Note: These Regulations are written in both Chinese and English. The Chinese translation will take precedence if there is any discrepancy or disagreement. The English version is for reference only.

No. 82 [2024], HIT Academic Degree Evaluation Committee

Chapter I  General Provisions

Article 1 These Rules are established to strengthen the academic and professional development of master’s students, further standardize the expert evaluation process for theses and practical works, ensure fairness and objectivity in evaluations, and uphold the standards of master’s degree. They are formulated in accordance with the  “Academic Degree Law of the People’s Republic of China” (《中华人民共和国学位法》), “Measures for Degree Conferral of Harbin Institute of Technology” (《哈尔滨工业大学学位授予办法》), and “Rules for Conferral of Master’s and Doctoral Degrees of Harbin Institute of Technology” (《哈尔滨工业大学硕士博士学位授予工作实施细则》), and other relevant regulations.

Article 2 The academic degree evaluation subcommittees should organize expert evaluations of degree candidates' master's theses or practical works prior to the thesis defense.

Chapter II  Evaluation Procedures

Article 3 Academic and professional degrees must be evaluated separately. Expert evaluations will be conducted either through a third-party platform or HIT Graduate Education Management System.

Article 4 After the preliminary review, the academic degree evaluation subcommittees will work with each discipline or major to determine the appropriate evaluation platform, based on the following criteria:

(I) Candidates with equivalent academic qualifications, those who exceed the standard study period, and those whose supervisors have previously overseen students whose theses were flagged as "problematic" during random checks conducted in Heilongjiang Province or at the university within the past three years, will have their theses or practical works evaluated on a third-party platform.

(II) Following the preliminary review, master's theses or practical works will be ranked based on the results of the thesis proposal review, mid-term evaluation, and preliminary review, with respective weightings of 10%, 20%, and 70%. Different disciplines and majors will have separate rankings:

1. For theses or practical works of part-time master’s students, those ranked in the bottom 20% will undergo evaluation on a third-party platform. Another 20% will be randomly selected for evaluation on the third-party platform. The remaining will be evaluated through the HIT Graduate Education Management System.

2. For theses or practical works of full-time master’s students, those ranked in the bottom 5% will undergo evaluation on a third-party platform. Another 5% will be randomly selected for evaluation on the third-party platform. The remaining will be evaluated through the HIT Graduate Education Management System.

Chapter III  Evaluation Requirements

Article 5 An evaluation must involve 2 experts. Evaluation experts should have a thorough understanding of the research content of the master’s thesis or practical work within the relevant discipline or profession. They must either hold a master’s thesis supervisor qualification or a senior professional title. For a professional degree candidate, one of the experts reviewing the thesis or practical work must be an industry professional, who is expected to hold a master’s degree and a senior professional title.

Article 6 To ensure fairness in the evaluation process and prevent bias from conflicting academic perspectives or other factors, the degree candidate and their supervisor may submit a list of up to five experts to be excluded from evaluating their thesis or practical work.

Article 7 Degree candidates must submit their application for expert evaluation of their thesis or practical work to the relevant degree evaluation subcommittee at least fifteen days before the scheduled defense date, to allow time for review and arrangement of the expert evaluation.

Article 8 Before the expert evaluation, each degree evaluation subcommittee must verify that the master’s thesis or practical work meets the necessary criteria for the evaluation.

Chapter IV  Management of Evaluation Results

Article 9 Expert evaluation results are categorized as follows:

A: The work exhibits outstanding quality; no revisions or only minor revisions are required before the defense.

B: The work meets the standards for a master’s thesis or practical work but needs further revisions to be ready for the defense.

C: The work meets basic standards but requires substantial revisions to be ready for the defense.

D: The work does not meet the required standards and is not acceptable for defense in its current state.

Article 10 The candidate, their supervisor, and the degree evaluation subcommittee must give full consideration to the expert feedback on the thesis or practical work. The evaluation results should be handled as follows:

(I) If both experts assign a “D”, the current degree application process will be terminated.

(II) If only one expert assigns a “D”, the candidate must revise their thesis or practical work based on the expert’s feedback. The revision period should be at least 15 days, with the specific timeline determined by the subcommittee.

After revisions, the candidate must submit a revision report detailing the changes made, which must be approved by both the supervisor and the degree evaluation subcommittee. The revision report and the updated work will be sent back to the expert who assigned the "D" rating for a second round of evaluation. Additionally, another expert will be selected for the second round of evaluation.

If the second round of evaluation does not result in another "D", the candidate may proceed to the defense. If one of the experts assign a "D”, the degree evaluation subcommittee will review the thesis/practical work, expert feedback, and revision report to make further recommendations. If both experts assign a "D", the degree application process will be terminated.

(III) If only one expert assigns a “D” and the candidate disagrees, the candidate may submit a request for an academic reassessment to the degree evaluation subcommittee, providing clear reasons and supporting details.

The subcommittee should organize a reassessment within 30 days upon receiving the request and make a decision.

1. If the reassessment is approved, a new round of expert evaluations will be conducted. If no expert assigns a “D”, the candidate may proceed to defense. If one of the experts assigns a “D”, Item (II) of this Article will apply, and the revision period will begin on the date the evaluation results are provided. If both experts assign a “D”, the degree application process will be terminated.

2. If the reassessment is not approved, Item (II) of this Article will apply, and the revision period will begin on the date when the decision on reassessment is made.

(IV) If both experts assign a “C” or higher, the degree evaluation subcommittee will determine the next steps.

(V) If any other evaluation results occur, the candidate may request an academic reassessment. The subcommittee will then follow the procedures outlined in Item (III) of this Article to conduct a review and organize a new round of expert evaluation. The results of this evaluation will be considered final.

Article 11 Before the defense, the candidate must revise or supplement the thesis or practical work based on expert feedback and prepare a revision report. The revision report and the revised thesis or practical work must be approved by the supervisor before the defense can take place. The defense committee must review the revisions and the revised thesis or practical work.

Article 12 If the degree application process is terminated, the candidate must make substantial revisions or additions to the thesis or practical work, with the revision period lasting no less than one month. After that, it will undergo another preliminary review and expert evaluation. The degree application will not be accepted if there is less than one month left before the candidate reaches the end of the maximum allowed time for degree application.

Article 13 The expert feedback forms can be printed directly from the Graduate Management System. After being stamped with the official seal of the relevant school, the forms should be submitted to the university archive along with other degree application materials for record-keeping.

Chapter V  Supplementary Provisions

Article 14 Each degree evaluation subcommittee should, in accordance with the requirements of these Rules and the specific characteristics of their respective disciplines or majors, develop detailed rules for the expert evaluation of master’s theses or practical works.

Article 15 The results of the third-party platform evaluation for master’s theses or practical work will be used as performance indicators in the annual graduate admissions and educational assessments of each school. These results may also be a key factor in selecting outstanding master’s theses or practical works.

Article 16 These Rules shall be effective as of January 1, 2025. The Office of Academic Degree Evaluation Committee is responsible for interpretation of this document.

Academic Degree Evaluation Committee of Harbin Institute of Technology

December 25, 2024