Name of committee member
Number	2019/U/gs	Date	June 5, 2019
Telephone	+ 31 71 527 4003
Subject	Dissertation	Contact	Graduate School Officer GS-Office@fsw.leidenuniv.nl

Dear Name of committee member,

On behalf of the Dean of our Faculty, Prof. P.F. Wouters, I invite you to serve on the PhD committee for the defense of the dissertation of Name of PhD candidate. The dissertation is entitled Title of Manuscript.

The PhD Regulations 2018 of Leiden University on the role of the Ph.D. committee (Article 21) are as follows:

1.	Having received a reasoned request, the supervisor gives the members of the	Committee access to the (empirical) data on which the research is based. If the	supervisor is of the opinion that that there is a reason not to accede to this request, the Dean will make a decision on this.

2.	Within six weeks of receiving the dissertation, each of the members responds in	writing to the Secretary regarding the question of whether the doctoral candidate	has provided sufficient evidence in his/her dissertation of competence in conducting	independent scientific research to be allowed to defend his/her dissertation. In the case	of a dissertation in the Arts, the Doctorate Committee is also responsible for assessing	the competence of the PhD candidate in his/her	development as a research-oriented	artist. The assessment of the dissertation will be substantiated with reference to the	criteria listed in Article 10 (see below). The members of the Doctorate Committee	may make suggestions for modifications to the dissertation.

If the PhD candidate has demonstrated exceptional abilities in his/her dissertation, the doctorate can be awarded the predicate of ‘cum laude’ (with distinction). As a rule, this predicate is only awarded if the dissertation can be considered, in view of the criteria listed in Article 10, second paragraph, of these regulations, to be among the top 5% of the dissertations in the relevant field of study. The procedure for awarding this predicate must be initiated no later than ten weeks before the date of the defence of the dissertation. For more information please refer to the secretary of the committee.

3.	The Secretary collects the assessments and suggestions of each of the members of the	Committee and forwards them, once each member has given his/her assessment, to	the Chairman and the other members of the Committee.

4.	Within a week of receiving these assessments and suggestions, a member may, through	the intermediary of the Secretary, request the Chairman to call a meeting of the	Doctorate Committee. The Chairman may also decide to call a meeting on his/her	own initiative. If a meeting has been requested, the Chairman will convene a meeting	as soon as possible, and preside over this meeting him/herself. The supervisor(s) and	co-supervisor(s) also attend this meeting.

5.	If no such meeting takes place, the Secretary informs the supervisor in writing of the	individual assessments and suggestions.

6.	The supervisor may advise the PhD candidate on whether to adopt the suggestions of	the Committee members. Following a consultation with the doctoral candidate, the	supervisor informs the Chairman and the other members of the Committee, through	the intermediary of the Secretary, of the extent to which the suggestions in question	will be adopted. If the dissertation is substantially revised, the revised version is then	submitted to the Committee.

7.	The decision of the Committee to allow the candidate to defend his/her dissertation is	reached by a majority of votes. In the case of a tie, the candidate is deemed to have	been refused for the defence of his/her dissertation.

8.	The Secretary informs the PhD candidate, in accordance with the procedure	established by the Doctorate Board (appendix 5c), immediately and in writing of the	decision of the Committee to allow or refuse to allow the candidate to defend his/her	dissertation. Copies are sent to the supervisor and the Dean. In the case of a refusal,	the reasons for the decision are stated.

9.	If at any point in the assessment of the dissertation by the Doctorate Committee it	becomes apparent that the dissertation exhibits signs of plagiarism or any other form	of scientific fraud, the Doctorate Board may decide, at the request of the Dean, to halt	the procedure. In this context, the Doctorate Board may seek the advice, through the	intermediary of the Executive Board, of the Academic Integrity Committee of Leiden	University of the Academic Integrity Committee of LUMC, as appropriate.

The manuscript is enclosed. We would be very grateful if you would read Make a choiceName of PhD candidate PhD dissertation and inform the Secretary of the committee Name of secretary (E-mail of secretary) of your opinion no later thanFinal date. Thank you for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of the Dean of the Faculty,

Name Supervisor

Article 10, 2nd paragraph

a.	The importance of the topic;

b.	The importance of the research question and the precision with which it is defined;

c.	The academic standard of the structure, the analysis and the treatment of the	material;

d.	The derivation of new insights and views from the analysis;

e.	The soundness of the methodology used for the analysis;

f.	Evidence of a critical confrontation of the author’s own conclusions with existing	theories or views;

g.	Evidence of a creative approach to the field of study treated in the manuscript;

h.	The extent to which the manuscript is based on research independently conducted	by the doctoral candidate or research to which he/she has made an essential	contribution;

i.	Demonstrated restraint, with regard to the scope of the text;

j.	A balanced structure in the manuscript and clarity of style.