From our research
What this interview looks like
A health-science university viva is usually a two-examiner affair: an internal examiner from the candidate's own college and an external examiner from another college in the same university, sitting for 5 to 15 minutes per candidate at the end of the practical examination, with the practical record book or log book open on the table. Marks are a fixed slice of the practical paper, often 10 to 20 out of 50 or 100, and in many universities a candidate must pass the practical and viva separately from theory. The external asks the first question, usually from the record, then moves to classifications, mechanisms, principles of a procedure and one applied question; the internal fills gaps and checks attendance and record completion. A PhD viva voce is longer, typically 45 to 90 minutes: the candidate presents the thesis for 20 to 30 minutes, then the external examiner, who has already sent a written report, cross-examines on methodology, novelty, statistics, limitations and the published papers, with the supervisor and research-committee members present and an open-house audience in most Indian universities. The ExamPilot mock compresses either into about 15 minutes with the same shape: a short introduction, a subject round with a subject expert, a round on your record book or thesis chapters, and a brief close, scored against what a real external rewards: clear definitions, correct sequence, honest admission of limits and no invented figures.
How it is weighted
A PhD viva is pass, pass with minor or major corrections, or re-submission; the external examiner's written report and the viva decide together. M.Tech and MPhil dissertation vivas usually carry a fixed share of the project credits, often 40 to 60 percent split between presentation, viva and the written report. UGC 2016 and 2022 regulations require the viva to be open; procedures vary by university.
Who this is for
Research scholars whose thesis has been evaluated by external examiners and who are scheduled for the final open viva voce; postgraduate students facing the M.Tech, MPhil or MSc dissertation viva before an internal and external examiner; and PhD scholars preparing the synopsis presentation, pre-submission seminar or six-monthly research advisory committee review. Covers science, engineering, health science and social-science theses; questions are discipline-neutral and work from your own abstract.
The panel focuses on
- Stating the research question, gap and contribution in two minutes without reading slides
- Defending the methodology: design, sampling, instruments, validity, controls and why alternatives were rejected
- Statistics you actually used: assumptions, test choice, effect size, multiple comparisons, what the p-value does and does not say
- Limitations and threats to validity stated before the examiner finds them, and what they do and do not undermine
- Ethics and integrity: IEC or IAEC approval, consent, data management, plagiarism checks, authorship on published papers
- Future work, generalisability and answering a hostile question calmly with evidence from your own chapters
Step 1
Pick your subject
The expert on the panel probes these areas at the level of this post. Optional here; you can choose during setup.
Step 2
Choose how you want to be interviewed
1:1 interview
One interviewer runs every round and adapts the focus as you go. Lower pressure; ideal for a first attempt.
Prof. Devendra Kulkarni
Subject expert
Panel interview · 2 members
Most realisticEach member leads their own round and hands over to the next. They hear each other, so a weak answer will be revisited.
Prof. Devendra Kulkarni
Subject expert
Dr. Imtiaz Qureshi
Subject expert
What to expect
4 rounds · 10 minutes
A ten-minute oral examination of the kind held at the end of a laboratory course or project: school board practicals, engineering lab and project vivas, pharmacy and nursing practicals, dissertation and thesis defences. One external examiner, sometimes seated with the internal teacher, asks the candidate what they did, why it works, what they observed and what could go wrong, then looks at the record file or project and asks one question that tests whether the work is the candidate's own. The examiner escalates when answers are correct, gives one hint when the candidate is stuck, and never teaches during the viva.
- Round 1
Introduction
· 1:00Settle the candidate and establish exactly which experiment, practical, project or thesis the viva will be about, so that the subject questions can be anchored to work the candidate actually did.
Prof. Devendra Kulkarni1–2 questionsup to 1 follow-up each - Round 2
Viva on concepts and experiments
· 7:00Test whether the candidate understands the principle behind the experiment or project they did, can describe the procedure and observations accurately, knows the precautions and sources of error, and can reason about a change in conditions. Separate genuine understanding from a memorised record file.
Prof. Devendra Kulkarni4–6 questionsup to 2 follow-ups each - Round 3
Record file or project
· 1:00Check that the record file, activity or project is the candidate's own work and that they understand it: why they chose it, what the data or result was, what went wrong and what they would improve.
Prof. Devendra Kulkarni1–1 questionsup to 1 follow-up each - Round 4
Closing
· 1:00End the viva courteously and formally, as an external examiner does, without feedback, marks or any hint about the result.
Prof. Devendra Kulkarni1–1 questions
Sample questions
Health & Research Viva Thesis defence interview questions
Questions panels commonly ask in the Health & Research Viva Thesis defence interview, with what a strong answer covers. Practise them aloud with the AI panel.
- Research question
State your research question, the gap it fills and your main contribution in two minutes, without looking at your slides.
What a strong answer covers
A clear, concise question, a specific gap in prior work and one or two contributions stated precisely, showing command of the thesis. Avoid reading slides or burying the contribution in background.
- Methodology
Why did you choose a cross-sectional design rather than a cohort, and what does that prevent you from concluding?
What a strong answer covers
Gives practical and scientific reasons for the design, and states that a cross-sectional study shows association at one point in time but cannot establish temporal sequence or causation. Avoid claiming causality.
- Statistics
You used a t-test across several subgroups. How did you check its assumptions, and did you correct for multiple comparisons?
What a strong answer covers
Mentions checks of normality and variance, alternatives such as non-parametric tests, and corrections for multiple comparisons such as Bonferroni or explaining why not needed. Avoid treating p-values as proof of importance.
- Interpretation
Your p-value is 0.04 but the effect size is small. How do you interpret this for practice?
What a strong answer covers
Explains that statistical significance does not imply practical importance, discusses confidence intervals and clinical or practical relevance, and states conclusions cautiously. Avoid overstating the findings.
- Limitations
What is the most serious limitation of your study, and does it undermine your main conclusion?
What a strong answer covers
Names a real limitation such as selection bias, small size or measurement error, explains its likely direction and effect, and whether the core conclusion still holds. Avoid listing trivial limitations to avoid the real one.
- Research ethics
Show us the ethics approval for your study and explain how you handled consent and data storage.
What a strong answer covers
Describes institutional ethics committee approval, informed consent procedures, anonymisation and secure storage of data, and any special protections. Avoid treating ethics as a paperwork step.
- Authorship
One of your published papers has five co-authors. What was your specific contribution, and how was authorship decided?
What a strong answer covers
Clearly states personal contribution to design, data, analysis or writing, and explains authorship criteria agreed with the team. Avoid vague answers or claiming others' work.
- Generalisability
How generalisable are your findings beyond the setting you studied?
What a strong answer covers
Describes the population and setting studied, the features that might differ elsewhere such as health system, culture or equipment, and the kind of replication or multi-site study that would test generalisability. Avoid claiming the findings apply everywhere.
- Defending the thesis
An examiner says your conclusion is not supported by your data. How do you respond?
What a strong answer covers
Listens fully, asks for the specific concern if unclear, refers to particular tables or results in the thesis, explains the reasoning, and concedes and offers revisions where the examiner is right. Avoid becoming defensive or dismissing the examiner's report.
Reading is not rehearsing. Answer these out loud to an AI Health & Research Viva Thesis defence panel that follows up like the real one.
Practise these questionsMeet the panel
Your AI interviewers
Distinct personas, voices and questioning styles, briefed on this post.
Prof. Devendra Kulkarni
ChairSubject expert
Professor and PhD external examiner, research degree committees across science, engineering and health-science faculties (Pune)
Quiet, rigorous, sceptical of over-claiming; probes methodology and statistics and respects an honest limitation.
Male voice · 4 languages
Dr. Imtiaz Qureshi
Subject expert
Professor of Pharmaceutics and external examiner, B.Pharm and D.Pharm university practical examinations (Aurangabad)
Methodical, dry, fair; rewards a clean definition and a correctly explained principle over memorised lists.
Male voice · 3 languages
Languages
Answer in the language you think in
The panel asks in your chosen language. Switch mid-answer if you like.
- English
- हिंदीHindi
- Hinglish (Hindi + English)Hinglish
How scoring works
A report you can act on
Every round is scored on the rubric
Each interviewer scores only the criteria their round covers. Weights add up to your overall score out of 100.
Only what you actually said counts
Feedback quotes your own answers. Rounds you skip show as “Not assessed” rather than a zero.
Communication is always measured
Fluency, clarity, confidence and structure are tracked across the whole interview, in any language.
Pass mark, then a plan
You see the pass mark for this interview, your gaps, and the courses that close them fastest.
Scored on
- Conceptual understanding40%
States the principle, law or formula behind the experiment or project correctly and in their own words; explains why the method works rather than only what the steps are; handles a why or what-if question with reasoning; does not confuse related concepts or recite a definition that does not answer the question.
- Experimental procedure & observation30%
Describes the actual procedure, apparatus or tools, readings or data and how they were processed; knows the units, the expected result and the order of magnitude they obtained; names sources of error and the precautions that address them; for a project, knows the data, method and limitations of their own work.
- Clarity of explanation20%
Answers the question actually asked in short, ordered sentences; uses correct technical terms and units; can explain the same idea more simply when asked; does not ramble or bury the answer in unrelated recall.
- Confidence & honesty10%
Speaks steadily, holds a correct answer when gently challenged, corrects themselves when shown an error, and says I am not sure rather than guessing; recovers after a hint instead of freezing.
Pass mark 50 / 100 · Practical / project viva voce with an external examiner
Keep exploring