Progress review

The progress report is written by the doctoral researcher and confirmed by his/her supervisor. Good Practice of Doctoral Studies recommends the supervisor support the doctoral researcher in preparation for the progress review (Good Practice of Doctoral Studies, clause 9.18).

The doctoral researcher / external doctoral researcher submits the following documents to the review committee at least eight working days before the progress review date:

1. the individual plan (only for the first progress review of the first year);

Doctoral students individual plan

2. the progress review report and the period plan with his/her own and the supervisor’s (supervisors’) signatures;

Doctoral students period plan and progress review report

3. manuscripts of completed article(s) and/or chapter(s) of a monograph;
4. the period plan for the next review period (RDS, clauses 70, 71, Procedure..., clause 11).

Before submitting your documents, make sure that:

• the files (incl. within the container) have the correct titles:
  • Report­_[surname]_[month]_[year]
     
• all files are in pdf format;
   
• if your documents are on paper, you need to scan the progress review report and upload it into SIS as one pdf document. The uploaded file has a correct title: [first name]_[surname]_[month]_[year];
   
• if you sign your report digitally, the container must have a correct title: [first name]_[surname]_[month]_[year].
  • More information about digital signing and software here and here. 

To submit the documents, the individual plan (only the first progress review of the first year), the progress report and the period 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.

The progress report must be submitted eight work days before the progress review date.

When will my progress be reviewed?

The progress of the 1st-year doctoral researcher 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 doctoral researcher's progress is reviewed once in an academic year, when two studied semesters have passed from the last progress review.

The external doctoral researcher's progress is reviewed when two studied semesters from the admission have passed.

Progress reviews are held at least twice 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). 

• consists of at least three members, including one member from outside the institute/college that manages the curriculum or specialisation (RDS, clause 67),
• the committee members hold a doctoral degree or an equivalent qualification (RDS, clause 67), if a member of the review committee is the supervisor of a doctoral researcher to be reviewed, or a connected person for the purposes of the Anti-corruption Act, s/he withdraws from taking the progress review decision on this particular doctoral researcher (RDS, clause 69),
• for the doctoral researcher, a reviewer is appointed from among the committee members who comments on the materials submitted by the doctoral researcher (Procedure..., clause 10). Thus, at least one committee member gets more thoroughly acquainted with the doctoral researcher’s report and manuscripts/articles and gives oral feedback. Other committee members also ask questions about the progress of doctoral studies and provide recommendations.

Doctoral researchers and their supervisors attend the progress review meeting.

• When the supervisor in charge cannot participate, s/he has to submit a written assessment of the doctoral researcher's progress in research to the chairperson of the review committee and the supervisee by the beginning of the progress review meeting.
• The doctoral researcher can only be absent from the progress review meeting if s/he has a reasonable excuse. In that case, the doctoral researcher has to submit an application to the review committee, which decides whether to allow the doctoral researcher to participate by real-time two-way audio-video communication or not to participate in the meeting at all (RDS, clauses 74, 75).

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 committee's chairperson.

The main parts of the meeting:

• The doctoral researcher gives an overview of their progress report, compares it with the individual study plan and period plan and explains the changes made.
• The reviewer appointed for the doctoral researcher comments on the materials submitted by the doctoral researcher.
• The supervisor gives an assessment of the doctoral researcher's progress in research, or a review committee member reads the supervisor's written assessment.
• The doctoral researcher is questioned, and the committee gives them recommendations.
• The committee discusses how many credit points to give for completing the doctoral curriculum behind closed doors.

Decisions of the progress review committee regarding learners in doctoral studies in doctoral programmes opened in the 2022/2023 academic year.

• The progress review committee makes one of the following decisions and provides reasons for that:  
  • to give the learner in doctoral studies a positive assessment;
  • to give an additional period of up to three months, which the doctoral student is entitled to once during the period of study and which does not extend the standard period of study, to improve performance. The doctoral student must notify the committee of accepting the additional period within seven days of notification of the decision;
  • to give the learner in doctoral studies a negative assessment;
  • not to assess the learner in doctoral studies if the person did not submit the documents to the progress review committee by the deadline or was absent from the progress review meeting without the committee’s permission.

Decisions of the progress review committee regarding learners in doctoral studies in doctoral curricula opened before the 2022/2023 academic year.

• The committee assesses the research of the learner in doctoral studies in credit points.
• The progress review committee makes one of the following decisions:
  • to give the doctoral student a positive assessment if the student has fulfilled the requirements of at least part-time study or submitted the doctoral thesis for defence.
  • to give the doctoral student a positive assessment after the first semester if the student has fulfilled at least 50% of the first semester’s period plan;
  • to give the doctoral student a negative assessment if the student has not fulfilled the requirements of part-time study or if the volume of their studies and research in the progress review period falls short of 50% of the volume set out in the period plan;
  • not to assess the learner in doctoral studies if the person did not submit the documents to the progress review committee by the deadline or was absent from the progress review meeting without the committee’s permission;
  • to give the external student a positive assessment if the student has fulfilled their period plan at least to the extent of 50% or submitted the doctoral thesis for defence;
  • to give the external student a negative assessment if the student has completed less than 50% of the period plan.

The research in progress is assessed based on the Procedure of Progress review of Learners in Doctoral Studies at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities. 

Procedure of Progress review of Learners in Doctoral Studies at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities.