Doctoral examiners are increasingly assessing theses that include publications that have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. This paper presents insights into the nature of commentary that examiners provide on doctoral theses that include publications. Data were gathered from examiners who had experience assessing publication-based theses (PBTs) over the past ten years at a research intensive university in New Zealand. Data were procured through a survey (n = 62), interviews (n = 15) and written examiners' reports (n = 12). The survey data were analysed using a descriptive analysis, while free form comments and interview data were analysed using a general inductive approach. A linguistic analysis was used to identify the nature of commentaries on examiners' reports. A qualitative analysis of the data showed that examiners provided a range of feedback and assessment commentary. Even though PBTs incorporate work that has been published, examiners still consider it as work in progress. The findings indicate that they provide similar amounts of commentaries as compared to traditional theses, provide more feedback than summative assessment, and expected candidates to make changes on published chapters.