Exploring Canadian Compilation Dissertations Guidelines—A Scoping Review
, Robin KayThis study presented a scoping review of the context, key structural components, and publication requirements of Canadian doctoral compilation dissertations.
The compilation model is an emerging alternative to the traditional monograph format, potentially increasing author publication credits and enhancing skill development. However, this relatively new dissertation model comes with diverse naming conventions (e.g., alternative format, article-based, cumulative, integrated, journal format, manuscript, paper-based, PhD by publication, PhD by published work, and topic-based and varying formats (e.g., Scandinavian and Sandwich), making standardization or comparison challenging for students, supervisors, and graduate studies guideline designers.
Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, this scoping review explored current guidelines for the compilation model of doctoral dissertations at 32 top-ranked Canadian universities.
This paper presents foundational insight into the Canadian compilation dissertation model, following similar studies in other nations such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We derive the insights from a study that produces a mapped framework of guideline elements and the quantified prevalence of key requirements based on top-ranked institutions and publicly available documents.
The findings from the review mirror global challenges in adopting the compilation model, including vagueness regarding formatting, author contributions, the total number of articles required, and what the concept of publication or publishability entails.
Five practical recommendations for compilation model dissertations focus on author contributions, disclosure of artificial intelligence use, publication of the literature review, copyright, and acceptable articles.
Researchers can examine their own institutional dissertation and thesis practices to identify existing benefits and challenges, develop nuanced insights, adopt external guidelines, synthesize outcomes, and diffuse findings to enhance emerging researchers’ experiences and outcomes.
The larger implications of the paper’s findings include greater context on the changing state of higher education and recommendations to increase the potential diffusion of research-informed findings that might otherwise be hidden.
Building on the foundational insight in this review, future studies can expand the scope to include more Canadian institutions and educational levels, involve more universities, and gather participant perspectives from students, supervisors, and administrators.
Back