Publish and be doctor‐rated: the PhD by published work

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is, first, to provide a brief account of the PhD by published work focusing especially on quality assurance issues such as eligibility of candidates, the nature of the submission itself, supervision and assessment procedures. Second, it seeks to offer a discussion of the criteria to be met by candidates in writing a critical appraisal as a central feature of the submission.Design/methodology/approachThe approach taken is that of an analytical, conceptual and discursive essay.FindingsThere is still a lack of commonality in higher education about the nature of the PhD by published work. One way of gaining greater commonality would be to strengthen the use of the critical appraisal as an academic text which also should be required to meet the admittedly problematical standards of publishability.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper's main limitation is that many of its ideas and much of its information are derived from sources within the UK's higher education sector. Nevertheless the issues raised should have relevance to practice in other systems.Practical implicationsA case is made for the usefulness of the PhD by published work as an important route for achieving doctorateness especially when the critical appraisal is given greater priority and supervisory support.Originality/valuePapers discussing the use and value of the PhD by published work are still relatively rare in academic journals. The emphasis on the critical appraisal in this paper is an original contribution to the debate.