Annual Progress Review Procedures

This is a general outline of some different types of review meetings. Please read the University's guidelines on Annual Progress Reviews and Confirmation of Candidature as it covers review procedures and outcomes in much greater detail.

CONFIRMATION OF CANDIDATURE - FIRST REVIEW

A research student's progress must be assessed as Satisfactory in order for their candidature to be confirmed. This takes place at your first Annual Progress Review, between 6-9 months after enrolment.
If a PhD candidate does not have their candidature confirmed, they may be transferred to a Masters by Research degree. The confirmation period may not exceed 15 months from the start of the student's candidature.

In addition to following the procedures of a typical Annual Progress Review (see below), you must provide your research proposal report and literature review as part of your review documents - you should upload these files to the Online APR System prior to your review meeting.

ANNUAL PROGRESS REVIEW

Prior to the review meeting, students should provide their panelists with a copy of their review form (student and supervisor sections should be completed), as well as a 1-2 page document outlining the progress made within the last year and milestones for the next 12 months (this can be a copy of your presentation slides if they are sufficiently detailed). At the meeting, students should give a 20-30min seminar presentation.

If the student does not agree with the contents of the panel's report, this should be noted in the review documents.

REVIEW AGAINST MILESTONES (RAM)

A Review Against Milestones consists of a round-table discussion between the student, supervisor, and the review panel. The student should provide a Thesis Completion Plan. A seminar presentation is not required.

The aim of this review is to discuss:

• the Thesis Completion Plan
• progress made since the last review
• writing progress on each chapter
• amount of time left before submission
• how realistic the plans are to reach the expected date of submission.

FOLLOW-UP REVIEW

If the review outcome is either Marginal or Unsatisfactory, the Panel may recommend a follow-up review where the candidate will be re-assessed against agreed objectives/criteria and milestones; the date and assessment criteria having been provided to the candidate and supervisor in writing.

Where the original review outcome was Marginal, progress should be re-assessed within the next 1-6 months.

Where the original review outcome was Unsatisfactory, progress should be re-assessed within the next 1-3 months.