Nomination of Examiners: fields and templates

Last reviewed 18 September 2026

What the GRIS Nomination of Examiners form asks for each examiner, with templates and examples adapted from approved School of Economics nominations. Names, institutions, journals and thesis topics have been removed.

Contact each examiner before you nominate them. The form's declaration confirms that they have agreed to examine, know the expected submission date, and know they are expected to examine the thesis within six weeks of receiving it.

What the form asks

For each examiner, four yes/no questions on conflicts of interest, and a justification in four fields: career stage, expertise and standing, the aspects of the thesis they can assess, and experience in HDR supervision and examination. A Yes to a conflict question asks for details.

Templates

Career stage:

[Title Name] is [position] at [university, country], since [year]. PhD in
[field], [university], [year].

Expertise and standing:

[Name] works on [fields]. [n] publications, including in [journals];
[n] citations ([Google Scholar / Web of Science]). [Editorships,
affiliations, fellowships.] Most relevant to this thesis: [2-3 papers].

Aspects of the thesis:

All chapters, and in particular Chapter [n] on [topic], given [their work on
X], and Chapter [m] on [topic], given [their expertise in Y].

HDR supervision and examination:

[n] PhD students supervised to completion, [m] current. [k] theses examined,
including at [universities].

Conflict details, if you and the PGC agree that a conflict is manageable and you answer Yes. The PGC will defend the nomination to the Graduate Research School.

[Name] and [supervisor] both serve on [the editorial board of X / the
organising committee of Y], since [year]. They were appointed separately and
have had no joint responsibilities in that role. No co-authorship, shared
grants or supervisory relationship.

Examples

A senior examiner:

Field	Entry
Career stage	Professor, with over 20 years in the field.
Expertise and standing	Over 90 publications, several in top general and field journals. Over 1,000 Web of Science citations.
Aspects of the thesis	[Topic], [topic], experimental methods.
HDR experience	About 15 PhD candidates supervised; over 25 theses examined.

An early-career examiner overseas:

Field	Entry
Career stage	Assistant professor at a US university; PhD about eight years ago; affiliated with two research networks.
Expertise and standing	Six publications in top field journals and high-standing general journals.
Aspects of the thesis	[Topic]; its application to [setting]; experimental methods and results.
HDR experience	Six PhD students supervised to completion, one in progress; seven theses examined.

Two conflicts declared by supervisors, both approved:

"We are both on the editorial board of [journal], but we were separately appointed and have had no interactions or joint responsibilities in this role."
"We are both on the organising committee for [a workshop]."

What works

Use numbers, not adjectives. "Six supervised to completion, seven theses examined" can be checked. "Ample experience" cannot.
Cite two to four papers relevant to the thesis, not the examiner's whole publication list.
Tie the aspects to chapters.
Declare conflicts plainly: name the connection and say what it did not involve.