Many universities in Northern Europe publish the criteria their assessors use for a master's thesis. Read side by side, guidelines from Finland, Norway and Estonia return to largely the same seven areas: the research question and aim, literature and theory, method, analysis and results, conclusions and discussion, independence, and presentation. This page quotes those criteria and shows how to read your own draft against them. Your own program's criteria are the ones that count, so find them first.
No one sees their own blind spots, with or without AI help. Esmond points them out in your draft from within your field, along with factual errors and inconsistencies.
The procedure differs by country and even by department, but a pattern is visible. At the Aalto University School of Engineering in Finland, the supervisor evaluates the complete thesis and sends a written statement with a proposal to the degree program committee, which decides on approval. In some cases, including a proposed fail, the committee consults another professor with expertise in the field (since 2021 this can also be another academic with the right to supervise theses), and that second reader must not know the thesis beforehand or have advised on it.
In Human Geography at the University of Oslo, an academic committee evaluates the written thesis, and an oral examination follows as an academic conversation about the choices and arguments in it. In the Department of Geography at the University of Tartu in Estonia, a reviewer reads the thesis before the defense. The department's guidelines describe that review this way: “A review is a reasoned assessment based on a critical analysis of a student's independent research.” Without the written review, the thesis cannot be defended.
So the people who read your thesis at the end are often not only your supervisor. A second reader or a committee comes to the text without the history of your meetings, which is one reason the criteria below ask for things to be evident in the thesis itself.
A hypothetical example of a commentYour aim in chapter one says you compare three regions, but the results chapter discusses two. Does the conclusion still answer the question as you stated it?
A first comment on one part of your own draft, right away and without an account.
Get a free previewThe wording differs from one guideline to the next; the areas are largely the same. The table sums up how four of the guidelines name each area, in our own words. It is a reading aid; the document your program uses is the one that applies.
| Area | Aalto, Engineering (FI) | NHH, Economics and Business Administration (NO) | Oslo, Human Geography (NO) | Metropolia (FI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research question and aim | Definition of research scope and goals | Identify the problem to be solved in a given context | Aims and research questions | Need for research and development; goals |
| Literature and theory | Command of the topic, theoretical framework, use of sources | Review of the existing literature | Theoretical framework and literature review | Knowledge base and source criticism |
| Method | Justified choice and application of methods | Choice and motivation of theory and methods | Methods, with reasons, strengths, weaknesses, ethics | Selection and implementation of methods; reliability and ethics |
| Analysis and results | Results that answer the research questions | Theory and methods applied in the analysis | Systematic, logical, independent analysis | Results and interpretation |
| Conclusions and discussion | Well-founded conclusions drawn from the results | Valid conclusions, critical reflection on limitations | Main findings, contribution, broader context | Justified conclusions, applicability |
| Independence and process | Independent contribution, agreed schedule | Independence under supervision | The thesis as an independent academic contribution | Work process and self-management |
| Presentation and language | Appearance, structure, formal style | Clear argument, terminology, referencing | Logical structure, consistent concepts, referencing | Communication, language, appearance |
Most of the guidelines start here. Aalto asks that “The research questions and hypotheses contained in the scope of research and goals are evident from the thesis.” NHH (Economics and Business Administration) lists as its first criterion to “Identify a problem/research question that seeks to enhance the current state of knowledge, and describe it clearly and concisely, making it easy to understand.”
The criteria ask an assessor to check whether the question is stated and whether the rest of the thesis keeps to it. A question that changes shape between chapter one and the conclusion is one of the easiest problems to spot from outside and one of the hardest to see in your own text. See what makes a research question work for tests you can apply.
The Oslo geography criteria say “The thesis should place the study in its academic context through a critical review of relevant research.” Tartu's reviewers look at “The level of analysis and synthesis of literature”, alongside the relevance and authority of the sources. Metropolia adds source criticism as an explicit part of the knowledge base.
The common thread is synthesis. A list of summaries, one source per paragraph, shows that you read; it doesn't show how the sources relate to each other or to your question. A useful check is whether each section of your review ends with a point that your own study takes up later.
Oslo's wording is the most complete: “Methods must be described, including reasons for their selection, strengths and weaknesses, and ethical considerations.” Aalto asks for justified methods that fit the goals, and Metropolia assesses reliability and ethics as a separate area.
Description alone is rarely enough. The criteria ask why this method and not another, and what it cannot show. If your methods chapter explains how you collected data but never says what the approach misses, it leaves out part of what these criteria ask for. The methodology chapter guide goes through what to check.
Oslo again: “The analysis should be systematic, logical, and independent, and establish a clear link between research questions, theoretical framework, methods, and data.” Aalto lists, among its basic criteria, “The results answer the research questions presented”. Tartu looks for “Reasoned and comprehensive comparison of the results achieved with previous results”, and NHH asks students to “Critically reflect on the key assumptions and limitations of the current research.”
These four criteria describe one chain: question, method, result, conclusion. The criteria ask an assessor to check each link in it. Where a conclusion claims more than the results show, or a result is never compared with the literature from chapter two, the gap sits at a specific point in the text, and you can find it before anyone else does. Results vs. discussion covers where each part belongs.
Several guidelines assess the process as well as the product. NHH assesses independence under supervision in five areas, from generating the research question to drawing conclusions, and explains: “Independence under supervision is an assessment of the degree to which students are able to develop their own project and use the supervision they receive in a constructive way”. It adds that independence does not mean avoiding your supervisor.
Aalto puts it this way: “As applicable, other factors, such as the independent contribution of the student and his/her ability to stay on the agreed schedule may be considered in the evaluation process.” The same guideline notes that taking significantly longer than agreed with the supervisor can count against the thesis, while delays beyond the student's control are treated as extenuating circumstances.
Presentation is assessed in every guideline, and the criteria concern readability. Among the points the Oslo Department of Media and Communication lists are “Coherent use of terms” and “Consistent and correctly implemented use of references”. Aalto asks that the thesis contain no structural, grammatical or spelling errors that complicate reading, and Metropolia assesses the communicative aspects, language and appearance of the thesis together.
Coherent terms are a content issue as much as a language issue. If a key concept is defined one way in the theory chapter and used another way in the analysis, a reader can no longer tell which claim you are making.
Most of these guidelines also describe levels of achievement, and we leave them out on purpose. Several stress that the result is an overall judgment. NHH states that the final outcome is based on an overall assessment of all elements, including the degree of independence, and is not simply a weighted average of the criteria. Metropolia notes that “Weighting may vary depending on the nature of the work.”
Reading your draft against criteria tells you where it is thin. It cannot tell you how a committee will judge it, and nobody outside that committee can. Esmond never gives a level, a number or a prediction of the outcome.
This example is made up. A master's student in environmental management asks in chapter one how three municipalities involve residents in climate planning. The methods chapter describes interviews in all three. The results chapter reports two, because one municipality withdrew. The conclusion still speaks of "the three cases." Against the criteria above, this touches the research question (is it still the question?), method (is the withdrawal reported as a limitation?), and conclusions (do they claim more than the data show?). None of it needs new text from anyone else; it needs the student to decide what the thesis now claims and make every chapter say the same thing.
Points drawn from the guidelines quoted above. Use the criteria of your own program where they differ.
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.
Esmond reads the draft you made and flags factual errors, inconsistencies and blind spots, such as a conclusion that no longer matches the question or a key term that shifts meaning. It adds no text to the thesis. It doesn't apply your university's criteria and doesn't decide on the thesis: your supervisor and the committee do that. See how Esmond works and how the review relates to the European framework.
In the guidelines quoted here: a clear research question and aim, command of the literature and theory, a justified method, a systematic analysis, conclusions that follow from the results, independence, and presentation. Your program's own criteria decide which of these weigh most.
It depends on the university. At Aalto's School of Engineering the supervisor sends a written statement to the degree program committee; in Oslo an academic committee evaluates the thesis before an oral examination; at Tartu's Department of Geography a reviewer reads it before the defense.
In several guidelines it does. NHH assesses independence under supervision as a separate set of criteria, and Aalto may consider the student's independent contribution and the agreed schedule.
No. Esmond gives no level, number or prediction. It points out where a draft is inconsistent or thin, and the assessment stays with your supervisor and committee.
Read on November 7, 2026.
Get your paper evaluated before you submit