By the time of the defense, your thesis has usually been read by people who were not part of the project: preliminary reviewers, an opponent, an assessment committee. Their questions come from reading the whole thesis cold. Preparing well means reading it that way yourself, before they do, and knowing which questions your own text invites.
Esmond points out blind spots in your thesis and draws from it the questions an advisor or committee member might ask.
The steps differ by country, and often by faculty. In Finland, a preliminary examination comes first. The University of Helsinki describes the task: “The task of the preliminary examiner of the doctoral thesis is to state the merits of the manuscript, to present corrections and suggestions for improvement to the author if necessary, and to propose to the faculty in a reasoned written statement either that the public defence be granted permission or that the manuscript be rejected.” The comments from that stage are the first full outside reading of your thesis.
At Örebro University in Sweden, slides for doctoral students in the medical and health sciences give the faculty rule: “A final seminar should be held for all doctoral theses no later than three to six months before the predicted date of the public defence.” The same slides add that an external reviewer should normally be engaged. Other universities organize this stage differently. Check how yours does it.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour abstract says the intervention reduced stress, but Chapter 4 reports no significant difference at follow-up. How would you answer a committee member who reads both pages?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewAt the University of Helsinki, the public defense is a discussion between you and an opponent, in front of an audience. Its instructions make clear that the questions come in the room: “The opponent is required to present in the public examination all the critique he or she wishes to express on the dissertation.” In other countries, a committee asks the questions in turn. In both, most questions follow from the text.
No one can predict the questions at your defense. Many of them, though, follow from tensions a careful reader finds in the thesis. Looking for those tensions yourself is the most direct preparation.
| What a reader notices | The question that follows | Where to look before the defense |
|---|---|---|
| A claim in the conclusion stronger than in the chapter | Does your design support that reading? | Conclusion against the results chapters |
| Chapters that point in different directions | How do you explain the difference? | General discussion |
| A method choice without alternatives discussed | Why this approach, and what would another have shown? | Methods sections |
| Co-authored chapters | What was your part in this study? | Introduction, article list, declarations |
| A limitation named once and dropped | How does this limitation affect your main conclusion? | Limitations and interpretation |
| An older article chapter | What has been published on this since? | General discussion, summarizing part |
| The contribution | What does this thesis add to the field, in one sentence? | Abstract, introduction, conclusion |
Read the abstract, the general introduction and the general discussion in one sitting, as a committee member would on the first evening. Note every claim and every research question. Then check, chapter by chapter, where each claim is shown and whether its wording matches. Note any term that shifts meaning between chapters.
Next, go through the comments from the preliminary review, the final seminar or the reading committee. For each one, note in a line or two what you changed, or why you left it. That list is also what you will want at hand in the room. Finally, prepare one sentence on your contribution and one on the main limitation of the thesis as a whole. Both are common questions.
Most defenses return, sooner or later, to what the thesis adds. A good answer names what was not known or not shown before, and where in the thesis it is shown. It stays within the evidence: the contribution of three case studies is different from that of a national register study, and the answer should say which it is. For how the contribution should appear across the thesis, see PhD thesis feedback.
This example is made up. A candidate in psychology reread the thesis two months before the defense. The abstract and the general discussion said the intervention reduced stress. Chapter 4 reported a reduction at the end of the program and no significant difference at six months. The candidate revised the abstract and discussion to report both results, added a paragraph on what the follow-up result means, and prepared an answer on what the follow-up result does and does not show.
Esmond evaluates every assignment before you submit. It never writes it.
Esmond is an AI tool that doesn't write for you. If your course doesn't allow any AI tools, don't use Esmond for that work. If you're unsure, ask your instructor or advisor.
Upload the part you are least sure of, often the general discussion, up to about 125 pages per review. Esmond reads it from within your field and returns annotations in your own PDF and a report that includes questions a committee might ask about that part, usually within a few minutes. They are prompts to think about and do not forecast what your opponent or committee will raise.
Esmond adds no text and gives no view on the outcome of the defense. If your thesis has already been submitted, check with your supervisor whether changes are still possible at this stage, and what your university allows.
They depend on the thesis and the field. Many follow from the text: the contribution, the choice of method, the step from findings to conclusions, differences between chapters, and your own part in co-authored work.
Reread the thesis as a whole, as the committee will. Check every claim in the conclusion against the chapters, go through the comments from earlier review stages, and prepare short answers on the contribution and the main limitation.
That depends on your university and the stage you are in. In some systems the text is fixed after the preliminary review; in others corrections are possible. Ask your supervisor.
Read on November 7, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit