The short answers: Supervison

It's not a good idea for most students, and not even possible in US institutions.

In the English-speaking world outside the US, a few universities have a procedure for researchers to submit their already-completed research. From what I have seen, that kind of program does not have a uniform name, so finding them is not straightforward. Moreover, universities change rules from time to time. One program only accepts its own graduates. Look for “degree by supplication” or “degree by submission of published work.”

In some places, the procedure applies to earned degrees above the PhD, but usually only after a long and distinguished career in research.

In the humanities, yes. In fact, choosing a topic is one of the skills that is normally required. There are some exceptions, such as laboratory work where one works as part of a team on a larger project and when funders set a topic that they want researched.

In some places, the term “advisor” refers to an academic faculty member who supervises a research student doing a thesis or dissertation. In other institutions, the same role is called “supervisor.”

The term “professor” refers to the rank of a faculty member. In some countries it refers only to a head of department or of a school. In others, it can be used for senior academics even if they are not the head of something.

That's simple. Make the changes to your proposal, then send it back and discuss it with your supervisor. A very good proposal is a good step towrd a good dissertation, and a weak proposal is a sure way for the whole research project to go badly.

It depends greatly on various factors. Here are some:

1. How long is it? It takes less time to read five pages than 50 pages.
2. Is the topic and line of inquiry interesting? Is anything in it novel and non-routine?
3. Is it well-written? It is easier and faster to read good writing.
   Poor writing always takes a lot longer to read, and reading it is so unpleasant that readers tend to slow down and take more breaks. Some readers simply procrastinate. This applies to convoluted language, verbiage, and writing with frequent errors in typing, layout, spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
4. Is it borderline? It takes longer if it it is not a clear accept/reject decision.
5. How many previous drafts has the supervisor read? It does not usually take very long if the supervisor has already read it and is only checking corrections.
6. Is the content difficult or does it have lots of things that the supervisor needs to check?
7. What is the institutional policy and practice? For example, many institutions expect supervisors to return a draft to students within two weeks. Assessors are allowed much longer.
8. How much other review or assessment is he/she doing at the time? Is he/she doing your paper as one of a big batch, or doing it as a lone paper?
9. How many other people also have to read it? In some case, it might be all the members of the committee. If only one is slow, the whole process takes a long time.
10. Does he/she enjoy reviewing papers? Or does he tend to procrastinate?
11. How much feedback is he/she expecting to give?
12. What is the supervisor's particular role? For example:
• If he/she is a methodologist, he/she might not be a subject matter expert.
• If it is an interdisciplinary topic, he/she might have expertise in only one discipline.

1. Be honest.
   If you plagiarize or cheat, you will be expelled. If you use a ghost writer or fake data, you will be expelled even faster.
    
2. Communicate well.
   Tell your supervisor about your progress and any difficulties, even if it is bad news (e.g., negative results, equipment failures). If anyone is harassing you, tell your supervisor. If finances are difficult, ask for advice.
    
3. Work hard.
   If you work hard, your supervisor will go the extra mile. If you are lazy, your chances of continuing in the program are slim.
    
4. Take initiative.
   It is your role to identify problems and try to solve them. If you wait for your supervisor to do so, he/she will eventually realize that you don't have the capacity to fly solo as a researcher.
    
5. Hand in readable work.
   Always try to submit your best work the first time around. Your supervisor will be glad if you can learn by yourself and fix your own mistakes before submitting. Supervisors want to read something interesting and discuss it with you. They don't want to be asked to correct your bad typing and convoluted language.
    
6. Be prompt.
   Hand work in by the due date. No excuses, no surprizes. If you are having real difficulty, tell the supervisor as early as you can, not last minute.
    
7. Use all resources avaliable to you.
   You have a library, and the internet. Use the templates. Other people will help you, especially at proof-reading stage.
    
8. Make progress.
   In your research, you will probably meet dead-ends and make mistakes, but they are signs of progress. Good progress will also save you time and money. If you pay fees by the semester, progress is in your interests so that you pay less fees.
    
9. Take advice and criticism.
   Don't become defensive. Even if it is direct or unpleasant, it is intended to help you. You might need to discuss it to prevent misunderstandings, and some advice might not even work, but communicate with your supervisor about it.
    

No. The dissertation has to be the student's own work. Besides, it would be unusual for a supervisor to even have the time. The only time he/she would do much rewriting is to teach a very weak student how to write.

Normally, yes. By the end of the PhD, the student should be more expert on their particular topic than the advisor. Part of the purpose of a PhD program is to give the student opportunity to demonstrate that they are a peer in the research community and have something original to offer.

In many universities, the number of successful PhD supervisions is a measure of career success, in the same way that universities look at publication track records.

However, I get the impression that some universities treat their PhD students rather badly and don't place much value on faculty track records of successful supervisions.

If you work together in a laboratory, you’ll probably see each other every day, although you might not talk about your dissertation.

My rule of thumb is to touch base once a week, but don't take it too literally. “Touch base” is not always a meeting. At the early and late stages, you might meet more. It is possible to go a longer time without a meeting when students are gathering data in the field and have mastered their procedures.

I find that many students think they're doing well without a meeting, but, then when there is a meeting, they offload lots of saved-up questions. And sometimes they have to fix mistakes that could have been prevented if they'd had meetings.

This problem is fairly common and one in which the student is relatively powerless.

I have done two doctorates and never had any useful help. In the first, all I recieved was a positive comment on my rough draft in progress and nothing else. In the second, I was allowed to progress independently ahead of the cohort.

The first and most obvious thing to do is to email and make an appointment. A phone call might work. You can't presume that the response will be either negative or positive; he/she might be quite glad to hear from you and arrange a meeting.

If you get a meeting, ask for and negotiate a meeting schedule. You might not always be able to follow the schedule in future, but it is much better than no schedule.

If that doesn't work, try speaking to the head of department. If that doesn't work, a formal complaint is your last resort. It will probably sour relationships but it will normally get immediate action. Senior officials and accreditors look at formal complaints and often investigate them. As a PhD is usually an elite program, they are quite concerned if it is a mess.

Most universities are very reluctant to replace supervisors. A few,however, do so almost at random, which can be difficult for students.

The change process varies greatly between institutions. Sometimes the head of department makes the decision, but in other institutions students basically have to take the initiative to approach possible supervisors. Either way, it is a time of risk for the student. Although many supervisors are very good, some are not. The worst case scenario, which has happened, is that the replacement supervisor disagreed with the student's proposal and required the student to start again with a new proposal.

In some cases, the need to change supervisors is not really anybody's fault. The supervisor might be so debilitated with sickness that they cannot continue. Some die, which is quite common in schools that depend on retirees to be supervisors.

Other factors could be at play:

1. It can depend on faculty workloads, availability, upcoming retirements, and upcoming conclusions of employment contracts.
2. What stage are you at? Students tend to need more advice at the beginning and end than in the middle when they are in the field gathering data.
3. What does the supervisor perceive his/her role to be? Some think: “It's your research so just get on with it.”
4. Some retire but, at least in some institutions, are on their honor to see students through to completion.

In some cases, it can be the student's fault:

1. The student is difficult to supervise, persisting with a stupid idea and rejecting advice.
2. The student consistently expects the supervisor to proofread their work for typos and errors in grammar, spelling and layout.
3. The student is overly dependent on the supervisor and can't show that they can fly solo on their research.

In some cases, it can be the supervisor's fault:

1. Some supervisors are abrasive that students almost have no choice but to ask for a replacement. Some are not good at personal relationships, which is very dangerous for students’ prospects of success.
2. Some are over- or under-confident about their role.
3. Some try to help and simply frustrate students.
4. A few are very dishonest, requiring they be first or sole author in works written by students.
5. Some advisors don't do anything at all and students feel abandoned.
6. Some are very busy (or at least say they are) and students are low priority.
7. Some are just plain lazy and are looking for excuses.
8. Some don't really know what they're doing, although nobody can admit it, neither the supervisor, the student, or the head of department. (Most supervisors have never had any training in research supervision.)

Yes and no.

First, many universities have a supervisory committee with one of the members appointed as chairperson. In this case, the chair is the main supervisor and the others are assistants. Committees always include subject matter experts in the field of the dissertation, and usually include members with expertise in fields such as methodology, statistics, and dissertation preparation. Rοbεrt Lιnο said that dissertation committees in most US brick and mortar schools comprise a chair, co-chair, methodologist, and a topic expert.

Some institutions appoint a single supervisor, in which case, it is always someone with expertise in that field.

In many universities, it is quite normal to have multiple supervisors, although one of them is the chairperson. In many cases, they are called a committee and the lead person is the chairperson. The chair is the main person with whom students work. Committees usually have a mix of abilities, such as subject matter, methodology, dissertation writing. This is a big advantage of multiple supervisors.

Having more than one supervisor is usually problemmatical only if one of them is difficult or disagrees with other supervisors. It is usually the chair's role to arbitrate.