Is it possible to present a PhD thesis without an advisor?

No. It is just not possible, for quality control reasons. The PhD process is about learning, not just publishing.

In spite of things looking rosy, how can you ensure that you will make an original (not just 'interesting') contribution to human knowledge? How can you ensure that it will be a significant (not merely 'surprising') contribution? A 'working' project does not mean a PhD.

No university will be willing to grant a degree unless it has been mentored by an advisor, and examined by appointed external examiners. (You can buy 'degrees' online, but we are not going down that route!)

Publishing quality papers is no problem. You just note your affiliation as “independent researcher”. Your thesis-book will be several papers worth.

As Ian mentioned, the process is about learning - not just publishing. That means that there is an associated level of course work that is required, and showing that you've mastered that body of knowledge.

Your topic might be something to pursue, but you should find a degree program that has that has your area of research in its expertise. Having other researchers with familiarity of your topic is beneficial as they can point out things that a) might have been covered by others; b) areas that you might have misunderstood/misinterpreted; c) put you in touch with other researchers who can offer you assistance.

Just "showing up" at a University with a dissertation and saying you deserve a PhD will never fly.

In very rare cases a university may allow a PhD student to defend without having a supervisor, but this is not common practice. A supervisor should help the student to understand how research should be done, and explain how the process looks like in this university (practices differ quite a lot, and even the length of the thesis may vary between 10 and 500 pages). Usually being a PhD student is almost a full-time job that lasts 3-4 years and quite often even longer: taking courses (mostly in the first years) and working on the thesis and in some universities, also teaching and participating in projects.

You can publish papers without working or studying in a university as an independent (unaffiliated) researcher.

Learning and doing things can be done by anyone and anytime, but a PhD is a systematic academic learning system where the learning process and related activities are subjected to strict protocols. The idea/proposal must be viable and should go through a defence process up till viva or thesis exam. The main reason is because academic is about finding the truth on something. It is not just about doing something that works. And the truth cannot be established if it just a one-man show.

The best method of learning is by having a teacher or someone with experience to continuously discuss with. In academics, we call them supervisor(s). They might only contribute a little, or they might be very commanding, but there must always be someone to check on the truths of the work.

Just find an academician anywhere that is interested in your work, and register, and do the work, publish the truth about it, and get your PhD, brother. Its a tiring process, but this is how true and good knowledge is systematically expanded throughout history.

All the best.

I was going to comment but Ian and Jerry pretty much said it all. What Heilo describes is simply not possible in the U.S. and probably not in more than a few Doctoral programs in the world.

On the issue of publishing, Tila nailed it. One does not need an academic affiliation to get published, but without having had the benefit of formal preparation in the academy via a doctoral program, very few people could ever get published. Getting published involves a lot more than simply having an interesting idea. One needs to select the best journal, know to cite sources from that journal in one's literature review, be familiar with the body of research in the field, etc. Publishing has become ten times more competitive than it was in the 80s and 90s. All schools, even teaching schools, want faculty to publish articles. The competition is stiff and a non-academic would have a tough time breaking in.

I would reiterate all the existing comments. Embarking on a PhD is really about a process of discovery, learning, and becoming part of a community of researchers. Doing some research and trying to get the piece of paper at the end isn't what it's about.

In some professions (eg medicine) people do a doctorate by publication (eg. MD) in which they draw together years of research; but still they would be affiliated with a university and have a supervisor/advisor.

Trying to pull off a doctorate without an advisor or supervisor is risky at best - there are good reasons why universities spend a lot of time and energy supporting students in various ways: most importantly because it is needed!

It has been said that the purpose of a supervisor is to fight the system for you! Do you really want to do that all by yourself? Who are you going to turn to for advice? (These 2 questions are rhetorical questions.)

A good supervisor will give you as much freedom as you need, so do not be afraid of losing your independence.

Yes, there is (at least in Europe, including the UK).  It is called 'PhD by published work" and offered by respectable universities.  The traditional route is increasingly about the research universities getting incredibly cheap workforce (or even free / self-funded / paying!) slaving for their supervisors (yes, slaving for, not learning from).  More and more voices explaining that can be heard.  The Economist basically called academia a huge pyramid scheme.

Tomasz, Most R1 (research 1) schools allow people to get a degree with publications only (more specifically, in some areas not all). But this is done after their coursework and as part of their educational experience. At my school, students in Math and Engineering, Physics and some other areas can substitute scholarship published for writing a Dissertation and that is the preferred model. But, in MOST fields, especially the humanities and social sciences, that is simply not an option.

On your claims that respectable universities give out degrees for published work, to my knowledge that is not correct. Send me a link to a school that does this. There is no prestige, educational, or monetary value or incentive for a school to do this. Why would they? If you come to my school and what a degree, we will expect you to get accepted and enroll for classes. You can get an assistantship if you are an excellent student and not have to pay, but you have to take classes and be in residence for at least a year here. The idea that education is worthless and taking classes is "pyramidal" is simply hyperbole. Send me the cite for the economist article, I get the Economist, I can read it.

Yes, the state of graduate education in many countries is obscenely poor, but to suggest that you can simply write and publish articles is not true. You would never get published in a reputable journal without having been socialized into the academy and expected research practices. What Ian said 16 months ago is absolutely correct.

Are there bad schools giving out degrees to people? Sure. I guess. I do not know where they are or why they would do that expect for money, but these are not "respectable universities." The best schools control the quality of faculty and graduates and do not give out degrees to people. I would never sign off on giving someone a degree simply because s/he wrote some articles, I don't care if they were the most cited scholar in the field, a degree is more than evidence that you can write a few articles. 

If you read some of the literature on how universities are judged by external reviewers (experts not Newsweek), there or several criteria, more or less in this order: Number of  articles written by faculty, number of citations to those articles, quality of the journals published, quality of the faculty at the school, etc. There are a few others, but these are the big ones. These schools do not give out degrees to people except honorary degrees when someone is 60+ years old. 

Perhaps I misunderstood your comments. 

@Michael:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+economist+pyramid+scheme+academia (I am sorry, I could not resist ;) )

I think it was this one (first item in the search results):

And a nice summary of what the article says by a political scientist:

Apropos, the following text provides an interesting insight into academia (you probably read it as it had gone viral some time ago but, just in case, here you are):

As for the universities which do allow it, again, a quick google may help. The most notable example I know of is the University of Cambridge (a special case as it offers this option only to its former graduates).

@Ian:

The questions you raise in your last post are off-topic.  It is not what the OP has asked about.

@Tomaz: I disagree. Hélio wants to work in the engineering field, where the advisor would be of inestimable help in providing support such as a research group, and all its benefits, such as a lab and equipment.

@Ian: As I understand it, the OP decided to conduct independent research and produce publication-quality material by himself and was interested to hear whether it was possible to use such material to get a doctoral degree or if there were no alternative routes and completing a full doctoral training program was required.  This is what I tried to answer.  I do not feel qualified or authorised to judge the OP's life choices and his decision to conduct independent research.

Tomasz, 

Thank you for the articles. No apologies necessary for the search assist, although it was a bit creepy. Unfortunately, the reference to Pyramid scheme in that first article and the subsequent followup from the political scientist is one sentence in an otherwise cogent and mostly accurate account of some people's experience in the academy.

I have sat across the table from many grad. students and former professors who had similar feelings. While I do not discount them, I think the problem is in thinking that what they have experience is unique. There are shitty bosses (professors and administrarors) and "companies" (schools) in every profession. There are also lots and lots of disillusioned accountants out there (profession with the highest attrition) and many soul sucking careers. But being a professor if it works out is a good gig. 

The "fiercest critics compare research doctorates to Ponzi or pyramid schemes" reference is clearly hyperbole, since, by definition, a ponzi scheme is about deception to get money from someone not exploitation of labor. Or perhaps exploiting people's greed or optimism and there is some of that, but that does not make it a ponzi scheme. And a one sentence reference in a lengthy article is insufficient to hang an argument on in my opinion. 

As for the money argument, my own field (public relations) and related in my college (professional writing) is one of those that do not require ANY advanced degrees to do well, and an advanced degree early in one's career CAN actually work against someone, as the article suggests. But, to suggest that the entire endeavor is unfair and rigged because the bean counters out there (administrators) demand more and more for less and less, sounds exactly like the state of the US economy. I read yesterday that 15 billionaires had their fortunes increase by 150 billion in the last year, more than the entire wealth of the bottom 40% of the US. So seeing the same forces at play anywhere, even in the academy should come as no surprise to someone who is getting a doctorate. Unless they are that 23 year old math major who wants a degree for writing a 20 page formula (sorry, my own bias) and not learning to be a good citizen as well.

I could go through the article, the response, or the third piece complaining about how unfair the academy is, but suffice to say, I disagree with many of the points. Some are spot on but many are simply exaggerated or sour grapes.

I think one of the biggest issues we encounter on ResearchGate is that people come from different countries and different systems and most people do not realize that their occupational psychosis makes them blind to that. The US system is very different than other parts of the world (Australis, New Zealand, China, Great Britain, Canada, etc.) and people often ask questions in one world that don't make sense in another.

@Michael:

From my own observations and my conversations with friends (supplemented with countless articles and discussions one can find in the press and online), I do believe that the texts I quoted are very accurate in depicting what the academic system has become. I do understand that you may disagree with the Economist or me and I do respect your right to have your own opinion.

I think it is always good to concentrate on facts and numbers. This is what the article in the Economist does. The number of new PhDs produced by the system in the past and now versus the number of professorships (or lectureships) is a fact. The emergence of the postdoc phenomenon and how it influenced career prospects of young academics (again, some numbers can be found there) is also a fact. The numbers describing career prospects and earnings of PhDs versus MA/Ss and others outside of academia are a fact too (and let us not even talk about the opportunity cost of one's doing a PhD instead of joining the workforce years earlier). These are not hyperboles.

As for what you wrote about the Ponzi or pyramid scheme, well, the fact is that university PR departments (and many senior academics) do paint a rather rosy picture of one's career prospects and life after one earns a PhD and, as you yourself have said earlier, universities take on PhD candidates for just one reason - to make money (tuition fees, prestige, number of publications and how it all translates to money from research contracts and grants (the research mostly done by PhD candidates and underpaid postdocs (both categories often called 'apprentices' by senior academics))). Combine this with the hierarchical structure of the academic world and it all sounds just like a pyramid scheme (according to what you said in your last message).

Regarding what you wrote about people having bad bosses and unpleasant experiences in "regular" jobs too (i.e. outside of academia), I do of course agree but I believe that there is one important difference. It is very difficult for the doctoral candidate to quit before they get their degree after they have invested so much (time and money) in their PhD. Everyone else can quit their job after a year, two or three and they just get another position on their CV which makes them worth even more on the job market. Putting a failed PhD course on one's CV is usually not a good idea and having a two- or three-year gap can really harm one's career prospects. Combine it with the fact that one's contemporaries already have several years of professional experience on their resumes at that point. In most cases a PhD is an all-or-nothing game. This is one of the reasons why many PhD candidates openly call themselves slaves.

BTW, the numbers related to billionaires and the bottom 40% of the US were very interesting, thanks, and I do agree that this is becoming a huge problem.  If you have not seen that yet there was an interesting talk related to that: https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming?language=en

This is all OT. I am afraid we have hijacked this discussion. Apologies to all who have come here to find some information about what the OP asked about.

Yes it is possible, there was an English researcher/physicist who became physics professor directly, skipping both the Diploma and degree process as he would spend a lot of time in the library and had so much knowledge. He didn't even do the phD. It was a century ago so this was possible.

It should be possible. However, the universities due to their own advertisement will not allow you. You will submit you research idea you will do everything in your degree, then you have the right to decide if you want guide or not. The rest system of quality control can be done. 

Dear All

If some one produce a quality PhD dissertation without a supervisor, with prior master level research studies, why he/she should not be offered a PhD if quality supervisors can endorse it.  guidance a of a supervisor is not always able surface the talent of a student. . If student is doing his studies under the supervision of a professor who is not conversant with language that dissertation is written. 

When  reading some PhDs in internet (PhD with supervisors), I believe that guidance were  not adequate.. However, I am not aware of universities offers such PhDs.

Upananda

Dear friend

You are free to think and this is a thinker's world. The concept of 'thinking' must be endorsed by the process called 'doing'. This process of doing yields some written work. Our world is in a state of gradient and that starts from supervisor/guide/teacher to student now. Earlier many great thinkers and scientists did work on their own and we still decorate their dignity and intelligence. Fortunately, in this google era, still their is a need of master who limits our work intellectual expansion and make us fit into a vessel of PhD, otherwise we keep on working and expanding our knowledge base without limits and the need of a job such as teacher/researcher or other position become null and void. My dear friend, in my opinion you must join an university/college but don't stop thinking and doing in your own style and convince the guide with the same so as to minimize disputes.

I sincerely hope that one day we can publish our thesis online and it shall be endorsed by all the eminent personalities and researchers in the world and therefore 'free thinkers' might get PhD without attending any of the academic zone and might be issued by one university which would like to own that thesis.

All the best. Thank you

In Norway, there exists two doctoral degrees: the regular PhD degree and the degree of Dr. Philos. (doctor philosophiae). The last mentioned, the Dr.Philos. degree in Norway may be conferred on graduates who have qualified for a doctoral degree on their own, without formal research training. The candidates write the thesis without supervision and have no connection with the university as a doctoral candidate until a faculty has approved their application for admission to the Dr. Philos. examination. The two doctoral degrees are in Norway considered being of equal academic value.

the higher educatio comission needs a supervisor under whom you can perform phd

what is the rule in your country ??

We need supervisor here.

Thank you

Dear Estela

Yes, it possible. The two main points are: it is permitted in academic procedures that rules all PhD formation process? _ I advise you check the Reglamentos de la Comisión Nacional de Grados Científicos de Cuba- and It is possible to you "pass" a good thesis for all reviewers and juries without previous guidance?

if you manage to answer yes the two questions then you can do it. Also remember that a research for a PhD its usually part of a project that involve many people, sometime with more expertise than ourselves.

Best regards,

Redimio

Thanks very much for your guidance

Upananda

Dear Helio,

It varies from country to country. In Iran, it is not possible.

Most Indian Universities will require a PhD student to have a qualified guide.

Greetings, first of all get a PhD is not something, if you are very skilled and have a lot of experience in research you could take a doctorate in research, in any way you need one or several advisors, besides that you need to have an institution of prestige that endorses his work. On the other hand, if research is interesting, it already contributes a lot to science, it can be published in any journal of the profile of your work, regardless of whether you are affiliated or not with an institution, only that it guarantees that your work is genuine, unpublished and that The methods and techniques used are standardized and endorsed by a well-known laboratory and research institution.

Why don't you find some Ph.D. supervisor who is flexible and willing to support your research in the field of your interest? If necessary even the distant study. I have such a supervisor, and I appreciate his flexibility and open mind a lot.

And about the papers. You can submit the article to whatever journal or conference you want. The question is how good you are in the academic presentation and writing style which is what my supervisor provides to me. Feedback about missing parts and style together with corrections and improvements to fix the author blindness.

For the proper thesis is good to have published several papers as the base. That is what makes it valuable your original research peer reviewed by someone who is recognized as an expert in the field as the input to your final work.

I praise your initiative. How is it going? As Geir Bjorklund replayed, I think Norway is one of the very few countries that allows that, but I am sure that they offer maybe one of the highest academic standards and measures for the evaluation of the research as well. Let us know about your progress!

Dear Maria,

Thanks for your concern about individuals who attempt to get recognition for their original work. this is the essence of mankind. Such people may protected by some universal powers yet to be discovered. but one can experience the peace in mind and joy which cannot be measured in monetary terms.

I ,myself, started a PhD project in 2014 and now almost completed. Now I am attempting to find an institute to present my research. Could you recommend an Institute to present my thesis. The fees charged by such institute is a concern for me..

Upananda (Sri Lanka)