№1, 2019


Rasim M. Alguliyev, Ramiz M. Aliguliyev, Rahila Sh. Hasanova

The article explores the international practice regarding the assessment of dissertation works. A method is proposed for automated assessment of dissertation works. In this regard, algorithms are developed for the automation of pre-examination. This method allows to determine the similarity of essential parts of the dissertation (the goal of dissertation, its tasks, chapters, obtained results, and published papers) automatically. For this porpose text mining technology that allows to define the semantic proximity of the texts is applied. An assesment is given to determine the accordance between proposed method and expert assessment (pp.3-15).

Keywords: dissertation thesis, text mining, automated assesment, expert assesment, fuzzy evaluation.
  • Селетков С.Г. Соискателю ученой степени // Ижевский гос. техн. университет, 1999, 174 с. 
  • Кузин Ф.А. Кандидатская диссертация. Методика написания, правила оформления и порядок защиты: Практическое пособие для аспирантов и соискателей ученой степени. 6-е изд., доп., М.: Ось-89, 2004, 224 с.
  • Phillips E.M., Pugh D.S. How to Get a PhD: A handbook for students and their supervisors. USA: Open University Press, 2005, 234 p.  http://library.ciitlahore.edu.pk/hub/How_to_get_PhD.pdf
  • Bird J. Black students and higher education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press 1996.
  • Wason P.C. Notes on the supervision of PhDs. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 1974, vol.27, pp.25–29.
  • Salmon P. Achieving a PhD: Ten Students’ Experience. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books, 1992.
  • Rugg G., Petre M. The Unwritten Rules of PhD Research. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2004.
  • Murray R. How to Write a Thesis. Buckingham: Open University Press, 2002.
  • Kiley M., Mullins G. Examining the examiners: How inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses // International Journal of Educational Research, 2005, vol.41, no.2, pp.121–35.
  • Holbrook A., Bourke S., Lovat T. Investigating PhD thesis examination reports // International Journal of Educational Research, 2004, pp 98–120.
  • Denicolo P. Assessing the PhD: A constructive view of criteria // Quality Assurance in Education, 2003, vol.11, no.2, pp.84-91.
  • Wright T. Cochrane R. Factors influencing successful submission of PhD theses // Studies in Higher Education, 2000, vol.2, no.25, pp.181–195.
  • Kyvik S. Assessment procedures of Norwegian PhD theses as viewed by examiners from the USA, the UK and Sweden // Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2014, vol.39, no.2, pp.140–53.
  • Aittola H. Doctoral Education and Doctoral Theses – Changing Assessment Practices. Cultural Perspectives on Higher Education, 2008, pp.161–177.
  • Aittola H. Academic life and the pressure of massification. In Välimaa J. (ed.) Finnish higher education in transition. Perspectives on massification and globalisation. University of Jyväskylä: Institute for Educational Research 2001, pp.111–138.
  • Mullins G, Kiley M. It’s a PhD, not a Nobel Prize: How experienced examiners assess research theses // Studies in Higher Education, 2002, vol.27, no.4, pp.369–386.
  • Hagen NT. Deconstructing doctoral dissertations: How many papers does it take to make a PhD? // Scientometrics, 2010, vol.85, no.2, pp.567–579.
  • Kyvik S, Thune T. Assessing the quality of PhD dissertations. A survey of external committee members // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2015, vol.40, no.5, pp.768–782.
  • Bourke S, Holbrook AP. Examining PhD and research masters theses // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2013, vol.38, no.4, pp.407–416.