This is an unofficial translation of the Norwegian version of the Act and is provided for information purposes only. Legal authenticity remains with the Norwegian version as published in Norsk Lovtidend - Lovdata. In the event of any inconsistency, the Norwegian version shall prevail.

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

Section 1-1 The scope of the regulations

These regulations apply to the doctoral degree programme that leads to a Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) degree at the NHH Norwegian School of Economics.

The regulations set out rules on admission to, studies on and completion of the PhD programme at NHH, including joint degrees and cotutelles.

Section 1-2 Objective and content of the PhD programme

The objective of the PhD programme is to qualify candidates to conduct research of high international academic quality and to perform other types of work where society requires a high level of scientific expertise and analytical thinking in accordance with sound scientific practice and research ethics standards.

The PhD programme aims to impart to the candidates knowledge, skills and expertise in keeping with the national qualifications framework. The nominal length of study of the PhD programme is three years of full-time studies, and the programme includes a training component with a scope of at least 45 credits. The most important component of the PhD programme is a supervised independent research project.

The PhD degree is awarded on the basis of:

−        an approved academic thesis

−        approved completion of the training component, alternatively other approved academic qualifications

−        an approved trial lecture on a prescribed topic

−        approved public defence of the thesis (disputation).

Section 1-3 Responsibility for the PhD programme

The overall responsibility for the PhD programme rests with the Board of NHH. This responsibility has been delegated to the Vice Rector for Research.

The Vice Rector for Research is responsible for ensuring that the academic and educational aspects and resources of the programme are adapted in the best way possible to meet the competence requirements the programme is intended to fulfil. The Vice Rector for Research supervises, coordinates and approves the departments’ teaching and academic supervision arrangements. The Vice Rector for Research can initiate changes to the courses provided as well as to teaching and examination arrangements. The Vice Rector for Research is responsible for the programme’s quality assurance.

The departments have academic responsibility for the teaching and academic supervision.

Chapter 2 – Admission

Section 2-1 Formal qualification requirements

To be admitted to the PhD programme, applicants must normally have completed a five-year master’s degree programme. The master’s degree must be academically relevant to the applicant's PhD specialisation. The Vice Rector for Research may accept other equivalent education as a basis for admission following an individual assessment.

The assessment of applications for admission to the PhD programme involves calculating the applicants’ average grade based on their five-year degree. The average grade must normally correspond to a B (4.0) or better in the Norwegian grade system. The requirement for a B (4.0) or better also applies to the independent work carried out in the master's degree programme.

The Vice Rector for Research can set additional qualification requirements in line with NHH’s recruitment policy and academic profile.

Section 2-2 Applications for admission

An application for admission should provide the best possible basis for assessing the applicant's qualifications and ability to complete the PhD programme.

The application should contain:

-          documentation of the applicant’s education and other relevant academic experience

-          a tentative project description with details of the research topic and research questions

-          if relevant, a plan for a stay at another institution

-          if relevant, requests for one or more supervisors to the supervision committee and any wishes concerning affiliation to an active research community

-          a funding plan

-          information about any intellectual property right restrictions

-          documentation of special academic and material resource requirements

-          an account of any legal or ethical issues that the project raises and how they can be clarified. The application must state whether the project requires approval from research ethics committees or other authorities or private parties.

-          if relevant, an application for permission to use a language other than English in the thesis, trial lecture and public defence of the thesis.

The Vice Rector for Research decides the application form and can set requirements for further documentation to be provided in the application.

Section 2-3 Admission decisions

Admission decisions are based on an overall assessment of the application. Admission may be made conditional upon funding, admission capacity, academic supervision capacity, additional education and intellectual property agreements.

Admission must be denied if agreements with an external third party prevent the publication and public defence of the thesis, or if the intellectual property agreements entered into are so unreasonable that NHH should not participate in the project.

A separate agreement on funding must exist on admission. For PhD candidates who receive funding from, are employed by, or otherwise receive contributions from an external party, a separate agreement must be entered into between the candidate, NHH and the external party according to established guidelines.

The admission decision must include the following:

-          definition of the contract period, cf. Section 2-4

-          any conditions the admission is subject to, such as grade requirements and completion of the master’s degree

-          department affiliation

-          requirement for an employment contract / funding agreement to be signed by the start-up date

-          requirement for a PhD contract to be signed within three months after the start-up date.

Section 2-4 Contract period

The start-up date of the contract period is set to the start-up date of funding, and the duration corresponds to the duration of the funding period. The contract period is normally set to three years of full-time studies or four years with required duties corresponding to 25 per cent of a full-time position.

In the event of legally justified interruptions, the contract period can be extended correspondingly.

The Vice Rector for Research can extend the contract period further on the basis of an application giving grounds for the extension. The application must contain a plan of progression and be recommended by the department. The Vice Rector for Research can impose additional conditions when granting an extension.

The contract period is set out in the PhD contract, cf. Section 3-1. After the expiry of the contract period, the parties' rights and obligations pursuant to the PhD contract will lapse, and the PhD candidate can lose his/her right to academic supervision, teaching and access to NHH's infrastructure.

Section 2-5 Study period

The study period specifies the maximum time allowed for completing the PhD programme, and it is six years from the start-up date until the thesis is submitted for evaluation after a deduction has been made for legally justified and planned interruptions.

PhD candidates can apply for extension of the study period. When the study period has expired, the Vice Rector for Research can, in exceptional cases and based on input from the department, grant an extension. The Vice Rector for Research can impose additional conditions when granting such an extension.

In special cases, the PhD candidate can apply for permission to submit the thesis for evaluation for the PhD degree after the study period has expired.

CHAPTER 3 – THE PHD CONTRACT AND PROGRESS

Section 3-1 The PhD contract

Admission to the PhD programme is formalised in a written PhD contract signed by the PhD candidate, the supervisor(s), NHH and any external parties. The PhD contract is subject to approval by the Vice Rector for Research. Changes to the PhD contract must be submitted to the Vice Rector for Research for approval.

The PhD contract regulates the parties’ rights and obligations during the contract period and is intended to ensure that the candidate regularly participates in an active research community and facilitate completion of the PhD programme by the agreed time.

Requirements relating to the training component, progress, milestones and reporting are stipulated by the Vice Rector for Research in accordance with Sections 3-2, 3-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 5-7 and 5-8. The Vice Rector for Research can stipulate additional requirements in the PhD contract.

The PhD contract shall regulate:

-          the contract period, cf. Section 2-4

-          the subject of the thesis

-          the training component, including grade requirements

-          the academic supervision and appointment of supervisors

-          progress, milestones, reporting and midway evaluation, cf. Sections 3-2 and 3-3

-          workplace

-          any residency requirements stipulated by the Vice Rector for Research

-          if relevant, planned affiliation to foreign institutions in accordance with NHH’s guidelines for such collaboration, and a separate agreement concerning this collaboration

-          circumstances related to cooperation with any external parties

-          the parties' mutual rights and obligations in addition to those listed above.

Section 3-2 Reporting requirements

The Vice Rector for Research adopts applicable reporting requirements with annual and separate reporting from the PhD candidate and his/her supervisor. The Vice Rector for Research can demand special reporting if considered necessary.

The candidate and supervisor have equal responsibility for the reporting. Lacking or inadequate progress reporting on the part of the candidate may result in enforced termination of the PhD programme before the contract period expires, cf. Chapter 4. Supervisors who fail to fulfil their reporting obligations may be relieved of their supervisory duties.

Section 3-3 Progress requirements

The Vice Rector for Research adopts applicable progress requirements and milestones. The requirements will normally include the following requirements for the course component and work on the doctoral thesis:

−        the training component must normally be completed by the fourth semester

−        a midway evaluation (‘proposal defence’) of the PhD work should normally take place no later than in the fourth semester in accordance with the terms and conditions of the candidate's PhD contract

−        the Vice Rector for Research can stipulate additional progress requirements.

Material breaches of the progress requirements may result in enforced termination of the PhD programme before the contract period expires, cf. Chapter 4.

Section 3-4 Follow-up, measures and breaches of the PhD contract

It is the department’s responsibility to ensure that the milestones are reached. If agreements on milestones and satisfactory progress are not fulfilled, the department must submit the matter to the Vice Rector for Research. In consultation with the Vice Rector for Research, the department will implement measures to remedy the situation of inadequate progress and failure to achieve the required level in the training component or research work.

Material breaches of the PhD agreement may result in enforced termination of the PhD programme before the contract period expires, cf. Chapter 4.

CHAPTER 4 – TERMINATION BEFORE THE END OF THE CONTRACT PERIOD

Section 4-1 Voluntary termination before the end of the contract period

A PhD candidate may leave the PhD programme before the end of the contract period by agreement with the Vice Rector for Research. In the event of such termination of the PhD programme, it must be stipulated in writing how issues relating to employment relationship, funding, rights to results etc. are to be settled.

Section 4-2 Enforced termination in cases of delay or lack of progress

When one or more of the following conditions are met, the Vice Rector for Research may decide to enforce termination of the PhD programme, cf. the Act relating to Universities and Colleges Section 4-13(2):

-          failure to meet progress requirements, cf. Section 3-3

-          repeated or material breaches of the candidate’s duty to provide information, follow-up or reporting duties, including failure to submit progress reports, cf. Sections 3-1 and 3-2

-          a delay in the progress of the research project of a kind that gives reason to doubt whether the candidate will be able to complete the project within the contract period, cf. Sections 3-1 and 3-3

-          other breaches of the obligations set out in the PhD contract.

Appeals are considered by the Appeals Committee at NHH.

Section 4-3 Enforced termination in connection with cheating on examinations or tests during the PhD programme

The Appeals Committee at NHH can annul an examination or test during the PhD programme in the event of cheating, cf. the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges Section 4-7. Appeals are considered by the Joint Appeals Committee for Student Affairs, cf. the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges Section 5-1 and regulations issued pursuant to the Act.

If the matter or matters are sufficiently serious to be considered misconduct, cf. the Act relating to Universities and Colleges section 4-13(1), cf. the Act concerning the Organisation of Work on Ethics and Integrity in Research Section 8 second paragraph, the Vice Rector for Research may decide to enforce termination of the PhD programme, cf. Section 4-4 below.

Section 4-4 Enforced termination in connection with misconduct etc.

The Vice Rector for Research may decide to enforce termination of the PhD programme if a candidate commits:

-          academic misconduct, cf. the Act relating to Universities and Colleges section 4-13(1), cf. the Act concerning the Organisation of Work on Ethics and Integrity in Research Section 8 second paragraph

-          criminal offences related to the completion of the PhD programme

-          other conduct that violates the trust that must exist between NHH and the PhD candidate during the programme.

Appeals against such decisions are considered by the Ministry or a special appeals committee appointed by the Ministry.

Section 4-5 Termination of the employment relationship

The employment relationship of a PhD candidate employed by NHH can be terminated pursuant to the Government Employee Act Section 17(3).

Section 4-6 – Termination of the study period before the end of the contract period

Voluntary and enforced termination of the PhD programme pursuant to Chapter 4 will also entail termination of the study period, cf. Section 2-5.

CHAPTER 5 – THE PHD PROGRAMME

Section 5-1 The right to academic supervision

The PhD candidate is entitled to supervision during the contract period.

No supervision can be expected after the contract period has expired, cf. Section 2-4.

The Vice Rector for Research can, in exceptional cases and at the department’s proposal, decide to extend the supervision period.

Section 5-2 Appointment of academic supervisors

At the proposal of the department, the Vice Rector for Research appoints a supervision committee consisting of at least two members, one of whom must be the candidate's principal supervisor. The principal supervisor shall chair the committee.

At least one member of the committee must be an NHH employee. At least one member of the committee should be a person who is not employed by NHH in a full-time position. All the supervisors must hold a doctoral degree or equivalent qualification in the relevant field and be active researchers. At least one of the appointed supervisors should have previous experience of and/or be trained as a supervisor for PhD candidates. The impartiality rules set out in the Public Administration Act Chapter II ‘Concerning disqualification’ (Sections 6–10) apply to academic supervisors.

The PhD candidate or supervisor may ask for a new supervisor to be appointed for the candidate. If it is desirable or necessary to replace the principal supervisor/committee, the matter must be submitted to the Vice Rector for Research with the department’s input. The Vice Rector for Research will make a decision in the matter. The supervisor may not withdraw until a new supervisor has been appointed. The parties can bring disputes concerning the academic rights and obligations of the supervisor and candidate before the Vice Rector for Research for consideration and decision.

Section 5-3 The content of supervision

Work on the doctoral thesis shall be carried out under individual supervision. The Vice Rector for Research and the supervisors together shall ensure that the PhD candidate participates in an active research community.

The supervisors shall give advice on formulating and delimiting the subject and research questions, discuss and assess hypotheses and methodology, discuss the results and their interpretation, discuss the structure and implementation of the presentation, including the outline, language, documentation etc., and provide guidance on how to navigate the specialist literature and data available in libraries, archives etc. The supervisors shall also advise the candidate on research ethics issues related to the doctoral thesis.

Regular contact between the candidate and supervisors is recommended. Supervisors are responsible for following up their candidate's academic development.

The supervisors are required to keep up to date on the progress of the candidate’s work and to assess it in relation to the plan of progression in the PhD contract. The supervisors are required to follow up academic matters that may cause a delay in the candidate’s progress so that the candidate can complete the PhD programme within the nominal length of study.

Section 5-4 The purpose and content of the training component

All applicants admitted to the PhD programme must complete the training component. The training component shall comprise courses or seminars corresponding to at least 45 credits.

This training, in combination with the research work, is intended to contribute to the achievement of the expected learning outcomes in accordance with the national qualifications framework. The Vice Rector for Research is responsible for ensuring that the training component provides education of high international academic quality.

The training component shall be completed in accordance with the candidate's PhD contract. The training component must be completed and approved prior to submission of the thesis.

Section 5-5 Implementation of the training component

The training can take the form of regular lectures or seminars, short intensive gatherings, or any other form approved by the Vice Rector for Research. In instances where no suitable courses are available, the Vice Rector for Research may approve a course of supervised individual self-study as part of the training component.

If NHH does not provide the whole training component, arrangements must be made to facilitate the candidate receiving corresponding training at other institutions that provide approved PhD education. Courses at PhD level taken at another institution must be recognised by the Vice Rector for Research, cf. the Act Relating to Universities and Colleges Section 3-5 first paragraph.

The Vice Rector for Research may grant exemption from participation in parts of the training component if corresponding requirements have been met prior to admission. Elements that are to form part of the academic training component should not be older than two years on the date of admission. At least 20 credits should be taken after admission.

Section 5-6 Requirements for the training component

It must be documented that the candidate has acquired the necessary academic knowledge. Such documentation can be provided in the form of compulsory practical exercises, written or oral tests, lectures, seminar presentations, written work or any other form approved by the Vice Rector for Research.

Requirements may be stipulated for certain grades to be achieved in the training component. These grade requirements will be set out in the PhD contract entered into.

A candidate is normally allowed up to two examination attempts for doctoral degree courses. Applications for further examination attempts are decided by the Vice Rector for Research.

Section 5-7 Requirements for the thesis

The thesis must be an independent piece of scientific research that meets international standards with regard to ethical requirements, academic level and the methodology used in the field. The thesis shall contribute to developing new knowledge and maintain an academic standard that would justify publication as part of the research-based knowledge development in the field.

The thesis may consist of a monograph or a compilation of several scholarly articles. If a thesis consists of several articles, an explanation of how they are related will be required.

A part of a joint work may be accepted, also as one of several works, provided that it represents an independent contribution that can be identified. In cases where the candidate is not the sole author, declarations of co-authorship must be obtained from the other authors for the purpose of identifying and documenting the candidate's contribution. The PhD candidate is responsible for obtaining these declarations of co-authorship. If a thesis consists entirely of joint works, the candidate should be the principal author or contributor of at least half of them.

The thesis must be written in English, unless special permission has been granted to use another language, cf. Section 2-2.

Section 5-8 Work that cannot be accepted

Works or parts of works that have been approved as the basis for previous examinations or degrees may not be accepted unless it forms a minor part of a thesis consisting of several related pieces of work. Data, analyses or methods from previous degrees may nevertheless be used as a basis for work on the PhD project, provided that they form the basis for new knowledge that emerges in the PhD thesis.

Published work cannot be accepted as part of the thesis if, on the date of admission, it is older than five years reckoned from the date of publication. The Vice Rector for Research may grant a dispensation from this requirement if special circumstances so indicate.

A thesis may only be submitted for evaluation at one educational institution, cf. Section 6-2.

CHAPTER 6 – SUBMISSION

Section 6-1 Basis for evaluation

The PhD degree is awarded on the basis of:

-          an approved academic thesis

-          approved completion of the training component

-          an approved trial lecture on a prescribed topic

-          approved public defence of the thesis (disputation).

Section 6-2 Submission and application for evaluation

It is the responsibility of the principal supervisor to notify the department and Vice Rector for Research that submission is imminent so that the necessary preparations can be initiated.

The application for evaluation of the thesis cannot be submitted until the training component has been approved.

The following must be enclosed with the application

-          the thesis, in an approved format and in accordance with the applicable provisions at NHH, and in the form and number of copies decided by NHH

-          documentation of required permits, cf. Section 2-2

-          declarations of co-authorship, if required pursuant to Section 5-7

-          a declaration stating whether the PhD work is being submitted for evaluation for the first or second time

-          a declaration stating that the PhD work has not been submitted for evaluation at another institution.

Section 6-3 Consideration of applications for evaluation

The Vice Rector for Research considers applications for evaluation of the PhD thesis. Applications that do not meet the requirements in Section 6-2 must be rejected.

The Vice Rector for Research can reject applications for evaluation of theses on an independent basis if it is obvious that the thesis is not of sufficient academic quality and will not be approved by a committee.

If the thesis meets the requirements for evaluation, it will be sent to an evaluation committee, which will make a recommendation, cf. Chapter 7.

NHH must endeavour to keep the period from submission until the public defence as short as possible. Normally, no more than five months should elapse between the submission and the public defence of a thesis.

Section 6-4 Withdrawal and reworking

Once submitted, a work cannot be withdrawn until a final decision has been made as to whether it is worthy of a public defence for a PhD degree.

The PhD candidate may apply for permission to correct formal errors in the thesis after submission. A complete list of the errors (errata) that the candidate wants to correct must be enclosed with the application. An application for correction of formal errors must be submitted no later than four weeks before the deadline for submission of the committee’s recommendation, and the candidate may only apply once.

Section 6-5 Appointment of the evaluation committee

The evaluation committee will assess the thesis, the trial lecture and the public defence of the thesis. The composition of the committee shall normally be as follows:

-          the committee shall consist of at least three members

-          both genders shall be represented

-          at least one of the committee members shall not be affiliated to NHH

-          at least one of the committee members shall not hold a principal position at a Norwegian institution

-          all members of the committee shall hold doctoral degrees or an equivalent qualification

-          the majority of the committee shall consist of external members

-          supervisors and others who have made significant contributions to the thesis may not be appointed to or chair the evaluation committee

-          the impartiality rules set out in the Public Administration Act Section 6 apply to the committee members.

Special grounds must be given if the above criteria are to be departed from.

The department in question submits a proposal for the composition of the committee, including who should chair it. This proposal should normally be ready by the time the thesis is submitted.

After the Vice Rector for Research has approved the application for evaluation of the thesis, he or she appoints the evaluation committee and the chair of the committee in accordance with the proposal from the candidate’s department. If necessary, the Vice Rector for Research may appoint a replacement member to the evaluation committee.

The candidate shall be informed of the composition of the evaluation committee and is entitled to appeal against it within one week after the committee's composition was made known to the candidate.

CHAPTER 7 – THE evaluation COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION AND ITS PROCESSING

Section 7-1 Obtaining supplementary information

The evaluation committee may demand that the PhD candidate's source material be submitted, as well as supplementary or clarifying information.

The evaluation committee may ask the supervisor to provide an account of the supervision and work on the thesis.

Section 7-2 The evaluation committee's recommendation

The evaluation committee submits a recommendation on whether the work is worthy of a public defence for the PhD degree. Grounds shall be given for the recommendation and any dissenting opinions.

The evaluation committee can recommend one of the following alternatives:

1. The committee finds the thesis worthy of a public defence.
2. The committee may recommend that the Vice Rector for Research grant permission for minor revisions before making its final recommendation. The committee must provide a specific written overview stating what the candidate needs to rework.
3. If the committee finds that fundamental changes as regards theory, hypothesis, material or methods are required for the work to be recommended as worthy of a public defence, the committee must reject the thesis.

The evaluation committee’s recommendation shall normally be ready no later than three months after the committee received the thesis, unless the Vice Rector for Research decides otherwise. If the evaluation committee permits revision of the thesis, the new deadline runs from the date when the thesis is re-submitted.

The evaluation committee’s recommendation is sent to the Vice Rector for Research, who presents it to the PhD candidate and the management of the department that the candidate has been affiliated to. The candidate will be given a deadline of ten working days to submit written comments on the recommendation. If the candidate does not wish to submit comments, the Vice Rector for Research shall be notified of this in writing as soon as possible. Any comments from the PhD candidate shall be sent to the Vice Rector for Research.

Section 7-3 Procedure for unanimous recommendations

If the committee’s recommendation is unanimous and the Vice Rector for Research finds that he/she can base his/her decision on the unanimous recommendation, the Vice Rector for Research will make his/her decision in accordance with the recommendation.

If the Vice Rector for Research finds that there is reason to doubt whether the decision can be based on the committee's unanimous recommendation, the Vice Rector for Research shall seek further clarification from the evaluation committee and/or appoint two new experts to submit individual statements about the thesis. Such supplementary statements or individual statements shall be submitted to the PhD candidate, who will be given the opportunity to submit comments. The Vice Rector for Research will make a decision in the case on the basis of the recommendation and statements obtained.

The PhD candidate and the management of the department that the candidate has been affiliated to will be notified in writing of the Vice Rector for Research’s decision as to whether the PhD thesis is worthy of a public defence.

Section 7-4 Procedure for non-unanimous recommendations

If the committee’s recommendation is not unanimous and the Vice Rector for Research finds that he/she can base his/her decision on the majority’s statement, the Vice Rector for Research will make his/her decision in accordance with the majority recommendation.

If the committee’s recommendation is not unanimous and the Vice Rector for Research is considering basing his/her decision on the minority's statement, the Vice Rector for Research may seek further clarification from the evaluation committee and/or appoint two new experts to submit individual statements about the thesis. These statements shall be submitted to the PhD candidate, who will be given the opportunity to submit comments. The Vice Rector for Research will then make a decision in the matter on the basis of the recommendation and statements obtained.

The PhD candidate and the management of the department that the candidate has been affiliated to will be notified in writing of the Vice Rector for Research’s decision.

CHAPTER 8 – THESIS NOT FOUND WORTHY OF A PUBLIC DEFENCE FOR THE PHD DEGREE

Section 8-1 Resubmission

A PhD thesis that is not found worthy of a public defence cannot be assessed in a reworked version until six months have elapsed since the Vice Rector for Research's decision. A thesis can only be reassessed once.

On resubmission, the PhD candidate must state that the work has been assessed previously and was not found worthy of a public defence. The final deadline for resubmission is two years from the date of the decision to not approve the thesis. The Vice Rector for Research may grant dispensations from this deadline.

In such case, the Vice Rector for Research will appoint a new evaluation committee, and at least one member from the original committee should be re-appointed.

Section 8-2 Reworking of submitted theses

If the Vice Rector for Research permits minor reworking of a thesis, a deadline must be set that should normally not be longer than three months. In such case, the Vice Rector for Research will appoint a new evaluation committee, and at least one member from the original committee should be re-appointed. A new deadline for submission of the committee’s final recommendation should also be set in accordance with Section 7-2. The PhD candidate may not appeal decisions made by the Vice Rector for Research pursuant to this section.

CHAPTER 9 – THESIS FOUND WORTHY OF A PUBLIC DEFENCE FOR THE PHD DEGREE

Section 9-1 Publication of the thesis

The thesis shall be publicly available no later than two weeks before the date of the public defence. The thesis is made available in the form in which it was submitted for evaluation, with any reworking based on the committee’s preliminary comments included, cf. Section 8-2.

The PhD candidate must submit an abstract of the thesis in English and Norwegian no later than two weeks before the date of the public defence. If the thesis is written in a language other than English or Norwegian, the abstract must also be submitted in the language of the thesis. The abstract will be made public in the same way as the thesis itself.

No restrictions may be imposed on the publication of a doctoral thesis, with the exception of a deferral of publication agreed in advance. Publication may be deferred to allow NHH and any external parties who have funded the research in whole or in part to make decisions relating to patents. The external party may not demand that all or part of a doctoral thesis shall not be published, cf. Section 2-3.

PhD candidates must comply with the current guidelines for crediting institutions when publishing their thesis. As a rule, an institution shall be listed as the address in a publication if the institution has provided an essential and significant contribution to or basis for an author’s contribution to the published work. The same author shall also list other institutions as addresses if they fulfil the requirement related to contribution in each individual case.

Section 9-2 Duty to report work results with a commercial potential

The rights of partner institutions must be set out in an agreement between the institutions.

NHH’s regulations in force at all times shall form the basis for determining the duty to report that applies to PhD candidates employed by NHH as regards work results with a commercial potential produced in the course of the employment relationship.

For PhD candidates with an external employer, the corresponding duty to report shall be set out in an agreement between NHH, the PhD candidate and the external employer.

For PhD candidates without an external employer, the corresponding duty to report shall be set out in the PhD contract between NHH and the PhD candidate.

Section 9-3 Trial lecture

If the thesis is found worthy of a public defence for the PhD degree, cf. Sections 7-3 and 7-4, the PhD candidate must give a trial lecture. The title of the trial lecture will be announced to the PhD candidate ten working days before the lecture.

The trial lecture is an independent part of the doctoral degree examination and must be held on a specified topic. The purpose of the trial lecture is to test the candidate's ability to acquire knowledge beyond the thesis topic and his/her ability to communicate this knowledge in a lecture. The topic of the trial lecture shall not have a direct connection to the specific topic of the thesis.

The trial lecture will normally take place in connection with the public defence of the thesis, and the evaluation committee sets the topic for the trial lecture and assesses the lecture. If the trial lecture is not held in connection with the public defence, the Vice Rector for Research can appoint a separate committee to set the topic for the trial lecture. In such cases, at least one member of the evaluation committee must be appointed to the trial lecture committee.

The trial lecture shall take place in the language in which the thesis is written, unless the Vice Rector for Research consents to another language being used.

The evaluation committee decides whether or not the candidate has passed the trial lecture. Grounds must be given if it is recommended that the trial lecture be failed.

Candidates must have passed their trial lecture before the public defence of the thesis can take place.

Section 9-4 Public defence of the thesis (disputation)

The public defence of the thesis shall take place after the trial lecture has been held and approved, and normally within two months after the Vice Rector for Research has found the thesis to be worthy of a public defence.

The time and place of the public defence must be announced at least ten working days in advance.

The same committee that assessed the thesis shall also assess its public defence. The public defence of the thesis shall take place in the language in which the thesis is written, unless the Vice Rector for Research consents to another language being used.

The public defence will be chaired by the Vice Rector for Research or a person authorised by him/her. The public defence takes the form of a discussion of the thesis between the members of the evaluation committee and the doctoral candidate. The defence chair will give a brief account of the submission and evaluation of the thesis and of the trial lecture. The doctoral candidate then explains the purpose and results of the scientific study. The defence chair decides the order and division of tasks in consultation with the evaluation committee. Any other persons present who wish to oppose ex auditorio must notify the defence chair at the public defence by the time set by him/her. They will be given the opportunity to comment ex auditorio after the evaluation committee has concluded its discussion. The defence chair concludes the public defence.

As soon as possible and no later than two weeks after the public defence, the evaluation committee will submit a report to the Vice Rector for Research in which it describes its evaluation of the thesis, the trial lecture and the public defence of the thesis. The report must contain a conclusion as to whether the examinations as a whole are approved or not approved.

Section 9-5 Approval of doctoral degree examinations

The Vice Rector for Research makes decisions concerning approval of doctoral degree examinations based on the evaluation committee's recommendation.

If the evaluation committee does not approve the trial lecture, another trial lecture must be held. The new trial lecture must be given on a new subject, and no later than six months after the first attempt. Candidates are only given one attempt at a new trial lecture. If possible, the trial lecture should be assessed by the same committee that assessed the original trial lecture, unless otherwise decided by the Vice Rector for Research.

If the evaluation committee does not approve the public defence of the thesis, the PhD-candidate can be given one more attempt. Another public defence cannot take place until six months have elapsed since the first one, and, if possible, it should be assessed by the same committee that assessed the original public defence.

Section 9-6 Conferment and diploma

Based on the Vice Rector for Research’s report that the training component, the thesis and the doctoral degree examinations have been approved, the degree of Philosophiae Doctor will be conferred on the candidate.

A diploma is issued by NHH. The diploma must contain information about the thesis title, the topic of the trial lecture, the name of the supervisors, and about the academic training that the candidate has completed.

NHH shall issue a Diploma Supplement to the doctoral degree diploma in accordance with the applicable guidelines.

CHAPTER 10 – APPEAL PROCEDURES

Section 10-1 Appeals against rejection of applications for admission, decisions to terminate the study period, and rejection of applications for approval of elements of the training component

Rejection of applications for admission, decisions on termination of admission, and rejection of applications for approval of elements of the training component can be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Public Administration Act Section 28 ff.

Appeals must give grounds for the appeal, and are to be addressed to the Vice Rector for Research attn. the Office of Research Administration. The Vice Rector for Research can overturn or change the decision if he/she finds the appeal to be justified. Otherwise, the appeal will be forwarded to the Appeals Committee at NHH for a final decision.

If the Vice Rector for Research or the Appeals Committee finds reason to do so, a committee or individuals can be appointed to evaluate the assessment and the criteria on which it was based, or to carry out a new or supplementary expert assessment.

Section 10-2 Appeals against examinations in the training component

Examinations taken as part of the training component can be appealed pursuant to the Act relating to Universities and University Colleges of 1 April 2005, Section 5-3 ‘Complaints regarding marks awarded - right to explanation’ and Section 5-2 ‘Complaints against procedural errors in connection with examinations’.

The Vice Rector for Research can overturn or change the decision if he/she finds an appeal against formal errors in connection with examinations to be justified. Otherwise, the appeal will be forwarded to the Appeals Committee at NHH for a final decision.

Section 10-3 Appeals against rejection of application for assessment and rejection of a thesis, trial lecture or public defence

Rejection of an application for assessment of a thesis and decisions not to approve a thesis, trial lecture or public defence of the thesis can be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Public Administration Act Section 28 ff.

Appeals must give grounds for the appeal, and are to be addressed to the Vice Rector for Research attn. the Office of Research Administration. The Vice Rector for Research can overturn or change the decision if he/she finds the appeal to be justified. Otherwise, the appeal will be forwarded to the Appeals Committee at NHH for a final decision.

If the Vice Rector for Research or the Appeals Committee finds reason to do so, a committee or individuals can be appointed to evaluate the assessment and the criteria on which it was based, or to carry out a new or supplementary expert assessment.

Section 10-4 Appeals against other breaches

Decisions relating to other breaches of the PhD contract can be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the Public Administration Act Section 28 ff.

Appeals must give grounds for the appeal, and are to be addressed to the Vice Rector for Research attn. the Office of Research Administration. The Vice Rector for Research can overturn or change the decision if he/she finds the appeal to be justified. Otherwise, the appeal will be forwarded to the Appeals Committee at NHH for a final decision.

CHAPTER 11 – JOINT DEGREES AND COTUTELLE AGREEMENTS

Section 11-1 Joint degrees

NHH can enter into partnerships with one or more Norwegian or foreign institutions for the purpose of collaboration in the form of joint degrees.

By joint degree is meant a collaboration between several institutions in which they are all jointly responsible for admission, supervision, awarding degrees and other tasks described in these regulations. The collaboration is normally organised as a consortium and regulated in an agreement between the partners. Once a candidate has completed a joint degree, a joint diploma will be issued in the form of: a) a diploma issued by all members of the consortium, b) one diploma from each member of the consortium, or a combination of the two.

Joint degrees should normally only be entered into if an established and stable academic cooperation relationship already exists between NHH and at least one of the other participants in the consortium. The Vice Rector for Research will adopt more detailed guidelines for joint degrees, including a collaboration agreement template.

Collaboration agreements for joint degrees may make exemptions from other provisions of these regulations if required by the regulations of the partner institutions. Such exemptions must be deemed fully justifiable, both individually and as a whole.

NHH’s qualification requirements for admission, the requirement that the thesis must be publicly available, and the requirement for public defence of the thesis with an impartial assessment committee cannot be waived.

Section 11-2 Cotutelle agreements

NHH can enter into partnerships with one or more Norwegian or foreign institutions for the purpose of collaboration in the form of cotutelle agreements.

By cotutelle agreements is meant joint academic supervision of PhD candidates and collaboration on the education of PhD candidates. Cotutelle agreements are entered into for each individual candidate and should be based on stable academic cooperation between the institutions.

Cotutelle agreements may make exemptions from other provisions of these regulations if required by the regulations of the partner institutions. Such exemptions must be deemed fully justifiable, both individually and as a whole.

NHH’s qualification requirements for admission, the requirement that the thesis must be publicly available, and the requirement for public defence of the thesis with an impartial assessment committee cannot be waived.

CHAPTER 12 – ENTRY INTO FORCE

Section 12-1 Entry into force

These regulations enter into force with immediate effect.

As of the same date, Regulations No 4889 of 26 April 2007 for the Philosophiae Doctor (PhD) degree at the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration (NHH) are repealed.