Guidelines for the appointment of doctoral examination committees¶
including special provisions for awarding the distinctions “magna cum laude” and “summa cum laude”
German “Richtlinien für die Einsetzung von Promotionskommissionen” (German PDF): files/BV_NAT_SC_Promotion_Kommissionen_Summa-de.pdf
1. Evaluation criteria (“Bewertung”)¶
Supervisors who log in to DocGS and open the “My Doctoral Candidates” section can now see the “Doctoral Regulations” column in the general overview. This allows them to check at a glance which doctoral regulations apply to each of their candidates.
Doctoral regulations as of October 2021¶
The dissertation is evaluated (“bewertet”) as:
“Passed” // “Bestanden”, or
“Failed” // “Nicht bestanden”
Additionally, the following distinctions (“Prädikate”) may be awarded:
“summa cum laude” (reserved for the best 10% dissertations)
“magna cum laude”
See 3. Special regulations for “summa” procedures and 4. Special regulations for “magna” procedures below.
Doctoral regulations April 2014 – October 2021¶
The dissertation is evaluated as:
“passed with distinction - summa cum laude” // “Mit Auszeichnung bestanden (summa cum laude)” (reserved for the best 10% dissertations)
“Successfully passed” // “Mit Erfolg bestanden”
“Failed” // “Nicht bestanden”
Doctoral candidates who were admitted to the doctoral list before October 2021 may switch to the new doctoral regulations in DocGS until the submission of the dissertation.
After submission of the dissertation, a change is no longer possible.
2. Principles for appointing doctoral examination committees¶
The examination committee is responsible for the doctoral procedure and for the evaluation of the dissertation. In addition to the doctoral regulations, the following rules ensure good scientific practice.
a) Rules on Conflict of Interest (“Befangenheit”)¶
The principles on impartiality (“Befangenheit”) of TUM and the German Research Foundation (DFG) apply in addition to the regulations below.
b) Scientific independence¶
Since the doctoral supervisor (“Doktorvater” oder “Doktormutter”) typically serves as first reviewer and scientific collaboration is expected, joint publications are generally permissible.
To ensure independent evaluation, however, at least one other examiner must:
have no supervisory duties for the doctoral candidate (including past theses),
have no ongoing or completed scientific cooperation with the doctoral candidate,
have no joint or planned publications with the doctoral candidate.
For “summa” procedures, these requirements apply to two examiners.
In cases of uncertainty or justified exceptions (e.g., joint publication without actual supervision or collaboration), all relevant information must be disclosed. The dean decides on the appointment or modification of the committee.
c) External reviewers¶
External reviewers are explicitly encouraged. They strengthen the quality, transparency, and credibility of the procedure.
For “summa” procedures, at least one reviewer must be external, meaning not affiliated with or linked to TUM.
d) Participation of professorial members of the TUM School of Natural Sciences (NAT)¶
The chairperson and at least one examiner must be professorial members of the TUM School of Natural Sciences. This requires an employment relationship with NAT, including:
university professors (including tenure‑track professors)
extraordinary professors (“außerplanmäßige Professorinnen”)
e) Exclusion of professional or personal dependencies¶
(1) Independence and impartiality¶
Committee members must not be in a personal or professional dependency relationship with one another. With the exception of the doctoral supervisor, this also applies to their relationship with the doctoral candidate.
The following are particularly excluded:
joint employment at the same chair/institute
teacher–student or supervisory relationships
close scientific cooperation, e.g., a high number of joint publications within the past six years
kinship, marriage, domestic partnership, or comparable close personal relationships
shared economic interests
(2) Past supervision or employment¶
A past supervisory or employment relationship between committee members is unproblematic if it ended at least six years ago.
(3) Duty of disclosure¶
In cases of doubt, all relevant information must be disclosed. The dean decides on admissibility.
f) Conduct of the oral doctoral examination¶
The examination committee must be fully present at the oral examination. For example, it is not sufficient if only two of three examiners and the chairperson are present.
Additional provisions:
Participation via video conference is permitted for committee members; the access link is sent with the exam announcement.
Individual members may be replaced by other authorized examiners. Changes are decided by the dean; external reviewers may be replaced by TUM examiners.
Changes to examination modalities (e.g., room, date) are only possible after prior consultation with the dean’s office; the dean may be involved where necessary.
3. Special regulations for “summa” procedures¶
The evaluation “summa cum laude” is reserved for dissertations that demonstrate outstanding scientific performance by international standards. It is intended for approximately the top 10% of dissertations.
a) Composition of the committee¶
The committee consists of:
the chairperson, and
three reviewers (Reviews 1–3)
At least one reviewer must be external, meaning not affiliated with TUM.
b) Overall evaluation¶
“Summa cum laude” is only awarded if:
all reviewers independently give this evaluation, and
all examiners rate the oral exam accordingly.
The overall evaluation corresponds to the lowest single evaluation. Thus, lower overall ratings are possible even with several “summa” judgments.
4. Special regulations for “magna” procedures¶
The evaluation “magna cum laude” requires particularly noteworthy scientific achievements.
a) Overall evaluation¶
The principles for overall evaluation in “summa” procedures apply accordingly.