The reviewer should be the person: Competent in the research topic. Unbiased in relation to work. Competence must be confirmed by formal signs. The simplest thing is that the reviewer has a candidate or a doctor of science degree in the specialty in which the diploma is written. Recent changes in the education system have added another level – after graduating from graduate school you can become a “teacher-researcher” – this option will also work. If the final qualifying paper is written as the final stage of a bachelor’s degree or specialty, the reviewer may be a specialist or a master’s degree (bachelor’s degrees are usually not enough, although there is no formal ban on using such reviewers for bachelor’s studies).
A reviewer may have a degree in another field, but work in a specialty. Example 1 So, if the work is written to obtain qualifications in the field of “Accounting, analysis and audit”, then a chief accountant or a financial director from an enterprise can be attracted as a reviewer. Therefore, the review can be taken from the workplace of the student or his parents. Impartiality should be expressed in the fact that the reviewer is not listed as the head of the diploma (from the university or enterprise). At the same time, they differ: Internal review.
A sample of this form of review is when the teacher writes it (but not the diploma manager) from the graduating department. External review of final qualifying work. Written by a teacher from another university or a specialist from the company. Regardless of the reviewer chosen, the graduate usually has to write a review of the thesis. Plan for writing a review A review of scientific qualification work should include certain structural elements: Title. Specify the type of document (“Review of WRC”), information about the author of the diploma (last name, first name, patronymic, group, university, direction of preparation) and work (topic). Justification of the relevance of the topic. This part is similar to the relevance described in the introduction of the diploma. In the review it is needed as a confirmation that not only the student, but other experts consider the topic as relevant. Coming up with new arguments is optional, just rephrasing the ones in the introduction is enough. Review content. It briefly describes what parts are in the diploma, what is considered in each of them. Advantages of work. List the benefits of your diploma.
Describe how good he is, what his novelty is, and how he is unlike others. The results of the study. Here you need to indicate the degree of significance of the problems solved and the proposed methods for improving the work. It should be noted that the value of this work is extremely high. Cons of work. Of course, nobody likes to write about himself badly, but comments in the thesis review are necessary. It is not necessary to list all the shortcomings of the study, it is best to find a small flaw and write about it. Reviewer’s comments may be insignificant, for example, let it be minor punctuation errors or redundancy of theoretical material. Opinion of the reviewer about the degree of preparedness of the student. Those.
It is required to indicate that the student showed certain skills in his work, which demonstrate him as a high-class specialist. Recommendations reviewer for evaluation. Because only the supervisor and the reviewer (i.e., you) are fully familiar with the work, the commission will rely on the recommended marks when setting the final score. Therefore, set yourself “excellent” if the work is done well and you are considered a bona fide student in the eyes of teachers. If you do not have this – put “good.” But not lower. If that, the supervisor will tell the commission that you do not deserve these assessments. Work must be signed. The author of the review (his full name, position), signature and date are indicated at the end.