.D. Degree with the same research proposal if the following conditions have
been satisfied:
(a) after 12 months of full-time study or 24 months of part-time study and not more
than 24 months of full-time study or 48 months of part-time study have elapsed,
an ad hoc board appointed by the Board for the purpose, composed of a
chairman, the Principal Supervisor and another member, shall assess the
student's work.
(b) the ad hoc board shall either (i) declare the work presented to have the potential
to reach the standard appropriate to that required of a doctoral degree and
recommends transfer; or (ii) determine that the student's work has not reached
a sufficient standard to warrant recommendation of the transfer; or (iii) advise
that the student be given up to 12 months in order to complete his/her studies
for the award of an M.Phil. Degree; and in all cases shall inform the SubCommittee, through the Board; and
(c) a satisfactory progress report from the student’s Faculty Doctoral Committee
has been received
Further to the above, as stated in regulation 5 of the Faculty Ph.D. Bye-Laws:
(1) students shall submit a written application requesting the transfer from the M.Phil.
to the Ph.D. degree, together with a summary of the work carried out by them,
preferably in the form of a technical report for consideration by an ad hoc board
appointed by the Board. The report shall also include any modifications to the original
research proposal.
(2) The ad hoc board shall be composed of a chairman, who shall be the head of the
department concerned or his delegate, and two examiners, one of whom shall be the
Principal Supervisor and the other appointed on the advice of the Faculty Doctoral
Committee.
(3) The ad hoc board would give favourable consideration to work published or
accepted for publication in refereed technical journals and conferences.
(4) The ad hoc board shall examine the student orally and shall submit a written report
for consideration by the Faculty Doctoral Committee in the first instance. The report
shall contain recommendations according to the provisions of the Principal Regulations.
Should the work be declared as having the potential to reach the standard appropriate
to that required of a doctoral degree, the Board will draft a satisfactory progress report
and make the recommendation to Senate through the Sub-Committee. If the transfer is
allowed by Senate, the work already done for the M.Phil. Degree shall count towards the
requirements for the Ph.D. Degree.
Requests for Suspension of Studies
In accordance with regulation 24 of the Doctor of Philosophy – Ph.D. – Degree
Regulations, 2008, on the recommendation of the Board, and of the Sub-Committee, the
Senate may allow students, for a good and sufficient reason, to suspend their studies for
a maximum of 12 months, irrespective of whether they are registered on a full-time or
part-time basis. An application for suspension of studies is to be made in writing to the
Board and must include the length of suspension being requested as well as an outline of
the reason(s) behind the request.
Requests for Extension of Studies
On the recommendation of the Board and the Sub-Committee, Senate may grant
students an extension of studies of up to two years in order to enable them to complete
their studies, irrespective of whether they are registered on a full-time or a part-time
basis. Such requests are to reach the Board no less than 6 months before the student’s
submission deadline.
Premature Termination of Studies
Senate may terminate a student’s studies prematurely if this is deemed to be proper in
the circumstances, provided that the student can appeal his/her case before Senate
within 15 days from the notice of termination of studies.
Submission of Dissertation
Not less than three months before the intended date of submission, students shall
signify their intention to the Board to present their thesis stating its exact title. The
Faculty Doctoral Committee, after ascertaining that the period of study conforms to that
stipulated in these regulations, and that the Principal Supervisor has given his opinion
to the student regarding the submission of his/her thesis for examination, shall advise
the Board to recommend to Senate the appointment of a Board of Examiners. Note that
it may take up to six months to organise the viva voce (oral examination) depending on
when the statement to present the thesis is submitted.
When presenting a thesis for examination, students shall submit:
•
a soft-bound copy for each member of his/her Board of Examiners;
•
an electronic copy of the dissertation for each member of hir/her Board of
Examiners
•
a signed declaration that the thesis is their own personal work, and that the
greater portion of the work has been done after their registration for the Ph.D.
Degree;
•
where appropriate, a statement declaring that a part of the thesis has already
been submitted for another degree or qualification or that the thesis has been
published; and
•
Principal Supervisors shall signify in writing, on the appropriate form, that they
are aware that the student is submitting his/her thesis for examination by the
Board of Examiners.
The shall also submit any program code, installation instructions, data used for
evaluation, and results obtained on CD/DVD to his supervisor(s).
Students shall not discuss their work with the examiners during the period between
their appointment as examiners and the oral examination.
The thesis shall be written in the prescribed format (see below) and shall not exceed
60,000 words excluding bibliography, appendices and abstract.
Examination of Ph.D. Theses
The examination of Ph.D. theses is governed by regulations 40,41,42,43,44 of the Doctor
of Philosophy – Ph.D. Degree Regulations, 2008, and the Faculty PhD Bye-Laws.
Verification of corrections
In cases where students are required to make corrections to their thesis, the board of
examiners will determine a mechanism by which these corrections are verified.
Final Version of Thesis
Following the verification of the Board of Examiner’s declaration that the student has
passed the dissertation component of his/her course, and the verification of any
required changes having been made, the student is to submit two hardbound copies of
the dissertation as well as a hardbound copy for each supervisor, together with a
CD/DVD containing an electronic version of the dissertation. The student shall also
submit any program code, installation instructions, data used for evaluation, and results
obtained on CD/DVD to his supervisor(s).
4. Research Proposals
Along with an application form, applicants should submit a comprehensive research
proposal, normally of approximately 1000 words. The proposal should include:
•
A provisional title
•
An introduction to the subject area
•
A description of the high-level problems in the area being explored
•
Research questions to be addressed
•
The hypothesis to be tested
•
The methodology to be adopted in dealing with the research issues
•
Signature and statement from proposed principal supervisor
•
Recommendation from the Head of Department
It is acknowledged that at doctoral level, research proposals cannot be highly specific
and are subject to change. However, efforts should be made to define an appropriate
context that indicates clearly that doctoral level contributions can be achieved.
Further guidelines with regards to Ph.D. research proposals are available at
http://www.um.edu.mt/ict/PG/PhD.
5. Progress Reports
Progress reports are important instruments for monitoring a student’s progress and
enabling the Faculty to take corrective action early should the student start going off
course. To this end, progress reports produced by the principal supervisor should
explicitly contain:
•
An outline of the student’s progress since the last progress report
•
A declaration of the supervisor’s confidence in the satisfactory performance of the
student
•
An specific concerns which the supervisor has about the student and proposed
corrective actions
Problems that affect the student’s progress, especially if they could result in a need for
an extension or suspension of studies should be brought to the attention of the
supervisor and Faculty Doctoral Committee as soon as possible.
.
6. Dissertation Formatting and Layout
Paper Size:
A4
Printing:
Line Spacing:
Font Size:
Font Type:
One-Sided
1.5
Main content: 12pt, Captions: 10pt, Auxiliary content: 10pt allowed
Serif font (e.g. Times New Roman) for main content and headings.
Monospace font (e.g. Courier New) for algorithms and procedures.
Margins:
2.5mm top, bottom, right, and 37mm left (to allow for binding)
Page numbering: Arabic numerals, bottom of page, centered
Maximum length: 60,000 words excluding bibliography, appendices and abstract
Sample Title Page
<Dissertation Title>
<Author’s Full Name>
<Department Name>
University of Malta
<Month and Year>
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
7. Dissertation Structure
Whilst the actual structure and wording of individual chapter headings is left to the
student, it is important that a dissertation includes the following content:
•
Plagiarism declaration: Standard form whereby the student declares that the
work presented is his/her own.
•
Abstract: Provides a short (typically 1 page) overview of the dissertation’s contents
including the tackled problem and high-level results/conclusions.
•
Problem definition: A definition of the problem being tackled and establishment of
the research question(s).
•
Background and Literature Review: A sufficient background designed to provide
examiners with just enough information to be able to understand the work of the
dissertation itself as well as the context in which it was tackled.
•
Methodology/Solution: A detailed explanation of how the problem was tackled
along with justifications for all decisions taken in the course of the solution.
•
Evaluation and Results: Details about how the solution was evaluated with
respect to the original research question(s) along with the results achieved.
•
Future Work: Proposals for the student him/herself or other future researchers
with regards to how the work can be extended or used as a basis for future work in
the are.
•
Conclusions: An outline of the main conclusions from the student’s research an the
impact of these conclusions on the field.
8. Oral Examination
The Chair of the Board of Examiners will notify the candidate and examiners in writing
with regards to how the oral examination will be structured and run. Typically, an oral
examination will consist of a short presentation by the student followed by an
unbounded session of questions by the Board of Examiners.
Once the viva is over, the candidate will be asked to leave the room to allow the Board of
Examiners to deliberate. Following the deliberation, the candidate may be asked to
answer further questions, before Board of Examiners to reach a final decision. Following
the decision, the Board of Examiners may indicate whether or not they intend to
recommend that the student be awarded a PhD and whether this will be subject to any
corrections.. The Board of Examiners may explain the changes required following the
oral examination.
It is possible to fail to satisfy the Board of Examiners that the dissertation and/or oral
examination is at the level expected of a Ph.D. In this case, the candidate may be
permitted to carry out major corrections and be re-examined by the same Board of
Examiners; awarded the degree of Master of Philosophy instead (with or without
requiring minor corrections); recommend the examination of the dissertation for the
degree of Master of Philosophy following major revision and re-admit the candidate to
an oral examination; or, definitively fail.
In any case, any corrections required will be communicated to the candidate in writing
normally no later than 10 working days after the date of the oral examination. The
corrections may be conducted in collaboration with the supervisor.
9. Submitting papers to journals and conferences.
Students are strongly encouraged to publish any contributions resulting from work on
their Ph.D. Degree in international peer-reviewed conferences and/or journals.
Publications in such arenas considerably reinforces the contribution of the student’s
work. Students should note that their supervisor(s) should be acknowledged as coauthors in such publications.
Appendix A – Duties of Chair of Board of Examiners and Supervisors
Duties of Chair of the Board of Examiners
•
Write progress reports as required by Faculty
•
Identification of suitably qualified External Examiner in consultation with
Supervisor
•
Obtain CV of External Examiner
•
Submit application for External Examiner to International Office through Head
of Department
•
Send abstract and Research Proposal to External Examiner
•
Organise distribution of first drafts to Panel of Supervision and External
Examiner (with covering letter and regulations)
•
Obtain report (including assessment mark and recommendation) from External
Examiner in reasonable time
•
Inform the candidate and examiners in writing about the structure of the viva at
least three weeks in advance
•
Chair viva voce examination, represent non-visiting External Examiner (if any),
and write report including recommendations
•
Submit Board of Examiners report to Faculty
•
Collect and collate changes to the dissertation required by the Board of
Examiners
•
Communicate any changes required by the Board of Examiners to the candidate,
in writing.
Duties of Principal Supervisor/Co-supervisor
•
Accept initial proposal from student
•
Make provisions for regular supervision sessions
•
Supervise technical report for transfer from M.Phil. to Ph.D. as appropriate
•
Follow progress of student
•
Recommend an extension or suspension of studies if appropriate and for valid
reasons
•
Recommend a change in dissertation title if appropriate
•
Advise student on individual chapters and the first draft
•
Contribute to report on first draft
•
Assure continuity of supervision, possibly by a third party, by maintaining
updated records of student’s progress
•
Report repeated non-attendance of the student to supervisions and/or poor
progress to the Faculty Doctoral Committee
•
Oversee minor/major revisions to the dissertation required by the Board of
Examiners
Appendix B – Duties of Student
•
Taking the initiative in raising problems or difficulties, however elementary they
may seem.
•
Providing a research proposal by the required deadline.
•
To notify supervisor in good time and prior to the termination of their
registration period if suspension/extension of studies is needed. Failure to do so
may result in a denial of the request.
•
To prepare and assemble all materials in all copies of the thesis
•
To attend supervisions and be prepared to discuss progress
•
To understand that, while the supervisor can provide guidance, the student is
responsible for the original contribution to the subject, and must be responsible
for developing a mature, critical knowledge of the subject area and its context.
•
The student must take responsibility for ensuring that he or she is fully familiar
with the latest developments, trends and controversy in the chosen subject area.
•
To ensure that they are not breaking copyright laws and not plagiarising
•
To become familiar with the regulations governing the conduct of research,
thesis submission procedures, and other University regulations which may affect
them, and Faculty guidelines regarding thesis/dissertation requirements
•
To inform department/supervisor of change of contact details, including e-mail
addresses
•
To meet deadlines for submission of work which are agreed with supervisor or
provided for in the course regulations and Faculty guidelines
•
If necessary, to take courses in English for Academic Purposes, especially if
recommended by the supervisor
•
If the project is within a larger project, the student's thesis must carefully
identify the work done by the student and the work done by the rest of the team