PROGRESS REVIEW: GUIDELINES

During the progress review the review committee assesses the doctoral student’s / external doctoral student's progress in studies and research of his/her curriculum and fulfilment of the individual study plan ((Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 41).

All activities taken into consideration at the progress review must be related to the doctoral student’s doctoral thesis. The main aim of the progress review is to assess the progress on doctoral thesis.

Compiling and submitting the progress report
The progress report is written by the doctoral student and confirmed by his/her supervisor. Good Practice of Doctoral Studies recommends the supervisor to support the doctoral student in preparation for the progress review (Good Practice of Doctoral Studies, clause 9.18).
The doctoral student / external doctoral student submits the following documents to the review committee at least 8 working days before the progress review date:
1. the progress report with his/her own and the supervisor’s (supervisors’) signatures,
2. manuscripts of completed article(s)
3. activity plan for the next academic year which follows the individual study plan for the whole period of study ((Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 50).

Before submitting your documents, make sure that:
• the files (incl. within the container) have correct titles:
Report¬_[surname]_[month]_[year],

• all files are in pdf-format;

• if your documents are on paper, you need to scan the documents and upload them into SIS as one pdf document. Uploaded file has a correct title: [first name]_[surname]_[month]_[year];

• if you are signing your report digitally, your progress report and supervision diary entries have to be digitally signed in one container. The container has a correct title: [first name]_[surname]_[month]_[year].

To submit the documents, the progress report and the individual plan have to be entered into the Study Information System (see guidelines here).
The manuscripts have to be forwarded separately, according to the instructions sent by the contact person at the curriculum.

Structure of the progress report
The report covers the fulfilment of the individual study plan during the previous period of study and summarises the progress of doctoral studies as a whole.
If changes have been made compared to the individual study plan, they have to be explained throughout.

I. Studies: courses and ECTS. If courses have been taken outside the UT, the name of the university has to be added.
The core of doctoral studies is research, and this should be done consistently throughout the years of doctoral studies (including in the first year). Courses that support research should also be divided over several years. At the same time, it is not advisable to leave the courses for the last year when you have to focus on finishing and editing the doctoral thesis.
II. Research: content and volume of the research work in ECTS and the result(s), including conferences, publications, etc.
In doctoral studies you need to focus on writing research papers and publishing research results.
The review committee assesses the doctoral student’s research in credit points. The optimum (recommended) volume of credit points for research per one academic year is 40 ECTS (if more work has been done, the committee can give more credit points); the standard volume for two studied semesters (for both studies and research) is 60 ECTS in total.
III. Other tasks related to doctoral studies: carrying out of grant projects, research themes, cooperation and other projects, etc.
Here report the research projects which you are officially involved in as a research staff, and which are related to your doctoral studies. Specify the tasks related to the project and their connection with your doctoral thesis.
IV. Other: teaching, supervision of theses, participation in the research field-related committees and projects within and outside of the university, etc.
Here report all the activities that are not directly related to research (and neither to studies in section I), e.g.
1) participation in projects that are not related to your research (including, e.g., popularisation of research);
2) supervising and reviewing;
3) (co-)organising events;
4) participation in decision-making bodies and attendance of their meetings.

When does the progress review take place?
The confirmed dates of progress reviews in the Faculty of Science and Technology:
The progress report must be submitted at least 8 working days before the progress review date.

When will my progress be reviewed?
The progress of the 1st-year doctoral student is reviewed twice:
1) when one studied semester has passed from matriculation, and
2) when two studied semesters have passed from matriculation.

From the 2nd year onwards, the progress of the doctoral student is reviewed once in an academic year, when two studied semesters have passed from the last progress review.
The external doctoral student’s progress is reviewed when two studied semesters from the admission have passed.
Doctoral students’ progress is not reviewed during academic leave ((Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 44).

Progress reviews are held at least twice in an academic year for each curriculum. The dates of progress reviews are confirmed by 1 November (progress review of the autumn semester) and 1 March (progress review of the spring semester) (Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 42). This means that the progress review of the doctoral student does not take place immediately after s/he returns from academic leave but on the confirmed dates. Until then, stipend is paid according to the decision of the previous progress review.

The review committee
• consists of at least three members, including one member from outside the institute/college that manages the curriculum (Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 46),
• the committee members hold a doctoral degree or an equivalent qualification (Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 46 ),
• if a member of the review committee is the supervisor of a doctoral student to be reviewed, s/he withdraws from taking the progress review decision on this particular doctoral student (Study Regulations, clause 122, Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 48 ),
• if the programme director is not a member of the review committee, s/he participates in the review committee meeting with a say (Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 48 ),

Procedure of the progress review meeting

The progress review meeting is attended by doctoral students and their supervisors.
• When the supervisor cannot participate, s/he has to submit a written assessment of the doctoral student’s progress in research to the chairperson of the review committee and the doctoral student at latest by the beginning of the progress review meeting.
• The doctoral student can be absent from the progress review meeting only if s/he has a reasonable excuse. In that case, the doctoral student has to submit an application to the review committee who decides whether to allow the doctoral student to participate by Skype or not to participate in the meeting at all (Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 52 ).

At the progress review meeting, the review committee assesses the completion of the doctoral curriculum in credit points:
• the committee considers the credit points received for completion of courses,
• the committee gives the doctoral student credit points for research (Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 54, Evaluation arrangements, clause 2),
• the committee assesses the doctoral student’s participation for presentations at international or local conferences and seminars, which is taken into account as either studies or research (Evaluation arrangements, clause 3).

Depending on the curriculum, the structure of the progress review meeting can be somewhat different. The rules of procedure of the concrete committee are prescribed by the chairperson of the committee.
The main parts of the meeting:
• The doctoral student gives an overview of his/her progress report, compares it with the individual study plan and explains the changes made.
• The supervisor gives an assessment of the doctoral student’s progress in research, or a review committee member reads out the supervisor’s written assessment.
• The doctoral student is questioned, and the committee gives him/her recommendations.
• The committee discusses how many credit points to give for the completion of the doctoral curriculum.

How is progress in research assessed?
During the doctoral studies, the doctoral student can get a maximum of 180 ECTS for research.
To reach timely graduation, the doctoral student has to pay great attention to writing on the research theme, and realistic planning of writing and publication.
General criteria for assessing the doctoral student's research:
• priority (1): stage of completion of the doctoral thesis,
• priority (2): publications related to the topic of the doctoral thesis,
o it is essential to note which research publications qualify for the defence of the doctoral thesis. According to the classification of the Estonian Research Information System, publications 1.1., 1.2., 3.1. qualify. If confirmed by the council awarding doctoral degrees, 3.2 qualifies as well (see Procedure for Awarding Doctorates, clause 16).
• additional activities (1): participation in conferences and seminars related to the doctoral thesis. Here the significance of the events and the doctoral student’s contribution are assessed.
• additional activities (2): other research activities related to the doctoral thesis, e.g. supervision of graduation theses, participation in research projects, traineeship outside the university. For these activities, up to 6 ECTS can be given per academic year (Regulations for
Doctoral Studies, clause 41, Evaluation arrangements, clause 3).

Results of the progress review
Official assessment by the review committee:
• The review committee makes its decision based on the submitted materials and the results of the progress review meeting (feedback by the doctoral student and the supervisor).
• Data protection regulations do not permit the announcement of the review committee’s decision in public without the doctoral student’s prior written consent.
• The credit points for research are entered into the Study Information System within four working days (Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 54, see also Good Practice of Doctoral Studies, clause III.3).
• The review committee gives the learner in doctoral studies recommendations on fulfilling and improving the individual plan ((Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 55).
• The doctoral student’s performance stipend is granted according to the proposal of the review committee.

Positive and negative assessments of the progress review
The standard period of study of doctoral curricula is four years and the volume is 240 ECTS (Statutes of Curriculum, clause 40).
To receive a doctoral allowance, the doctoral student must have been positively assessed by the progress review committee and completed at least 75% of the curriculum (full time study). For detailed requirements, see here (see here).
The doctoral student’s performance stipend is granted to the doctoral student who, according to the progress review results, has cumulatively completed 100% of the curriculum (completion of the curriculum for all studied semesters in total). For detailed requirements, see here (see here).

Positive assessment of the doctoral student’s progress review:
• the doctoral student has completed the curriculum meeting the requirements of at least part-time study (less than 75% but more than 50%),
• the doctoral thesis has been submitted for defence according to the requirements of the Procedure for Awarding Doctorates,
• by the end of the first semester, the 1st-year doctoral student has completed at least 50% of the individual study plan for the first semester.

Negative assessment of the doctoral student’s progress review:
• the doctoral student has not met the requirements of the curriculum for part-time study (less than 50%),
• compared to the individual study plan, the volume of studies and research in the period under review is below 50%.

Positive assessment of the external student’s progress review:
• at least 50% of the individual study plan has been completed,
• the doctoral thesis has been submitted for defence according to the requirements of the Procedure for Awarding Doctorates.

Negative assessment of the external student’s progress review:
• less than 50% of the individual study plan has been completed.

The doctoral student’s progress is not reviewed if:
• the required documents have not been submitted to the review committee by the set date,
• the student was absent from the review meeting without the review committee’s permission (Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 52).

Assessments and recommendations
Assessments and recommendations concerning the individual study plan:
The first progress review of the 1st-year doctoral student:
• The review committee has mainly a supportive and advisory function here: it assesses the doctoral student’s activities during the first semester, the further plan of action, time schedule, cooperation with the supervisor and the necessity for a co-supervisor.
• The main aim of the doctoral student’s first progress review is to monitor whether doctoral studies have started successfully, whether the doctoral student has enough time to focus on studies according to the initial plan, and how the project of the doctoral thesis is progressing.

From the second progress review of the 1st-year doctoral student onwards:
• If necessary, the review committee gives the doctoral student recommendations for fulfilling and improving the individual study plan (Regulations for Doctoral Studies, clause 55). The committee helps to assess the focus of research and the correspondence between the action plan and the time schedule and “makes recommendations to the doctoral candidate and the supervisor(s) for the successful defence of the doctoral thesis” (Good Practice of Doctoral Studies, clause III.3.11.4).

Assessments and recommendations concerning the publications and the monograph:
• The review committee has the right to give the doctoral student recommendations for planning his/her activities according to the publication practices and opportunities in his/her speciality.
• The review committee has the right to assess the quality of the doctoral student’s publications and if these qualify for defence. At that, the committee assesses whether the doctoral student’s 3.2 publication (according to the Estonian Research Information System) qualifies for the defence of the doctoral thesis.
• The review committee assesses the doctoral student’s contribution to articles written in co-authorship. For that, the doctoral student has to describe different authors’ contribution to writing the article in his/her progress report (Explanations to the Procedure..., clause 5, see also Procedure for Awarding Doctorates, clause 15.1).

Assessments and recommendations concerning the PhD Study Agreement:
• The review committee monitors whether the doctoral student and the supervisor follow the PhD Study Agreement, that is, how their cooperation is functioning.
• The review committee enables the doctoral student to give feedback on his/her cooperation with the supervisor without the supervisor’s presence.
• The review committee enables the supervisor to give feedback on his/her cooperation with the doctoral student without the doctoral student’s presence.

*Study Regulations
**Good Practice of Doctoral Studies