Who normally invites the members of a thesis jury?

In most European and United Kingdom systems the invitation is issued by the doctoral school, graduate office or supervisor, and the formal appointment is made by the institution after the composition has been approved. In several North American systems the candidate and supervisor build the committee together and the candidate makes the approach. Cotutelle and jointly supervised doctorates follow the agreement between the two institutions, which usually means both sets of rules apply at once. There is no international standard here, which is why the first step is always a question to the graduate office.

How far in advance should a thesis committee invitation be sent?

For an external examiner, several months before the expected defence, and earlier for someone with a heavy calendar. Work backwards from three constraints rather than from the defence date: the institutional deadline for approving the composition, the deadline for any written report that must exist before the defence can be authorised, and the reading time a few hundred pages actually takes. The report deadline is usually the binding one and is the fact most often left out of invitations.

What should a thesis committee invitation include?

The scientific reason this person specifically, in one or two sentences tied to their work; the expected submission and defence dates; the thesis length and language; the reading window and any report deadline; whether attendance is in person or remote; and what the institution pays or reimburses. The formal version adds the approved composition of the panel, the supervisor's voting status, the obligations as separate dated items, and the declaration of interests form. A statement that there is no known conflict belongs in the first message, not the last.

What if the person we want to invite is already collaborating with my supervisor?

Declare it and let the doctoral school decide before any invitation goes out. Recent co-authorship or shared funding with the supervisor is the most common reason an external examiner is refused, and it is far cheaper to discover that at nomination than after somebody has agreed to read a thesis. Our guide to committee conflicts of interest sets out which relationships are usually disqualifying and how they are counted.

What do I do if an invited examiner does not reply?

On an informal availability check, follow up once after about ten working days and then move to the next name on the reserve list, which is the reason for drafting a ranked reserve before the first approach. On a formal invitation follow up sooner, and involve the doctoral school office, since at that point the institution's own timetable is running and a delay affects the approval of the defence rather than only the diary.

Thesis Committee Invitation Templates

The informal availability check and the formal invitation, each annotated. Read the warning first: in most systems it is not the candidate who sends either of these.

Before you copy anything on this page, check who is supposed to send it. The procedure for inviting someone onto a thesis committee or an examination jury varies enormously between countries and between universities, and in a large majority of systems the invitation comes from the supervisor, the doctoral school or the graduate office, not from the doctoral candidate. In many institutions the name must also be approved by a faculty or doctoral school body before any invitation is sent, which makes a candidate's spontaneous email a procedural error rather than initiative. There are systems where the candidate does write directly, and there are supervisors who ask their candidate to draft the message for them, which is why these templates exist. But the first step is always the same: ask your supervisor or your graduate office who sends it, in what order, and after which approval. The templates below cover the informal availability check and the formal invitation, and both are written so that a supervisor can send them unchanged. The composition criteria are in our guide to choosing committee members, and the relationships that have to be declared are in the committee conflict of interest guide.

First: establish who sends this, and when

This section is the one that saves the most trouble, so it comes before the templates rather than after them. Four questions to your doctoral school settle the whole sequence, and their answers differ by country, by university and sometimes by department.

Who makes the approach: the candidate, the supervisor, the doctoral school, or a designated chair. In most European and United Kingdom systems it is not the candidate, and in several North American systems the candidate does approach members but only after the supervisor has agreed the list.; What has to be approved first. Many institutions require the proposed composition to be validated before any invitation is issued, so that an approach is a formality rather than a negotiation. Sending an invitation to someone the institution later refuses is embarrassing for everyone and hard to undo.; If your supervisor asks you to draft the message, draft it in their voice and send it to them, not to the examiner. That is what both templates below are written for.

Variant 1: the informal availability check

This is the message that goes out before any formal nomination, to find out whether a person is willing and free. It is short by design: it is not asking for a commitment, it is asking whether a commitment would be possible. In most systems it is sent by the supervisor.

Informal check, sent by the supervisor

Subject: Possible external examiner, doctoral thesis on [topic], defence expected [month year]

Dear Professor [Name],

I am writing to ask whether you would in principle be willing to act as external examiner for the doctoral thesis of [candidate name], which I have supervised at [institution] since [year].

The thesis is on [one sentence: the object, the method and the claim]. It draws directly on your work on [specific paper or line of work], and [candidate] has extended [the specific element] in [chapter or study]. That is the main reason I am approaching you rather than someone closer to my own area.

Practical details as they stand today:
- Expected submission: [month year]. Expected defence: [month year].
- Thesis length: approximately [n] pages, in [language].
- Reading window: the written report would be due by [date], which is [n] weeks before the defence.
- The defence would be held at [place], with [remote participation possible / attendance in person expected]. [Institution] covers travel and accommodation and pays an examiner fee of [amount or: the standard institutional fee].

Nothing is formal at this stage. The composition still has to be approved by our doctoral school, and I would submit your name only if you tell me you are interested and available. If it would help you decide, I can send the abstract and the table of contents.

For completeness: to my knowledge we have never co-authored, we hold no shared funding, and there is no other relationship that would need to be declared. Please tell me if you are aware of anything I have missed.

If this is not possible, I would be very grateful for a suggestion of someone whose work would fit.

With thanks and best wishes,
[Supervisor name]
[Position, unit, institution]

Say in the subject line that it is about examining a thesis and give the expected date. An examiner triages on those two facts alone.

Give the scientific reason for approaching this person specifically, tied to one identifiable piece of their work. Generic flattery reads as a mass mailing, and mass mailings for examiner slots are common enough that people recognise them.

Put the dates, the length and the reading deadline in a block that can be read in five seconds. The reading window matters more than the defence date and is the fact most often omitted.

State the fee and the travel arrangements, including when there is none. Silence on money is read as bad news and produces a reply asking the question rather than an answer.

Include the conflict statement even at this stage. It is two lines, it shows the check has been done, and it invites the other person to correct it, which is exactly what you want to happen now rather than in three months.

Variant 2: the formal invitation after approval

This goes out once the institution has approved the composition. Its job is different: it confirms an appointment, states the obligations precisely, and gives the recipient everything they need to do the work. It is usually sent by the doctoral school or by the supervisor on the school's instruction, and it is frequently accompanied by an official letter from the institution.

Formal invitation, after institutional approval

Subject: Formal invitation, examination of the doctoral thesis of [candidate name], [date]

Dear Professor [Name],

Following our exchange in [month], I am glad to confirm that the [doctoral school / graduate school] of [institution] has approved the composition of the examination panel for the doctoral thesis of [candidate name], and formally invites you to serve as [external examiner / rapporteur / member].

The thesis, [title], is attached in full. Its central claim is [one sentence].

What the role involves under our regulations:
- Reading the thesis in full and producing a written report of approximately [length], using the template attached.
- Submitting that report to [address] by [date], which is [n] days before the defence, as required before the defence can be authorised.
- Attending the defence on [date] at [time, timezone] at [place / by videoconference], expected to last approximately [duration].
- Taking part in the panel's deliberation and signing the record of the outcome.

The panel as approved is:
- [Name], [institution], [role]
- [Name], [institution], [role]
- [Name], [institution], [role]
- [Name], [institution], chair
- [Supervisor name], [institution], supervisor [voting / non-voting / in attendance], as provided by our regulations.

Practical arrangements: [institution] will cover travel and accommodation and pays a fee of [amount]. [Name, role] in the doctoral school office, copied here, will handle bookings and the paperwork, including the declaration of interests form that the regulations require from every member.

Please confirm by [date] that you accept. If anything in the timetable has changed for you since we spoke, tell us now rather than later, as substituting a member requires the composition to be approved again.

With thanks for taking this on,
[Name]
[Position], on behalf of the [doctoral school] of [institution]

Confirm that the composition has been approved, and by which body. That single sentence is what makes the message formal rather than exploratory.

Set out the obligations as a list with a date on each one. Report deadline, defence date and deliberation are three separate commitments, and an examiner who only registers the third will miss the first.

Name the full panel including roles. An examiner is entitled to know who else is on it, and this is also the moment at which somebody will spot a conflict nobody else noticed.

State the supervisor's status explicitly, because it varies by system and determines what happens in the room. Voting, non-voting and in attendance are three different arrangements and none of them is universal.

Ask for confirmation by a date, and explain what a late withdrawal costs procedurally. That is a fact, not pressure, and it is the sentence that gets diary conflicts reported in time.

What to attach, what to leave out, and when to follow up

The two templates differ mainly in what accompanies them. Getting the attachments right is what turns an acceptance into a report delivered on time.

With the formal invitation: the full thesis in the format the examiner asked for, the report template, the timetable, and the institution's guidance on outcomes and their meanings. If any chapter is published, say which and where, since that changes how an examiner reads it.; Leave out any statement of what outcome is expected or hoped for. It is improper, it is remembered, and it is the kind of sentence that ends up quoted in an appeal.; Leave out the candidate's personal circumstances, funding end dates and job offers. Deadline pressure is real and belongs in the conversation with the doctoral school, not in a message to an examiner who is being asked to judge the work.

Frequently asked questions

Ask before you do. The procedure varies strongly between universities and between countries, and in most systems the approach is made by the supervisor or by the doctoral school rather than by the candidate, often only after a faculty body has approved the proposed composition. In some North American departments candidates do approach members directly once the supervisor has agreed the list, and some supervisors ask their candidate to draft the message for them to send. All of these are normal somewhere. What is not normal anywhere is emailing an examiner before finding out which of them applies to you.