{"id":"F2015L01799","name":"Higher Doctorates Rule 2015","slug":"higher-doctorates-rule-2015","collection":"legislative_instrument","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":438466,"registerId":"F2015L01799-fast-fetch-1775954885078","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-12","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Higher Doctorates Rule 2015","content":"---\nmeta-content-style-type: text/css\nmeta-content-type: application/xhtml+xml; charset=utf-8\nmeta-generator: Aspose.Words for .NET 20.2\n---\n\n?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"utf-8\" standalone=\"no\"?>\n\nTHE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITy\n\nHigher Doctorates Rule 2015\n\n \n\nI, Professor Ian Young AO, Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, make the following rule.\n\nDated 6 November 2015\n\nProfessor Ian Young AO\n\nVice-Chancellor\n\n \n\n \n\nContents\n\n[Part 1— Preliminary](#_Toc434410440)\n\n[1 Name](#_Toc434410441)\n\n[2 Commencement](#_Toc434410442)\n\n[3 Authority](#_Toc434410443)\n\n[4 Definitions](#_Toc434410444)\n\n[Part 2— Higher doctorate degrees](#_Toc434410445)\n\n[5 Higher doctorate degrees conferred by University](#_Toc434410446)\n\n[6 Vice-Chancellor approval for higher doctorate degrees](#_Toc434410447)\n\n[Part 3— Candidates for doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410448)\n\n[7 Application to become candidate: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410449)\n\n[8 Establishment and proceedings of panel: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410450)\n\n[9 Initial assessment and recommendation by panel: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410451)\n\n[10 Admission of applicant as candidate: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410452)\n\n[11 Submission of works by candidate: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410453)\n\n[12 Examination of submitted works: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410454)\n\n[13 Recommendation by panel on submitted works: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410455)\n\n[14 Recommendation by Deputy Vice-Chancellor: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410456)\n\n[Part 4— Candidates for Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410457)\n\n[15 Application to become candidate: Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410458)\n\n[16 Establishment and proceedings of panel: Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410459)\n\n[17 Initial assessment and recommendation by panel: Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410460)\n\n[18 Admission of applicant as candidate: Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410461)\n\n[19 Submission of works by candidate: Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410462)\n\n[20 Examination of submitted works: Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410463)\n\n[21 Recommendation by panel on submitted works: Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410464)\n\n[22 Recommendation by Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Doctor of Medicine](#_Toc434410465)\n\n[Part 5— Miscellaneous](#_Toc434410466)\n\n[23 Approved forms](#_Toc434410467)\n\n[24 Repeal](#_Toc434410468)\n\n \n\n# Part 1—Preliminary\n\n### 1          Name\n\nThis is the Higher Doctorates Rule 2015.\n\n### 2          Commencement\n\nThis instrument commences on the day after it is registered.\n\n### 3          Authority\n\nThis instrument is made under section 8 of the Programs and Awards Statute 2013.\n\n[Note: Under section 50(3) of the Australian University Act 1991 a statute may empower any authority or officer of the University to make rules or orders. Section 9.5 of the Vice-Chancellorship Statute authorises the Vice-Chancellor to make rules and orders for a number of statutes, including the Programs and Awards Statute.]\n\n### 4          Definitions\n\nIn this instrument:\n\nhigher doctorate means a degree that the University may confer under section 5.\n\npublished work means work that is readily available for public criticism.\n\nwork includes the following:\n\n##### (a)    a book or article, however published;\n\n##### (b)    other printed material;\n\n##### (c)    a composition or recording of music;\n\n##### (d)    a video recording, film or other work of visual or sonic art;\n\n##### (e)    an exhibition, performance or folio of work;\n\n##### (f)    computer software, digital material or other non-written material.\n\n# Part 2—Higher doctorate degrees\n\n### 5          Higher doctorate degrees conferred by University\n\n#### (1)    This section specifies under section 3 of the Programs and Awards Statute 2013 the higher doctorate degrees that the University may confer.\n\n#### (2)    The University may confer the following higher doctorate degrees:\n\n##### (a)    Doctor of Fine Arts (DFA);\n\n##### (b)    Doctor of Laws (LLD);\n\n##### (c)    Doctor of Letters (DLitt);\n\n##### (d)    Doctor of Medicine (MD);\n\n##### (e)    Doctor of Music (DMus);\n\n##### (f)    Doctor of Science (DSc).\n\n### 6          Vice-Chancellor approval for higher doctorate degrees\n\nThe Vice-Chancellor may approve the award of higher doctorate degrees on the recommendation of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.\n\n# Part 3—Candidates for doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine\n\n### 7          Application to become candidate: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    A person may apply to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor to be admitted as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Fine Arts, Doctor of Laws, Doctor of Letters, Doctor of Music or Doctor of Science.\n\n#### (2)    The application must:\n\n##### (a)    be in writing; and\n\n##### (b)    state the higher doctorate for which admission as a candidate is sought; and\n\n##### (c)    include complete details of the person’s qualifications and, if relevant, professional experience.\n\n[Note 1: If a form is approved under s 23 (Approved forms) for this provision, the form must be used.]\n\n[Note 2: Giving false or misleading information, or producing a false or misleading document, may be a criminal offence against the Criminal Code.]\n\n#### (3)    However, if the person applied at any time during the previous 5 years to be admitted as a candidate for a higher doctorate, the person may make an application under this section only if the Deputy Vice-Chancellor agrees that the application may be made in the exceptional circumstances of the case.\n\n#### (4)    The Deputy Vice-Chancellor may, by written notice given to the applicant, require the applicant to provide any information or document that the Deputy Vice-Chancellor reasonably needs to consider the application.\n\n#### (5)    If the Deputy Vice-Chancellor requires the applicant to provide information or a document, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor need not consider the application until the applicant complies with the requirement.\n\n#### (6)    The Deputy Vice-Chancellor may, in writing, determine procedures to be followed by an applicant under this Part to be admitted as a candidate for a higher doctorate.\n\n### 8          Establishment and proceedings of panel: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if a person applies under this Part to be admitted as a candidate for a higher doctorate.\n\n#### (2)    The applicant is eligible to be considered for admission as a candidate for the higher doctorate if:\n\n##### (a)    the applicant:\n\n###### (i)    holds a degree of the University; or\n\n###### (ii)    holds an award of another university that, in the Deputy Vice-Chancellor’s opinion, is equivalent to a degree of the University; or\n\n###### (iii)    the applicant is, in the Deputy Vice-Chancellor’s opinion, otherwise qualified to be a candidate because of the applicant’s eminence in learning or creative achievements; and\n\n##### (b)    the applicant:\n\n###### (i)    is a full-time member of the academic staff of the University and, during the previous 10 years, has been employed as a full-time member of the academic staff of the University for a total at least 3 years; or\n\n###### (ii)    has, or has had, a connection with the University that, in the Deputy Vice-Chancellor’s opinion, is at least as equivalent as the connection mentioned in subparagraph (i).\n\n#### (3)    If the applicant is eligible to be considered for admission as a candidate for the higher doctorate, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor must establish a panel for the application.\n\n#### (4)    If the applicant is not eligible to be considered for admission as a candidate for the higher doctorate, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor must, by written notice given to the applicant, tell the applicant that the applicant is not eligible to be considered for admission as a candidate for the higher doctorate.\n\n#### (5)    If the Deputy Vice-Chancellor is to establish a panel for the application, the panel must consist of the following members:\n\n##### (a)    the Deputy Vice-Chancellor or a person nominated, in writing, by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor;\n\n##### (b)    3 staff members of the University appointed, in writing, by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor who have, in the Deputy Vice-Chancellor’s opinion, appropriate expertise in all or part of the field of the applicant’s work;\n\n##### (c)    the Associate Dean of each ANU College that has coverage of all or part of the field of the applicant’s work.\n\n#### (6)    The Deputy Vice-Chancellor or the Deputy Vice-Chancellor’s nominee under subsection (5)(a) is the chair of the panel.\n\n#### (7)    The panel must conduct its proceedings (including its meetings) as the Deputy Vice-Chancellor directs in writing.\n\n#### (8)    Subject to this instrument and to any directions of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor under subsection (7), the panel may conduct its proceeding (including its meetings) as it considers appropriate.\n\n### 9          Initial assessment and recommendation by panel: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if the Deputy Vice-Chancellor establishes a panel under this Part for an application made by a person to be admitted as a candidate for a higher doctorate.\n\n#### (2)    The panel must assess whether the applicant’s published work appears, prima facie, to be worthy of examination for the higher doctorate.\n\n#### (3)    The Deputy Vice-Chancellor may, in writing, require or permit the panel to obtain stated information in relation to the application.\n\n#### (4)    The panel must make its assessment having regard to the applicant’s application and any information obtained under subsection (3).\n\n#### (5)    Without limiting subsections (3) and (4), the panel must not seek referee reports for the applicant unless it is required or permitted to do so under subsection (3).\n\n#### (6)    If the panel’s assessment is that the applicant’s published work appears, prima facie, to be worthy of examination for the higher doctorate, the panel must recommend to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor that the applicant be admitted as a candidate for the higher doctorate.\n\n#### (7)    If the panel’s assessment is that the applicant’s published work does not appear, prima facie, to be worthy of examination for the higher doctorate, the panel must recommend to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor that the applicant not be admitted as a candidate for the higher doctorate.\n\n#### (8)    If the panel recommends that the applicant not be admitted as a candidate for the higher doctorate, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor must, by written notice given to the applicant, tell the applicant that the applicant has not been admitted as a candidate for the higher doctorate.\n\n### 10      Admission of applicant as candidate: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if:\n\n##### (a)    a panel is established under this Part for an application made by a person to be admitted as a candidate for a higher doctorate; and\n\n##### (b)    the panel recommends that the person be admitted as a candidate for the higher doctorate.\n\n#### (2)    The Deputy Vice-Chancellor must admit the person as a candidate for the higher doctorate.\n\n#### (3)    If the Deputy Vice-Chancellor admits the person as a candidate, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor must tell the person and the Registrar that the person has been admitted as a candidate for the higher doctorate.\n\n### 11      Submission of works by candidate: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if a person (the candidate) is admitted under this Part as a candidate for a higher doctorate.\n\n#### (2)    The candidate must submit to the Registrar 4 paper copies and 1 digital copy of published works, of which the candidate is the author or joint author, that are to be examined for the award of the higher doctorate.\n\n#### (3)    However, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor may, in writing:\n\n##### (a)    approve the submission of all or part of the candidate’s published works in another format and determine the number of copies to be given to the Registrar by the candidate in that format; or\n\n##### (b)    determine that the candidate give the Registrar a different number of paper copies of the published works.\n\n#### (4)    To remove any doubt, subsection (3) does not affect the candidate’s obligation under subsection (2) to submit 1 digital copy of the published works.\n\n#### (5)    The candidate must not submit any material that has been previously submitted by the candidate for the purpose of obtaining a degree from any university or other tertiary educational institution.\n\n#### (6)    If the candidate is the joint author of any of the submitted works, the candidate must give the Deputy Vice-Chancellor:\n\n##### (a)    a written statement that clearly indicates the parts of the works of which the candidate is the author; and\n\n##### (b)    the supporting material that the Deputy Vice-Chancellor requires by written notice given to the candidate.\n\n### 12      Examination of submitted works: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if a candidate for a higher doctorate under this Part submits works for examination for the award of the higher doctorate.\n\n#### (2)    The Deputy Vice-Chancellor must, in writing, appoint at least 3 examiners to examine the submitted works.\n\n#### (3)    Each person appointed as examiner must have international standing and not hold an academic or honorary academic appointment of the University.\n\n#### (4)    The examiners may require the candidate to attend an oral examination at a time and place decided by the examiners.\n\n#### (5)    Each examiner must give the Registrar a written report on the examiner’s examination of the submitted works.\n\n[Note: If a form is approved under s 23 (Approved forms) for this provision, the form must be used.]\n\n#### (6)    The report must recommend that the candidate be granted or not granted the higher doctorate.\n\n### 13      Recommendation by panel on submitted works: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if the submitted works of a candidate for a higher doctorate are examined under this Part.\n\n#### (2)    The Registrar must give a copy of the examiners’ reports to the panel established for the candidate’s application to be admitted as a candidate for the higher doctorate.\n\n#### (3)    The panel must consider the examiners’ reports.\n\n#### (4)    The panel must recommend to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor that the candidate be granted the higher doctorate if, after considering the examiners’ reports, the panel is of the opinion that the submitted works:\n\n##### (a)    represent outstanding creative achievement or an outstanding contribution to the field of knowledge in which the submitted works fall; or\n\n##### (b)    exhibit a level of originality that stamp the candidate as a major authority in that field.\n\n#### (5)    The panel must recommend to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor that the candidate not be granted the higher doctorate if, after considering the examiners’ reports, the panel is not of the opinion mentioned in subsection (4).\n\n#### (6)    If the panel recommends to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor that the candidate not be granted the higher doctorate, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor must, by written notice given to the applicant, tell the applicant that the applicant is not to be awarded the higher doctorate.\n\n### 14      Recommendation by Deputy Vice-Chancellor: doctorates other than Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if the panel established under this Part for a candidate’s application to be admitted as a candidate for a higher doctorate recommends to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor that the candidate be granted the higher doctorate.\n\n#### (2)    The Deputy Vice-Chancellor must consider the examiners’ reports and the panel’s recommendation.\n\n#### (3)    The Deputy Vice-Chancellor must recommend to the Vice-Chancellor that the candidate be awarded the higher doctorate if, after considering the examiners’ reports and the panel’s recommendation, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor is of the opinion that the submitted works:\n\n##### (a)    represent outstanding creative achievement or an outstanding contribution to the field of knowledge in which the submitted works fall; or\n\n##### (b)    exhibit a level of originality that stamp the candidate as a major authority in that field.\n\n#### (4)    If, after considering the examiners’ reports and the panel’s recommendation, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor is not of the opinion mentioned in subsection (3), the Deputy Vice-Chancellor must, by written notice given to the candidate, tell the candidate that the candidate is not to be awarded the higher doctorate.\n\n# Part 4—Candidates for Doctor of Medicine\n\n### 15      Application to become candidate: Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    A person may apply to the Dean of the ANU Medical School to be admitted as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Medicine.\n\n#### (2)    The application must:\n\n##### (a)    be in writing; and\n\n##### (b)    include complete details of the person’s qualifications and, if relevant, professional experience.\n\n[Note 1: If a form is approved under s 23 (Approved forms) for this provision, the form must be used.]\n\n[Note 2: Giving false or misleading information, or producing a false or misleading document, may be a criminal offence against the Criminal Code.]\n\n#### (3)    However, if the person applied at any time during the previous 5 years to be admitted as a candidate for the degree, the person may make an application under this section only if the Dean agrees that the application may be made in the exceptional circumstances of the case.\n\n#### (4)    The Dean may, by written notice given to the applicant, require the applicant to provide any information or document that the Dean reasonably needs to consider the application.\n\n#### (5)    If the Dean requires the applicant to provide information or a document, the Dean need not consider the application until the applicant complies with the requirement.\n\n#### (6)    The Dean may, in writing, determine procedures to be followed by an applicant to be admitted as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Medicine.\n\n### 16      Establishment and proceedings of panel: Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if a person applies under this Part to be admitted as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Medicine.\n\n#### (2)    The applicant is eligible to be considered for admission as a candidate for the degree if:\n\n##### (a)    the applicant:\n\n###### (i)    holds a medical degree of the University, and has held that degree for at least 5 years; or\n\n###### (ii)    holds a similar degree of another university that, in the Dean’s opinion, is equivalent to a medical degree of the University, and has held that degree for at least 5 years; or\n\n###### (iii)    the applicant is, in the Dean’s opinion, otherwise qualified to be a candidate because of the applicant’s eminence in learning or creative achievements; and\n\n##### (b)    the applicant:\n\n###### (i)    is a full-time member of the academic staff of the University and, during the previous 10 years, has been employed as a full-time member of the academic staff of the University for a total of at least 3 years; or\n\n###### (ii)    has, or has had, a connection with the University that, in the Dean’s opinion, is at least as equivalent as the connection mentioned in subparagraph (i).\n\n#### (3)    If the applicant is eligible to be considered for admission as a candidate for the degree, the Dean must establish a panel for the application.\n\n#### (4)    If the applicant is not eligible to be considered for admission as a candidate for the degree, the Dean must, by written notice given to the applicant, tell the applicant that the applicant is not eligible to be considered for admission as a candidate for the degree.\n\n#### (5)    If the Dean is to establish a panel for the application, the panel must consist of the following members:\n\n##### (a)    the Dean or a person nominated, in writing, by the Dean;\n\n##### (b)    3 staff members of the University appointed, in writing, by the Dean who have, in the Dean’s opinion, appropriate expertise in all or part of the field of the applicant’s work.\n\n#### (6)    The Dean or the Dean’s nominee under subsection (5)(a) is the chair of the panel.\n\n#### (7)    The panel must conduct its proceedings (including its meetings) as the Dean directs in writing.\n\n#### (8)    Subject to this instrument and to any directions of the Dean under subsection (7), the panel may conduct its proceeding (including its meetings) as it considers appropriate.\n\n#### (9)    In this section:\n\nmedical degree, of the University, means any of the following degrees:\n\n##### (a)    Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery;\n\n##### (b)    Medicinae ac Chirurgiae Doctoranda;\n\n##### (c)    Doctor of Medicine and Surgery.\n\n### 17      Initial assessment and recommendation by panel: Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if the Dean of the ANU Medical School establishes a panel under this Part for an application made by a person to be admitted as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Medicine.\n\n#### (2)    The panel must assess whether the applicant’s published work appears, prima facie, to be worthy of examination for the degree.\n\n#### (3)    The Dean may, in writing, require or permit the panel to obtain stated information in relation to the application.\n\n#### (4)    The panel must make its assessment having regard to the applicant’s application and any information obtained under subsection (3).\n\n#### (5)    Without limiting subsections (3) and (4), the panel must not seek referee reports for the applicant unless it is required or permitted to do so under subsection (3).\n\n#### (6)    If the panel’s assessment is that the applicant’s published work appears, prima facie, to be worthy of examination for the degree, the panel must recommend to the Dean that the applicant be admitted as a candidate for the degree.\n\n#### (7)    If the panel’s assessment is that the applicant’s published work does not appear, prima facie, to be worthy of examination for the degree, the panel must recommend to the Dean that the applicant not be admitted as a candidate for the degree.\n\n#### (8)    If the panel recommends that the applicant not be admitted as a candidate for the degree, the Dean must, by written notice given to the applicant, tell the applicant that the applicant has not been admitted as a candidate for the degree.\n\n### 18      Admission of applicant as candidate: Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if:\n\n##### (a)    a panel is established under this Part for an application made by a person to be admitted as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Medicine; and\n\n##### (b)    the panel recommends that the person be admitted as a candidate for the degree.\n\n#### (2)    The Dean of the ANU Medical School must admit the person as a candidate for the degree.\n\n#### (3)    If the Dean admits the person as a candidate, the Dean must tell the person and the Registrar that the person has been admitted as a candidate for the degree.\n\n### 19      Submission of works by candidate: Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if a person (the candidate) is admitted under this Part as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Medicine.\n\n#### (2)    The candidate must submit to the Registrar 4 paper copies and 1 digital copy of published works, of which the candidate is the author or joint author, that are to be examined for the award of the degree.\n\n#### (3)    However, the Dean of the ANU Medical School may, in writing:\n\n##### (a)    approve the submission of all or part of the candidate’s published works in another format and determine the number of copies to be given to the Registrar by the candidate in that format; or\n\n##### (b)    determine that the candidate give the Registrar a different number of paper copies of the published works.\n\n#### (4)    To remove any doubt, subsection (3) does not affect the candidate’s obligation under subsection (2) to submit 1 digital copy of the published works.\n\n#### (5)    The candidate must not submit any material that has been previously submitted by the candidate for the purpose of obtaining a degree from any university or other tertiary educational institution.\n\n#### (6)    If the candidate is the joint author of any of the submitted works, the candidate must give the Dean:\n\n##### (a)    a written statement that clearly indicates the parts of the works of which the candidate is the author; and\n\n##### (b)    the supporting material that the Dean requires by written notice given to the candidate.\n\n### 20      Examination of submitted works: Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Medicine under this Part submits works for examination for the award of the degree.\n\n#### (2)    The Dean of the ANU Medical School must, in writing, appoint at least 3 examiners to examine the submitted works.\n\n#### (3)    Each person appointed as examiner must have international standing and not hold an academic or honorary academic appointment of the University.\n\n#### (4)    The examiners may require the candidate to attend an oral examination at a time and place decided by the examiners.\n\n#### (5)    Each examiner must give the Dean a written report on the examiner’s examination of the submitted works.\n\n[Note: If a form is approved under s 23 (Approved forms) for this provision, the form must be used.]\n\n#### (6)    The report must recommend that the candidate be granted or not granted the degree of Doctor of Medicine.\n\n### 21      Recommendation by panel on submitted works: Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if the submitted works of a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Medicine are examined under this Part.\n\n#### (2)    The Dean of the ANU Medical School must give a copy of the examiners’ reports to the panel established for the candidate’s application to be admitted as a candidate for the degree.\n\n#### (3)    The panel must consider the examiners’ reports.\n\n#### (4)    The panel must recommend to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor that the candidate be granted the degree if, after considering the examiners’ reports, the panel is of the opinion that the submitted works:\n\n##### (a)    represent a substantial, original and important contribution to the advancement of medical knowledge on a coherent theme; and\n\n##### (b)    are of sufficient merit for conferral of the degree.\n\n#### (5)    The panel must recommend to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor that the candidate not be granted the degree if, after considering the examiners’ reports, the panel is not of the opinion mentioned in subsection (4).\n\n#### (6)    If the panel recommends to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor that the candidate not be granted the degree, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor must, by written notice given to the applicant, tell the applicant that the applicant is not to be awarded the degree.\n\n### 22      Recommendation by Deputy Vice-Chancellor: Doctor of Medicine\n\n#### (1)    This section applies if the panel established under this Part for a candidate’s application to be admitted as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Medicine recommends to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor that the candidate be granted the degree.\n\n#### (2)    The Deputy Vice-Chancellor must consider the examiners’ reports and the panel’s recommendation.\n\n#### (3)    The Deputy Vice-Chancellor must recommend to the Vice-Chancellor that the candidate be awarded the degree if, after considering the examiners’ reports and the panel’s recommendation, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor is of the opinion that the submitted works:\n\n##### (a)    represent a substantial, original and important contribution to the advancement of medical knowledge on a coherent theme; and\n\n##### (b)    are of sufficient merit for conferral of the degree.\n\n#### (4)    If, after considering the examiners’ reports and the panel’s recommendation, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor is not of the opinion mentioned in subsection (3), the Deputy Vice-Chancellor must, by written notice given to the candidate, tell the candidate that the candidate is not to be awarded the degree.\n\n# Part 5—Miscellaneous\n\n### 23      Approved forms\n\n#### (1)    The Registrar may, in writing, approve forms for this instrument.\n\n#### (2)    If the Registrar approves a form for a particular purpose, the form must be used for that purpose.\n\n#### (3)    The Registrar must ensure that approved forms are publicly available on the University’s website or any other way that the Registrar considers appropriate.\n\n### 24      Repeal\n\nThe Higher Doctorates Rules (No. 2) 2014 are repealed.\n\n \n","sortOrder":0}],"analysis":{"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The legislation appears focused and contained. It addresses a specific, narrow administrative process (higher doctorate awards) without significant expansion beyond its original purpose. The parallel structure for Doctor of Medicine reflects a deliberate design choice rather than scope creep."},"complexity_factors":["Parallel structure: Parts 3 and 4 duplicate nearly identical procedures for non-medical doctorates and Doctor of Medicine, with only minor variations in decision-makers (Deputy Vice-Chancellor vs Dean) and assessment criteria","Nested eligibility conditions in sections 8(2) and 16(2) requiring multiple alternative qualifications AND connection requirements","Multiple layers of decision-making: panel recommendation → Deputy Vice-Chancellor/Dean → Vice-Chancellor","Conditional logic with exceptions: 5-year reapplication bar with 'exceptional circumstances' override (sections 7(3) and 15(3))","Cross-references to external instruments: Programs and Awards Statute 2013, Vice-Chancellorship Statute, and Criminal Code","Defined terms section with inclusive definition of 'work' spanning 6 categories including non-traditional outputs like software and performances"],"plain_english_summary":"This rule sets a rigorous process for ANU to award six higher doctorates to senior scholars whose published work shows outstanding achievement. It establishes eligibility tied to significant ANU connection, a two-track approval route (Medicine separately), independent international examination, and final Vice‑Chancellor approval. The scheme preserves academic integrity and ANU’s reputation by recognizing rare, lifetime scholarly or creative contributions."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":4,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"This instrument replaces the earlier Higher Doctorates Rules (No. 2) 2014 (s 24) and appears to restate and consolidate procedural rules for awarding higher doctorates at ANU. From the text alone there is no clear, substantive broadening of scope beyond setting out candidate eligibility, panel and examiner procedures, submission requirements and decision pathways. Any change in scope would require comparison with the repealed 2014 instrument; based on the rule text itself, it maintains the traditional administrative purpose of governing how higher doctorates are awarded rather than expanding the types of awards or policy objectives."},"complexity_factors":["5 substantive Parts with focused procedural flow (Preliminary; Higher doctorates; Non‑MD candidates; MD candidates; Miscellaneous)","4 defined terms in the interpretation sections (higher doctorate; published work; work with 6 subcategories; medical degree (s 16(9)))","Two parallel but slightly different regulatory tracks (non‑MD: Parts 3; MD: Part 4) creating duplication and separate eligibility/tests","Multiple discretionary decision points (Deputy Vice‑Chancellor, Dean) to determine equivalence, eminence, and procedures (ss 7(6); 8(2)(a)(ii)–(iii); 16(2)(a)(ii)–(iii))","Panel composition rules with small conditional differences between tracks (ss 8(5); 16(5))","External examination requirements with at least 3 examiners and prohibition on ANU appointments for examiners (ss 12(2)–(3); 20(2)–(3))","Application constraints: 5‑year re‑application limit with exception, plus requirement for submission formats (4 paper + 1 digital) but delegated exceptions (ss 7(3); 11(2)–(4); 19(2)–(4))","Cross references and delegations: references to Programs and Awards Statute 2013 and delegation to Registrar for forms (s 3; s 23) increase dependency on other documents and administrative procedures","Provisions requiring reports and written notices at multiple stages create nested procedural steps (initial assessment, examiners' reports, panel recommendation, Deputy Vice‑Chancellor recommendation, Vice‑Chancellor approval)"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this rule does (mechanics)\n\n- Identifies the higher doctorate degrees the Australian National University (ANU) may award: Doctor of Fine Arts (DFA), Doctor of Laws (LLD), Doctor of Letters (DLitt), Doctor of Medicine (MD), Doctor of Music (DMus) and Doctor of Science (DSc) (s 5).\n- Sets the decision path: the Deputy Vice‑Chancellor recommends awards to the Vice‑Chancellor, who may approve them (s 6; ss 14 and 22 for recommendations to the Vice‑Chancellor).\n- Establishes separate application and assessment procedures for two tracks: (a) higher doctorates other than the MD (Parts 3) and (b) the Doctor of Medicine (Part 4). Procedures are similar but differ in some eligibility and substantive criteria (compare ss 8–14 with ss 16–22).\n- Requires written applications with qualification and experience details; limits re‑applications within 5 years unless exceptional circumstances are accepted (ss 7(1)–(3); 15(1)–(3)).\n- Requires panels to be formed to assess applications and later to consider examiners’ reports. Panels are chaired by the Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (or nominee) for non‑MDs and by the Dean (or nominee) for MDs; panel composition rules differ slightly between the two tracks (ss 8(3)–(6); 16(3)–(6)).\n- Sets an initial, prima facie assessment by the panel of the applicant’s published work to decide whether the candidate should proceed to examination (ss 9(2)–(7); 17(2)–(7)).\n- Requires candidates admitted to submit published works (normally 4 paper copies plus 1 digital copy) and prohibits submission of material previously used to obtain a degree (ss 11(2)–(6); 19(2)–(6)).\n- Requires at least three external examiners of international standing to examine submitted works; examiners must not hold ANU academic or honorary appointments (ss 12(2)–(3); 20(2)–(3)). Examiners report whether the work should be granted the degree and may require an oral exam (ss 12(4)–(6); 20(4)–(6)).\n- Panels consider examiners’ reports and must recommend award or refusal based on stated merit thresholds: for non‑MDs the work must represent \"outstanding creative achievement or an outstanding contribution\" or show originality making the candidate a \"major authority\" (s 13(4)); for the MD the test is a \"substantial, original and important contribution to the advancement of medical knowledge on a coherent theme\" and sufficient merit (s 21(4)).\n- The Registrar may approve and require the use of particular forms and must publish approved forms (s 23). The rule repeals the 2014 Higher Doctorates Rules (s 24).\n\nWho this affects\n\n- Candidates: current or former ANU academic staff, people with a qualifying connection to ANU, or eminent scholars who seek a higher doctorate based on published work (eligibility conditions at ss 8(2) and 16(2)).\n- ANU decision‑makers: Deputy Vice‑Chancellor, Vice‑Chancellor, Dean of the Medical School, panels, the Registrar and appointed external examiners (various provisions throughout Parts 2–5).\n- Joint authors: must identify which parts they authored and provide supporting material (ss 11(6); 19(6)).\n\nWhy it matters (claimed purpose and practical effects)\n\n- The rule sets how ANU recognises substantial scholarly or creative achievement by awarding higher doctorates on the basis of published work rather than by supervised research programs. That is the instrument’s stated operational purpose (see the degree definitions and the examination and recommendation pathways in Parts 2–4).\n\nTesting that claim against trade‑offs, costs and incentives\n\n- Benefits concentrated: successful candidates obtain a high‑status degree; this is a concentrated benefit to individuals. The university receives reputational benefit if awards are of high standard (ss 13(4); 21(4)).\n- Costs and administrative burden: panels, external examiners, and the Registrar must be convened and managed; the rule does not specify payment or timeframes for examiners, so resource costs fall to the university (ss 12, 20, 23). Candidates bear time and documentary costs assembling publications and, if required, attending oral exams (ss 11(2); 12(4)).\n- Gatekeeping and access rules: eligibility emphasises ANU connection or internal employment (normally a minimum of 3 years’ full‑time ANU employment within the previous 10 years, or an equivalent connection). This focuses access toward ANU staff or those with close ties and may limit external competition for awards (ss 8(2)(b); 16(2)(b)).\n- Institutional discretion and potential variation in outcomes: the Deputy Vice‑Chancellor, Dean and panels have broad discretion to judge equivalence of outside awards, accept \"eminence\", set procedures, and require additional information (ss 7(6); 8(2)(a)(ii)–(iii); 16(2)(a)(ii)–(iii); ss 9(3), 17(3)). Those discretionary points create implementation risk of inconsistent decisions unless detailed administrative directions are issued.\n- Standards and external scrutiny: the requirement for at least three external examiners of international standing who hold no ANU appointment introduces external peer scrutiny (ss 12(2)–(3); 20(2)–(3)). How \"international standing\" is interpreted is not defined and is left to the appointing officers, which is a potential source of variation (ss 12(3); 20(3)).\n- Safeguards and anti‑fraud signals: the rule requires truthful statements of qualifications and warns that false or misleading information may be a criminal offence (ss 7(2) note; 15(2) note). Joint authorship requires evidence of contribution (ss 11(6); 19(6)).\n\nConcrete behavioural effects\n\n- Who pays: the university will incur administrative and reviewer costs; candidates pay time and effort and potentially travel for oral examinations.\n- Who decides: Deputy Vice‑Chancellor (and Dean for MDs) controls eligibility thresholds, panel composition and local procedures; panels and external examiners make the substantive academic judgements; Vice‑Chancellor issues final approvals (ss 6; 8(5)–(6); 12(2)–(6); 16(3)–(6); 20(2)–(6)).\n- Changed behaviours: scholars with substantial published outputs may apply for recognition via this non‑taught route; ANU may prioritise internal candidates due to the connection requirement.\n\nImplementation and compliance risks\n\n- Ambiguities in discretionary terms (\"eminence\", \"international standing\", \"equivalent\") can lead to inconsistent application and appeals risk (ss 8(2)(a)(iii); 12(3); 16(2)(a)(iii)).\n- No explicit timelines or fees are specified in the instrument; delays and hidden administrative costs are possible unless managed by subsidiary procedures (see ss 7(6) and 23 for procedural delegation and form publication).\n\nOverall practical takeaways\n\n- This rule operationalises how ANU awards higher doctorates by published work, limiting candidates largely to those with substantial ANU connections or outstanding external standing. It combines internal gatekeeping (panels and Deputy Vice‑Chancellor/Dean discretion) with external peer review (minimum three external examiners) and sets clear submission and joint‑authorship documentation requirements. The main sources of uncertainty are the discretionary terms and the absence of procedural detail (timelines, payments), which are left to officers’ written directions (ss 7(6); 8(7); 16(7); s 23)."},"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"A positive credit balance is required for all requests, including BYOK, so fallback providers remain available. Add credits at https://vercel.com/d?to=%2F%5Bteam%5D%2F%7E%2Fai%3Fmodal%3Dtop-up to continue.","source":"analysis-cron"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/higher-doctorates-rule-2015","history":"/api/acts/higher-doctorates-rule-2015/history","analysis":"/api/acts/higher-doctorates-rule-2015/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/higher-doctorates-rule-2015/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/higher-doctorates-rule-2015/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/higher-doctorates-rule-2015/documents"}}