Recently, Professor Lu Dewen from the School of Sociology at Wuhan University publicly criticized the "malicious review" his doctoral student's thesis received during blind review. This incident quickly drew public attention, with many faculty and students from various universities sharing their experiences of receiving unfair evaluations during blind reviews of theses they supervised or wrote.
In response to the professor's accusations of anonymous review experts being "arrogant, judgmental, and subjectively biased," the relevant school stated that they are aware of the situation and have intervened, reporting it to the university.
Although the investigation into this incident is still ongoing, with thesis sampling included in the Ministry of Education's 2019 work priorities, universities have started to downplay the importance of "qualified theses," rigorously ensuring the quality of theses, and gradually releasing university-level blind review methods to enhance the strictness of thesis blind reviews. This raises the question of whether the current thesis blind review system is reasonable and warrants our attention.
While generally supported, criticisms are increasing. Some argue that the anonymity in thesis blind reviews at some schools is merely a formality; some review experts are not necessarily peers in the field, making it difficult to provide professional judgments on theses; student rights are not given due consideration; students and supervisors are becoming overly cautious in selecting topics, leading to a lack of originality and increasingly mediocre theses; and the system is too rigid and one-size-fits-all in its implementation.
Of particular concern is the anonymous review system for doctoral theses. Currently, domestic universities have significant differences in the specific arrangements for doctoral thesis reviews, but all consider anonymous reviews as a necessary step before defense, placing great emphasis on review opinions, especially negative ones. Therefore, from both a basic academic evaluation perspective and a student rights perspective, graduate training institutions should further improve the anonymous review system for thesis evaluations.
Caution in Using the Power of a Single Veto
Among the various controversies surrounding the anonymous review system for graduate theses, a significant debate revolves around the use of a single veto power.
Currently, different universities in China have varying criteria for grading graduate theses, but generally, regardless of the number of review experts, if one review concludes that the thesis is unsatisfactory, disagrees with the defense, or requires revisions before reevaluation, the applicant may struggle to defend their thesis successfully.
For example, Peking University stipulates that during a doctoral defense, "there should be no fewer than five anonymous reviewers, and if one reviewer holds a negative opinion, an additional reviewer should be appointed." Similarly, the anonymous review system for doctoral students at the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China requires that "out of 5-7 review opinions, if one suggests 're-review after revision' or 'disagreement with defense,' the defense application process should be suspended for at least 3 months."
While it is understandable that training institutions prioritize the quality of graduate theses, why should the weight of a negative opinion outweigh the weight of several positive opinions? Aren't the opinions of the other experts important? This approach seems to contradict basic peer review principles.
In particular, casting a single negative vote may result from pure academic disagreements or conflicts between different schools of thought or supervisors' unfamiliarity with the thesis's field. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that a reviewer's negative opinion is solely due to higher or more objective standards. Yet, this single vote can have a significant impact on students, as the time required for resubmission after revisions or appeals is often lengthy, making it challenging for students to graduate on time.
Admittedly, such situations are rare, but the rights of minority students should not be overlooked. Graduate training institutions should handle the "negative single vote" in thesis blind reviews with caution.
Training Institutions Should Not Abandon Evaluation Rights
Currently, the evaluation of Chinese graduate theses follows a typical "external peer review" model. Apart from substantive evaluations by the applicant's supervisor before submission, other processes and relevant groups often provide only formal evaluations. In other words, training institutions exercise only decision-making and executive powers, with the key reference being the anonymous review opinions.
To some extent, apart from supervisors, training institutions have effectively relinquished their evaluation rights over graduate theses within their own institutions. Ultimately, this stems from a lack of complete trust in the peer review standards and academic ethics within the institution. While the purpose of this system is to prevent non-academic factors from compromising the fairness and impartiality of doctoral thesis evaluations, the question of whether such a one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate warrants further discussion. For example, East China Normal University categorizes blind review results into three types - "pass," "objection," and "fail." For papers with objections, the Degree Evaluation Subcommittee and supervisors discuss and decide on the outcome after considering three specific conclusions - "disagree with the thesis defense," "agree to minor revisions before proceeding with the thesis defense," and "recommend for expert review." This approach respects the opinions of anonymous review experts while retaining the institution's evaluation authority. It aligns with basic peer review rules and maximizes the protection of minority interests.
In summary, whether it's positive or negative feedback, graduate training institutions should pay more attention to the specific content of review comments rather than their conclusive opinions. They should retain the autonomy in evaluation. Relying solely on anonymous review opinions can be seen as a form of negligence and irresponsibility towards academia.
Improving the Appeals Mechanism
Even with protective measures in place, academic disputes over anonymous review opinions are almost inevitable. In the case at hand, the controversy sparked by the professor's criticism of the review expert's opinions also stems from the credibility of the content and the varying conclusions drawn by different individuals.
To address such disputes, graduate training institutions have established corresponding appeals mechanisms. However, many universities still have room for further optimizing their appeals processes.
On one hand, some institutional requirements are overly stringent. For instance, some universities stipulate that only when there is one negative opinion among several excellent ones can a student qualify for an appeal. This was evident in the measures issued by Wuhan University, where a doctoral thesis is reviewed by five experts anonymously, with results showing one "unqualified" and four "excellent" evaluations. Only after approval can a reevaluation be conducted for the former, while those with one "unqualified" evaluation are ineligible for reevaluation and must extend their submission by at least six months after revisions.
Moreover, the demands during the reevaluation process are excessively high. Some universities mandate that only when all evaluations are "excellent" or "good" can a student apply for a defense during reevaluation, surpassing the requirements of the initial defense application.
Both these regulations have their shortcomings. Doctoral thesis evaluations should focus on meeting the minimum requirements rather than striving for excellence. As long as the basic academic standards are met, students should qualify for an appeal.
On the other hand, the current appeals mechanisms in universities lack a human touch. The appeals process is often time-consuming, leading students to miss their original defense schedules even after completing the appeal, necessitating extensions.
To address this issue, universities can enhance the appeals process in two ways. Firstly, by establishing a streamlined appeals process, reducing the time for reevaluation, improving efficiency, and minimizing disruptions to students' graduation. Secondly, by forming an expert committee comprising internal and external scholars to reevaluate theses, which can expedite the appeals process.
Authorities should explore a legal path for the blind review system of doctoral theses to effectively safeguard students' legitimate rights. The nation should fill the regulatory gaps by enhancing relevant laws, regulations, and normative documents. Educational authorities should oversee and manage the blind review of doctoral theses, intensify thesis sampling checks, conduct regular audits of degree-granting programs, and provide practical and effective services for blind reviews. It is crucial to delineate the power boundaries between training institutions and anonymous review experts, with the former holding the authority to evaluate graduate theses while the latter only providing evaluative suggestions.
Furthermore, authorities should establish a database of anonymous review experts to enhance matching accuracy, establish a reverse evaluation and reward-penalty mechanism for the quality of anonymous review expert evaluations.
In conclusion, the awarding of graduate degrees is a public event in academia and a matter of significant personal interest to applicants. Graduate training institutions should uphold quality standards rigorously and ensure the applicants' interests in both system design and implementation, especially when handling negative opinions. Chinese universities should also explore an open review system, allowing academic power to operate transparently under public scrutiny and peer oversight.
(The author is a research fellow at the Human Rights Institute of Southeast University)
