School of Computer Science & Engineering
Guidelines for Research Student Reviews

These guidelines outline the procedure involved in reviewing postgraduate research students. Students requiring information about conducting a review should consult the " Guidelines for Conducting a Review". The University's policy guidelines with respect to reviews can be found in section 3.4 in the document "Guidelines for the Supervision of Postgraduate Research".

Reviews are documented on the individualised review forms that are emailed to each student (if you have not received yours, please contact the Research Team) . The review is overseen by a review panel comprising 3 academics, headed by a chair person. The review committee must not include the supervisor or co-supervisor of the student being reviewed. Normal practice at interviews would be separate interviews with student and supervisor at the completion of the review talk.

If you start in Session 1, reviews will be scheduled during the November exam period in Session 2 of  that year.
If you start in Session 2, reviews will be scheduled during the June exam period in Session 1 of the following year.
Subsequent reviews will adhere to this timing each year unless the result of a review was marginal or unsatisfactory, in which case an earlier review will be scheduled.

Confirmation Review (1st review)
------------

• Held within the first 12 months of candidature.
• Literature survey and thesis proposal document (can be same as that submitted to research methods course)
• 30min presentation based on literature survey and thesis proposal
• Completed annual review form (including supervisor's comments and signature)
  The confirmation year procedure is described in the GRS document:
  UNSW PROCEDURE FOR CONFIRMATION AND REVIEW OF PROGRESS OF A PHD CANDIDATURE
  
  The full document can be found at:
      http://www.grs.unsw.edu.au/downloads/ConfirmationandProgressReviewProceduresPhDMResMPhil030909.pdf

Second Review
-------------

• Held within the first 24 months.
• 20-30min presentation outlining progress in last year and milestones for next 12 months
• 1-2 page document outlining progress in last year and milestones for next 12 months (this can be a copy of the presentation slides if they are sufficiently detailed)
• Completed annual review form (including supervisor's comments and signature)

Third Review
------------

• Held within the first 36 months.
• 20-30min presentation outlining progress in last year and milestones for next 12 months
• 1-2 page document outlining progress in last year and milestones for next 12 months (this can be a copy of the presentation slides if they are sufficiently detailed)
• Completed annual review form (including supervisor's comments and signature)

Subsequent Reviews
------------------
If a candidate submits before the end of second session in their fourth year, then no more reviews are required.

If a candidate will not submit before the end of second session in their fourth year, then a Review Against Progress (RAP), as described below, should be conducted. The candidate should submit a Thesis-Writing Plan (TWP) to this RAP. Note that a TWP is also required to re-enrol at the end of the fourth year of candidature. RAPs are normally held every session once a student has reached the end of their fourth year (for f/t PhD students).


Review Against Plan (RAP)
-------------------------
No seminar is required.
It consists of a round-table discussion between the progress review panel, the student and the supervisor.
The aim is to discuss:
   

    1. the TWP (see below),
    2. what progress has been made since the last review,
    3. progress on each chapter,
    4. how much time is left before submission,
    5. how realistic the plans are to reach the expected
       date of submission.


Thesis-Writing Plan (TWP)
----------------------
The plan should contain:

    1. A table of contents of the thesis showing chapter and section names.
    2. Expected number of pages for each chapter
    3. For chapters containing original research,  percentage of research work completed
    4. For each chapter,  percentage of writing completed (or total number of pages for each chapter).
    5. The expected date of completion of each chapter.
    6. The expected date of submission of the thesis.


Follow-Up Review (FUR)
----------------------

1. At the progress review that was judged to be marginal or unsatisfactory, the panel should request that the supervisor work out a plan for the candidate to get the research back on track. The supervisor should do this immediately after the review, and should send it to the candidate, the chair of the panel and the Student Office (to be appended to the review document).
2. If progress is considered unsatisfactory, then the panel may recommend that the case be presented to the HDC.
3. In all cases, whether presented to the HDC or not, if progress is considered marginal or unsatisfactory, then a FUR should be scheduled between 3 and 6 months later, preferrably closer to the former.
4. The plan should include milestones and a clear and concise description of the research tasks that need to be carried out by the candidate. Milestones are generally progress reports submitted on a fortnightly basis to the supervisor.
5. Depending on the nature of the marginal or unsatisfactory review, the FUR may be a normal review or a RAP.
6. A FUR should result in either a satisfactory or unsatisfactory being awarded (not marginal). If unsatisfactory, the case must be presented to the HDC.

After the review, the panel will decide on a recommendation with respect to confirmation of PhD/ME/MSc enrolment. This recommendation can be 'satisfactory', 'marginal' or 'unsatisfactory'.

If the review was assessed to be 'satisfactory", your next review should be held within 12 months, unless stated otherwise.

In the case of a 'marginal' review outcome, a follow-up review should be undertaken within 3 months. If the follow-up review outcome is 'unsatisfactory', then the matter will be referred to the Higher Degree Committee (as above).

In the case of an 'unsatisfactory' review outcome, the matter will immediately be referred to the Higher Degree Committee, who will ask the student to show cause why they should be allowed to continue enrolment.

All signed review forms are to be sent to the CSE Student Office. Note that the chair of the panel, the supervisor/s and the student must sign the form. If the student does not agree with the contents of the report, this should be noted.