Skip to main content

Extraordinary Research Degree Outcomes Policy

1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this policy is to explain how extraordinary research degree outcomes will be handled at Birkbeck, University of London (hereafter referred to as ‘the University’ or Birkbeck’).

1.2 This policy has been written: to provide a clear and defined process to ensure rigor and consistency in the following circumstances which occasionally arise as a result of research degree examinations; and to inform the basis for any suspension of regulations that may be required.

1.3 For the avoidance of doubt these procedures only apply to the formal research degree examination process once a viva has been carried out.

1.4 This policy does not change the availability of right to appeal a research degree outcome in line with the current University policy for appeals.

2. Candidate unable to submit a revised thesis by the deadline set for a conditional pass or a resubmission

2.1 The research degree examination outcomes allow for significant time for a candidate to complete revisions required for a conditional pass.

2.2 A candidate who is unable to meet the deadline due to unforeseen circumstances must notify the Birkbeck Graduate Research School (BGRS) at the earliest possible opportunity and in advance of the deadline.

2.3 Requests for an extension will only be considered if the candidate can provide evidence that the circumstances were genuinely beyond their control, were unforeseeable and will prevent them from completing the required amendments on time.

2.4 Any request for an extension may only be sought for additional time that is proportionate to the impact of unforeseen circumstances.

2.5 In order to be approved any extension to the deadline will require a formal Suspension of Regulations following the standard University procedure.

3. Examiners propose major amendments after resubmission

3.1 The research degree regulations do not include an outcome of major amendments for a candidate who has been given a resubmission outcome.

3.2 If the examiners have assessed the resubmitted thesis and judged that the candidate will only be able to satisfy the requirements for award if they are offered a conditional pass with major amendments, they may request this option to be considered as an exceptional outcome.

3.3 Any request to allow major amendments following examiner assessment of a resubmitted thesis will require a formal Suspension of Regulations following the standard University procedure. Examiners not satisfied that the amendments required for a conditional pass have been made by the candidate

4. Examiners not satisfied that the amendments required for a conditional pass have been made

4.1 If a candidate has met the deadline set for completion of revisions following a conditional pass, but the examiners agree that the necessary amendments have not been satisfied, this procedure will be followed. The examiners must be confident that any outstanding amendments are essential and are required in order to satisfy the criteria for the award.

4.2 The examiners will be asked to confirm their view on whether the candidate is capable of completing any outstanding amendments within a deadline set by them; or whether they consider the candidate is not capable of completing the changes that were specified.

4.3 Examiners consider that the candidate will be able to complete the outstanding amendments with an extension to the time allowed to complete them

  • 4.3.1 The examiners will be asked to report which of the required amendments have not been met with reference to the reports that were provided when the conditional pass was agreed.
  • 4.3.2 The examiners will be asked to confirm the appropriate period they consider required to complete essential outstanding amendments; up to a maximum of three months.
  • 4.3.3 Any request for an extension to the deadline for a conditional pass will require a formal Suspension of Regulations following the standard University procedure.

4.4 Examiners consider that the candidate is unable or unwilling to complete the outstanding amendments and that they do not support an extension

  • 4.4.1 In this situation the basis for the conditional pass will not have been met and a way to resolve the situation will need to be reached.
  • 4.4.2 The case will be raised by the BGRS for discussion with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange will ask a Head of Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange to arrange an initial meeting with the examiners in order to establish the reason(s) for the failure of the candidate to satisfy any amendments specified for a conditional pass. This initial meeting should be organised by the Head of Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange within 14 days.
  • 4.4.3 The BGRS will attend in order to provide guidance about the relevant research degree regulations.
  • 4.4.4 The examiners will be asked to consider whether, on the basis of the revised thesis, any of the standard research degree outcomes could be recommended. If they consider any of the outcomes available to them at the point of the original examination to be appropriate, they will be asked to complete an updated joint report which explains which aspects of their amendments have been completed and which remain outstanding, and to identify an updated outcome with reference to the research degree regulations.
  • 4.4.5 Following the meeting the Head of Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange will write a brief summary report.
  • 4.4.6.The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange will be informed of the recommended outcome and will be provided with:
    • the original examiner reports
    • the updated joint report from the examiners
    • the report from the initial meeting with the Head of RIKE.

4.4.7 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research will decide whether the research degree examination outcome recommended by the examiners is appropriate and if so this outcome will be communicated to the candidate.

5.1 Route for escalation to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange:

  • 5.1.1 Once a research degree viva has taken place the examiners are required to submit a joint report and a 1EX examination outcome form to confirm their agreed recommendation. In the rare situation that the examiners are unable to unanimously agree an examination outcome during the viva, the following procedure will be followed.
  • 5.1.2 The BGRS will establish whether there is any procedural question requiring further clarity and will advise about available outcomes for the examiners to consider.
  • 5.1.3 However, if it becomes clear that the Examiners are unable to reach agreement about the examination outcome as a result of differences in academic judgement, each examiner will be asked to prepare an independent final report and 1EX form and forward these to the BGRS.
  • 5.1.4 The BGRS will raise the case for discussion with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange will ask a Head of Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange to arrange an initial meeting with the Examiners in order to establish the reason(s) for the failure to reach agreement about the outcome and whether there is a way to reach consensus between the appointed examiners.

5.2 Initial meeting with Examiners:

  • 5.2.1 The initial meeting should be organised by the Head of Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange within 14 days.
  • 5.2.2 The BGRS will attend in order to present available outcomes based on the relevant research degree regulations.
  • 5.2.3 After the initial meeting the Head of Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange will write a report explaining whether any resolution could be reached.
  • 5.2.4 Where the matter falls within the scope of another University policy (e.g. Research Misconduct, Research Ethics etc.) the relevant University policy shall take precedence and be followed.

5.3 Initial meeting resolves the disagreement

  • 5.3.1 If the disagreement between the examiners is resolved in the initial meeting, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange will consider approving continuation of the examination process on the basis of the examiners’ agreed outcome.

5.4 Initial attempt to resolve the disagreement between Examiners unsuccessful

  • 5.4.1 If following the initial meeting there is evidence that the examiners’ failure to reach agreement is a result of irreconcilable differences in their academic judgements about the candidate’s work, an Independent Examiner will be appointed to assess the thesis.
  • 5.4.2 The original Examiners will take no further direct role in the examination process. However, the original reports and their reasons for not being able to reach an agreed outcome will be taken into account where it is appropriate to do so.
  • 5.4.3 The Independent Examiner will be identified by an expert in the relevant discipline who has not previously been involved in the examination process. Once identified the Independent Examiner will be considered by the Research Strategy Group using the standard nomination of examiners procedure.
  • 5.4.4 Independent Examiners must meet the usual requirements for nomination of examiners and have very well established prior experience of examining UK degrees at doctoral level.
  • 5.4.5 The Independent Examiner will be informed that the previous Examiners failed to settle on an agreed examination outcome. They will also be told whether the disagreement concerned a first viva attempt or whether it followed a resubmission.
  • 5.4.6 If it is the candidate’s first examination attempt which has resulted in disagreement between the Examiners, copies of the Examiners’ reports and/or details of the disputed outcome will not be shared with the Independent Examiner in order that an unbiased judgement may be made.
  • 5.4.7 Where disagreement between Examiners occurs in respect of a resubmission examination outcome the Independent Examiner will review the re-submitted thesis alongside the joint final report of the original Examiners from the candidate’s first viva examination. However, independent final reports of the original Examiners that refer to the disputed re-submission outcome and/ or details of the disagreement will not be shared with the Independent Examiner in order that an unbiased judgement may be made.
  • 5.4.8 The Independent Examiner will be provided with the same version of the thesis that was assessed by the original examiners and will be asked to consider it in accordance with the relevant research degree regulations. The Independent Examiner must read the thesis and prepare an independent report giving their view on the submission.
  • 5.4.9 The Independent Examiner will be asked to confirm whether in their assessment of the thesis they would be able to recommend any of the outcomes available to the original examiners. In order to communicate their opinion they will be asked to write a report on their assessment of the thesis and asked to complete the 1EX research degree outcome form which includes the outcomes available to the original examiners.
  • 5.4.10 The Independent Examiner’s report must be submitted to the BGRS within two months of receiving the candidate’s thesis.
  • 5.4.11 The Independent Examiner’s report must not be disclosed to or discussed with the candidate or the supervisors until the examiner’s appraisal of the thesis is complete.

5.5 Independent Examiner able to recommend an outcome without the need for an additional viva:

  • 5.5.1 If the Independent Examiner is able to reach a recommendation without a viva examination being required, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange will determine whether an adjudicated research degree outcome can be agreed.
  • 5.5.2 The Independent Examiner report and recommended outcome will be considered by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange in conjunction with:
  • the original examiner reports
  • the case report from the initial meeting with the Head of Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange.
  • 5.5.3 The Independent Examiner’s report and any agreed requirements will be shared with the candidate and their supervisors by the BGRS when the assessment process has been completed.

5.6 Independent Examiner requires additional clarification:

  • 5.6.1 If the Independent Examiner is unable to reach a recommendation without further clarification about the work an interview with the candidate may be arranged. This interview will take place in the presence of an Independent Chair and will be restricted to clarifying points identified by the Independent Examiner.
  • 5.6.2 On conclusion of the interview the Independent Examiner will be asked to report on whether they are able to recommend an examination outcome.
  • 5.6.3 If the Independent Examiner is able to reach a recommendation after interviewing the candidate, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange will determine whether an adjudicated decision about the research degree outcome can be agreed.
  • 5.6.4 The Independent Examiner report and recommended outcome will be considered by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange in conjunction with:
    • the original examiner reports
    • the case report from the initial meeting with the Head of Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange.
  • 5.6.5 The Independent Examiner’s report and any agreed additional requirements will be shared with the candidate and their supervisors by the BGRS when the assessment process has been completed.

5.7 Requirements for amendments:

  • 5.7.1 Any agreement about requirements for amendments to the thesis will be communicated to the candidate once the Independent Examiner’s report has been received and an outcome has been agreed by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange.
  • 5.7.2 Where the independent examiner’s report identifies amendments or corrections required to meet the criteria for the award, the revisions, regardless of their scale or quantity, must be clearly specified and completed to the satisfaction of the Independent Examiner.
  • 5.7.3 Additional requirements drawn from the original examiners’ reports may be required where there is evidence that these are consistent with the independent examiner’s report and would contribute to the overall quality of the thesis.

5.8 Independent Examiner unable to reach a recommendation after interviewing the candidate:

  • 5.8.1 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange will consider whether the research degree examination should be restarted with new examiners appointed.
  • 5.8.2 An Independent Chair will be required to attend the viva if the research degree examination process is restarted.
  • 5.8.3 Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange does not consider it possible to reach an adjudicated research degree outcome
  • 5.8.4 If there is insufficient evidence upon which to agree an adjudicated research degree outcome the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange will consider whether the research degree examination should be restarted with new examiners appointed.
  • 5.8.5 An Independent Chair will be required to attend the viva if the research degree examination process is restarted.

5.9 Withdrawal of the Independent Examiner:

  • 5.9.1 The Independent Examiner must notify the BGRS immediately if at any point they consider that they are unable to fulfill their role effectively, impartially or to the standard required, and wish to withdraw from the appointment.

5.10 Confirmation of the eventual outcome to the original examiners:

  • 5.10.1 Once an outcome has been reached the original examiners will be informed that the University’s examination process has been completed in accordance with this procedure.

Policy review

  • Created: July 2026
  • Latest update: July 2026
  • Date of next review: 2030-31 academic year
  • Owner: Graduate Research School Manager
  • SLT owner: DVC Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange
  • Committee oversight: Research Committee for Academic Board