PostDoc Discussion Forum

I agree it's unacceptable. 6 months is already far too long for a decision on minor corrections, without it dragging on into next year. Surely it should be simply a case of the examiners checking whether or not all the requested corrections have been done - and if they have been done, you have passed. That's my understanding, anyway - isn't that why it's called 'pass subject to minor corrections'?

There really shouldn't be any question of negotiating further revisions at this stage. It seems unbelievable that your university isn't enforcing its own regulations here. That may be in your favour in any future appeal, though.

Thanks for the summary. Hope it works out. I am about to enter this process myself by submitting within the next 6 weeks and the thought of going through that after 3 years of hard work and stress fills me with horror.

pm133:

I would like to clarify that I am not seeking legal advice at this stage but am seeking advice through the Student's Union. I might (emphasise on the 'might') end up seeking legal advice should this result in a fail for the following reasons:

- My initial viva report which put forward the necessary revisions of my R&R was lost by the chair of my examination panel and my examiner's also failed to hold back up copies of this. This resulted in a 3 month wait for my report which, I suspect, had to be re-written and wasn't an accurate depiction of the revisions suggested on the day.

- Upon completion of my 12 months R&R I endured a 3 month wait for my result. After chasing it, the office issued me an incorrect result telling me I had failed when, it turns out, I had 6 months minor revisions because my external still wasn't happy with how I'd addressed the first round.

- The reports from my external examiner during both correction periods have been very short (around half a page) and incredibly vague making it difficult to cater to her love of precision.

- They have now given me a third revision period (which, according to the rules, doesn't exist) and a few sentences of compulsory revisions from my external which even my supervisor can't understand. She continues to be incredibly vague and it's clear that she wants the process dragged out so that I either a) give up or b) continue to work on my thesis for the rest of my life.

- As a result of all the above I have missed out on job opportunities which, in turn, has contributed to a loss of earnings.

- And, finally, I didn't appreciate the personal attack of an administrator incorrectly putting 'Dr' next to my name which resulted in an immediate investigation into my role in my new workplace. The university could have simply requested the error be rectified immediately without the need for an investigation.

I think you're right that this could go on indefinitely if you let it. I didn't know it was even possible to be given further revisions after doing an R&R then minor corrections - surely there has to be a decision one way or the other by this stage? I'm surprised the institution isn't doing more to enforce that, as surely the situation is in breach of their own regulations now?

I'm struggling a bit to understand what your external's motivation could be for behaving in this way. My best guess is that she is determined not to pass you (for whatever personal or ideological reasons) but knows she can't justify failing you. That's the only reason I can think for dragging the process on like this. If she had a justifiable argument for your revised thesis not being up to academic standards, she could give her decision as a fail -- and then presumably whatever procedures the university has to handle a disagreement between examiners would come into play. The fact that she can't/won't do this strongly suggests that she knows no reasonable person would fail you, so the only way to keep you from passing is to keep you stuck in limbo like this until you give up.

I do think the PhD examination system works well the vast majority of the time (for all the criticism it gets) -- but this is a true example of how it can go bad, when one of the examiners is being completely unreasonable and unprofessional in their conduct, and no one can overrule them because academic judgement is sacrosanct.

Latest update: I had a meeting with my supervisor yesterday who is being surprisingly supportive. He's just as furious as me and agrees that we could be working on revisions for another 20 years and my external would still fail it. Even he said that this was becoming more of a personal attack due to our ideological differences on what is, in essence, quite a sensitive research topic.

So, for now, I'm heading down the appeal road which will be long and tedious but I'm sure at this stage that it is the right thing to do.

The revisions my external has recommended are very short (about 10 lines) and incredibly vague. Even my supervisor said he doesn't understand what she's asking and can't think of anything to say to me anymore. We really have exhausted all options with these revisions.

I know my external has been signed off ill and I'm starting to wonder whether this could be due to a mental health problem as her behaviour is veering down the maverick path.

The one thing that has lifted my spirits is that my supervisor has said that my internal thought I had fully addressed all the revisions asked of me and has been fighting for me to be awarded this PhD. Why my external is so hellbent on me working on infinite revisions (considering the thesis is 163,000 words) beggars belief. Everyone at my institution is in agreement that I have addressed the revisions asked of me.

So, let's see where the road takes me. I am exhausted by the whole process but I'm 100% ready for this fight. I've been waiting an awfully long time for it...

I have not followed all of this posters story so I am unaware of any illegal behaviour by anyone.
This simply looks like a story of one person struggling to prove their work is good enough to win a PhD in the face of quite a few setbacks and what seems a poor initial submission.
That is why I was asking you what grounds she could sue and who she should sue. I am still interested in hearing your view on that
whether you use the words consider and advise or not.

That's why I used the words 'considering' and 'advice'. In light of further developments I think not totally unwarranted.

Is there any hope of appointing a different external at this stage? I do think you deserve your PhD after everything, but it seems submitting more revisions to this person is a recipe for more delay. Can you have a face to face meeting with your supervisor in which you lay out, in objective factual language, the timeline from your viva to now and suggest that - given all the delays and mistakes - you feel you are now entitled to have your work assessed by a third person? That seems to me the best avenue to pursue.