Reviews

Reviews of progress are required to be held at three stages during PhD candidature:

Between 3-6 months
About 11-12 months : before confirmation of candidature (review of enrolment) at one year
Near the end of experimental work (normally during the 3rd year), before writing up

Reviews are intended as an opportunity for students and supervisors to take stock of progress, to plan the next stages and to identify and resolve any problems, with input from others with relevant responsibility (other Laboratory Heads, University Head of department) or expertise. They are an important mechanism by which the Institute meets its responsibility to ensure that students have high-quality supervision, mentorship and access the resources.

Use the forms below for your review:-

Three Month Student Review Form

One Year Student Review Form

Third Year Student Review Form

You may find the Review Checklist useful.

In Advance

Reviews are organised by the student at QIMR. It is the supervisors responsibility to ensure that these reviews take place in a timely fashion.

At least an hour should be set aside for the review to ensure adequate time is available for discussion.

The following people should participate:

the student
the principal and associate supervisors
a QIMR staff member of the Higher Degrees Committee as chair of the panel (should be independent of the project)
one or more independent researchers (from outside of the Lab and possibly from outside the Division) familiar with the discipline but not involved with the student's project
the University head of department should be invited to attend or send a nominee
the student has the option of nominating a student representative to attend as an observer
(optional) other relevant researchers associated with the project

The student should email the relevant Review form to the chair of the panel before the meeting.

The student should provide their progress report and any additional documentation to all members of the review panel well in advance of the meeting (10-14 days is reasonable) to give them time to read it.

General Guidelines for the Operation of Reviews

Reviews should be positive and useful experiences for both students and supervisors. Since students and supervisors may be concerned about receiving criticism in front of others, it is important that a balance be struck between rigorous scrutiny of progress and sensitivity to the human aspects of the situation. Care should be taken to avoid personal criticisms. It is also important not to undermine the scientific authority of the supervisors or their primary responsibility for the student.

All discussion during the review is confidential.

The interview should generally have the following format:

a brief welcome and outline of the format by the chair
an oral presentation by the student, summarising the project background, hypotheses and objectives, progress and future plans (usually no more than 20 minutes; in some cases the interview may be held immediately after the student has presented a formal unit or other seminar)
discussion of the project: note that questions should be directed to and answered by the student, with input from the supervisor only after the student has had the opportunity to answer; this discussion might include:

technical issues to make sure student understands strengths and limitations of techniques
conceptual issues to make sure student is developing intellectual skills and independence and can identify the overall goal of the work and its significance
likelihood that project will be productive within time-frame of candidature
contingency plan in event of project difficulties
time-table for future work and thesis preparation
comments and constructive criticism of the written material circulated in advance and the oral presentation

discussion (usually led by the chair) on supervisory arrangements and any other non-scientific issues; this discussion might include:

how meetings are arranged between student and supervisor
access to other people who can provide advice and technical training
availability of stipend and maintenance funding for the duration of candidature

discussion with student while supervisors are absent in case there are any issues the student was uncomfortable to discuss in presence of supervisors
discussion with supervisors while student is absent
discussion with all parties present to discuss any recommendations and strategies to resolve problems

The two sessions with the supervisors and then the student absent should always take place. With the permission of the supervisors or student as appropriate, the chair of the panel in consultation with the chair of HDC may decide to follow up any issues that emerge during these confidential discussions. In some instances where issues are not completely resolved, the chair of the HDC may recommend an additional follow-up review after a mutually agreed period of time.

Major issues and any recommendations should be recorded by the panel chair in the report form. The form should then be returned by email to the chair of HDC, who will sign it, record any further comments and arrange for it to be copied to the student, supervisors and University head of department.

Under the aegis of the HDC, the review panel has the authority to recommend changes in candidature, to recommend postponement of candidature, or to recommend against confirmation of candidature or conversion from Masters to PhD enrolment, to the University Head of School.

Three-month review

An outline of the project background, hypotheses and objectives, strategies and progress (a few pages in total) should be prepared by the student in consultation with the supervisor and circulated to the review panel in advance. The supervisor is expected to give the student feedback on this document.

The aims of the review are usually to ensure that:

an appropriate project has been designed by consultation between the student and the principal supervisor
satisfactory supervisory arrangements are in place (including appointment of supervisors, agreement on arrangements for supervisory meetings, access to other people in the group who can assist in technical training)
the student and supervisor have a clear understanding of their mutual expectations and responsibilities
adequate space, technical and financial resources are available
plans are in place for the student to obtain special training if required
all ethical/safety clearances have been obtained

One-year review

This review must take place before forms for confirmation of candidature or conversion from Masters to PhD enrolment are returned to the University head of department. Most heads of departments have formally agreed not to sign these forms for QIMR students until they have received a positive recommendation from the QIMR HDC. This review should therefore be held about 11 months after University enrolment. The completed One Year Review form will be copied to the head of department after the review.

The student should prepare an extensive draft of their literature review, a summary of the project objectives, progress report and outline of future plans, and circulate it to panel members before the meeting. Planning for the review therefore needs to begin well in advance to allow time for preparation of this material. The supervisor is expected to give extensive feedback on this document.

The aims of this review are to ensure that:

the student has a sound grasp of the literature, conceptual background, objectives and hypotheses being tested in the project
the student is making good progress in his or her experimental work, is producing data of high quality and has a clear idea of the next steps
the project can be reasonably expected to be productive within the time-frame of candidature and that contingency plans are in place if unexpected hurdles arise
the student has good access to supervision, advice from others with relevant expertise and all technical requirements
the student and supervisor(s) have developed a good working relationship, with a satisfactory balance between provision of advice and guidance by the supervisor and development of intellectual independence by the student

Third-year review

The student should prepare a summary of the work completed, remaining work to be done, the thesis chapter plan and a time-table for completion of experimental work and writing, and circulate it to panel members before the meeting.

The aims of this review are to ensure that:

experimental work is complete or nearly complete and the student has a clear plan for any remaining experiments or data collection and analysis to be done
the supervisors are satisfied that the amount and quality of the work are of appropriate standard for the degree
thesis writing has commenced and a chapter plan and time-table for writing have been developed
the student and supervisor have agreed on the strategy and time-table for preparation and submission of any papers not yet published
thesis examiners have been provisionally identified
planning is well-advanced for postdoctoral employment
that both the student and the supervisor have discussed and tentatively arranged for the student to present his/her thesis research at an Institute or Unit seminar. This is a requirement at QIMR and should be held irrespective of any talks given at national or international conferences