A comparative analysis of the doctoral regulations at the medical faculties in Germany

Objective: In order to be allowed to use the title "Dr. med." in Germany, an independent scientific achievement under the supervision of an established scientist is necessary. The research question, analysis and results are essentially carried out and developed independently by the doctoral student. The doctorate serves as proof that the doctoral candidate is capable of independent academic work. The acquisition of scientific skills and knowledge is of particular importance in medicine, as Germany´s international competitiveness is based on the education of today´s young academics. Fair conditions and uniform quality standards for doctoral studies are therefore indispensable to attract future young scientists at an early stage. Methods: The currently valid doctoral regulations of the medical faculties in Germany were analysed with regards to the following target criteria; update date, dissertation language, possibility of publication-based dissertation and its details (number of first and total authorships, publication organ), knowledge of methods and consideration of "Good Medical Practice" (GMP), plagiarism check, review process and disputation. Results: All faculties with the right to award doctorates, and, thus 40 valid regulations were included in the analysis. This revealed a great divergence in the requirements for doctoral candidates. Although a publication-based doctorate is now possible at 93% (n=37) of the faculties, in addition to the monographic dissertation, the required first and total authorships vary from one required first authorship (n=26, 70%) to two or three first authorships (n=5, 14%), as well as some faculties having no information regarding the number of publications (n=6, 16%). The quality of the publication organ was not described in detail in seven faculties (19%). To ensure quality, requirements have increasingly been anchored in the regulations, so that 22 regulations (56%) now stipulate participation in courses on GMP or qualification programmes. The regulations leave a lot of room for manoeuvre in terms of content and do not allow for comparability of the conditions for preparing doctoral researchers. The specifications range from mere mention, to instruction, to compulsory course participation. Another means of quality assurance is the prevention of plagiarism through the applications of software systems. However, this simple and effective means is not yet mentioned in 65% of the regulations (n=26). While the other regulations make use of this possibility, it is not an obligatory application. A total of 34 regulations provide for the regular drawing up of a supervision agreement to define the rights and obligations of the actors involved. Conclusion: The analysis showed a divergent picture. Although imprecise regulations or gaps in information allow scope for design, they also prevent transparency. Despite revisions of many regulations in the past, these revisions have not led to any significant harmonisation. The implementation of standardised and structured doctoral programmes is desirable and could be tackled within the framework of the planned amendment of medical studies. This opens up the possibility of dealing efficiently with the scarce resource of time in the face of competing curriculum content and of making a doctoral project more attractive to potential young scientists at an early stage.