The PhD defence in France for committee members and PhD thesis reviewers
Last updated: October 21, 2025.
This note was initially written in 2022 by Aurore Guillevic, with inputs from several colleagues from Inria Nancy and Ecole Polytechnique. The original page is at https://members.loria.fr/AGuillevic/howto-committees-juries/phd-thesis-committee/.
Before the defence
The PhD committee is made of 4 to 8 members, at least one of each gender, with at least as many senior as junior members. Senior members are rang A in France : directeur-directrice de recherche, professeur des universités, and equivalent foreign positions like full professor, associate professor, senior researcher in industry. Junior members are rang B in France: chargés-chargées de recherche, maitres-maitresses de conférences, emeritus professors (even if they were full professor before retiring), anyone having a PhD. Extra members are guests only (membre invité).
Each PhD committee member receives the PhD thesis manuscript (after being revised and improved according to the reviewer’s comments) in advance of the defence. They also receive the reviewers’ reports on the thesis manuscript (these are sent by the doctoral school).
Very minor modifications (typos, updated references, small technical fixes, etc.) are often requested by an unofficial side channel (e.g. by email sent directly to the PhD candidate, or their advisor).
The presentation (public)
In France, the defence is more of a ceremony than a formal examination. The hard work of assessing the quality of the thesis has already been done by the reviewers. The ceremony is rather friendly.
The president of the committee is chosen among the senior examiners (associate, full professors or equivalent senior faculty positions; they cannot be an advisor, nor a co-author). In case of emergency only (there is no other senior member physically present meeting the requirements, because someone missed a train for example), the president can be one of the thesis reviewers.
Just before the presentation starts, the president can present him/herself and the other committee members, especially if they were not introduced before to the PhD candidate.
The PhD defence starts with a talk of 45 to 50 min by the PhD candidate presenting the context, the problems, and some of the major contributions of the thesis. It will be in English, in particular if the committee has non-French speakers.
Questions & answers (public)
The committee members have an active role during the Q&A session. The reviewers go first, then the examiners, and then the advisors at the end. There is one round of questions, each member of the jury can ask as many questions as they wish, and also make comments. Some criticism is OK, but it should be formulated in a gentle and constructive manner.
Usually, the farthest reviewer (in terms of geographical distance to the place of the defence) goes first. In particular, a reviewer from abroad will speak first. It is not very convenient, as someone with less experience of a French PhD defence will have to go first. After the two reviewers, the examiners ask questions. The farthest examiner goes first. After the examiners, it is the turn of the advisors. Usually they comment on the years of PhD thesis, but they not necessarily ask questions. The most senior of the advisors speaks last. At last the president ask questions. If the president is also a reviewer, it is more convenient for her/him to ask questions when it is the time of the reviewers to do so.
Committee members can ask questions on the PhD candidate’s work (presentation + manuscript), insights, and perspectives. The aim is to check that the candidate has a thorough understanding of his work, and the ability to step back with a broader and deeper point of view.
The reviewers in particular are expected to ask scientific, precise and technical questions on the presentation and on the thesis manuscript. Even if a chapter of the document has not been presented, it is OK to ask questions about it.
A reviewer does not necessarily have to ask questions on each part of the thesis: they may focus on the parts where they feel more confident. Any scientific question is allowed, however the aim is not to deliberately dig the candidate into difficulties: if the candidate does not have any answer or pauses without knowing what to say, the convention is to move on to another question. This is not a course examination.
If an examiner notices differences between the manuscript and the presentation (the slides), it is fine to ask why, and ask for clarifications and details.
After the round of questions, it may happen that the president turns to the audience and enquires whether someone in the room, with a PhD, has a question. Usually, it is considered as a ceremony artefact. Nobody asks a question at that moment.
Committee deliberation (private to the jury) and PhD defence report writing
The jury then withdraw to deliberate and to write the official report on the defence. This part is expected to take 30 min to maximum 1 hour.
The president coordinates the discussion among the committee members and writes the report. The advisors are not allowed to interfere in the deliberation.
The written report on the PhD defence is an official document that will be included in any application to an academic faculty position (in France). As such, in France the report is highly codified. The report should include mentions of achievements specific to the thesis and the PhD candidate.
This document should be written in French, even if the members discuss in English during the deliberation. Otherwise the PhD candidate will have to produce a certified French translation for the applications to assistant professor positions.
The report is on the defence, (the presentation and Q&A session), not on the manuscript: the manuscript has already been assessed by the reviewers.
Each member of the committee must sign documents saying that they were present, and that they agree to the report and the decision on the thesis.
There is a mention about whether the thesis manuscript can be published
- as it is;
- with minor modifications;
- with major modifications.
Actually the reviewers of the document have a say on this matter.
Note that with major modifications is a negative signal: the important modifications should have been required in advance by the reviewers and written document fixed accordingly before the defence. With this mention, the reviewers will have to review the revised version again… it gives extra work to them, and it delays the awarding of the PhD degree.
As a compromise, the members can agree that the thesis can be officially published as it is, so that the doctoral school can very quickly deliver a degree certificate to the PhD candidate (allowing a post-doctoral employment). If the members still wish improvements, they rely on the advisors who will make sure that the requested modifications are taken into account for the final published version. Usually there is a delay of about one to three months after the defence to handle the final version to the doctoral school and the university library (even with as it is choice). The university library will then upload the thesis online with a NNT (numéro national de thèse) and archive it at sudoc.abes.fr.
Finale : the committee president reads the report (public)
Since 2023, after the reading of the report, the PhD takes an oath.