Review Process
Review Panels
All higher degree students in the School of Medical Sciences will be formally reviewed on a regular basis, at least 3 times during the first three years. The School has four Review Panels to facilitate this process. Each student will be allocated to a panel, each of which covers one or more of the research themes within the School.
Panels will meet on 2 occasions per year, usually in the middle or at the end of the academic semester and each will have approximately 20 students under their umbrella.
- Panel A – Wendy Jessup (chair), Nick DiGirolamo, Tim Murphy and Katharina Gaus
- Panel B – Andrew Lloyd (chair), John Hunt, Lu Liu and Andrew Moorhouse
- Panel C – Glenda Halliday (chair), Pascal Carrive, Nicole Jones and Gary Housley
- Panel D – Levon Khachigian (chair), Shane Thomas, Karen Gibson and Gilles Guillemin
Review Sessions
1. Timing
The timing of review sessions for each full time student will be as follows:
- First review 6 months:
- Student: literature review completed, research plan proposed.
- Panel: Evaluate research plan
- Second review 18 months:
- Student: Substantial progress made.
- Panel: Monitor progress
- Third and final review 30 months:
- Student: Experimental work being finalised, started writing papers
- Panel: Review thesis plan and timing for submission.
Note:
1. You will be contacted weeks prior to your review scheduled by your school, official e-mail communications from the School will be sent to university standard student address (z......@student.unsw.edu.au). Please make sure you make the necessary forwarding rules if you don't use this university e-mail regularly.
2. Additional reviews may be scheduled for students (by negotiation between all parties) outside these timelines to facilitate completion of a thesis or to resolve problems in progress.
3. Part-time students will be reviewed at least once a year.
2. Progress Report Form
A few weeks before the review, the student and supervisor will be contacted by the Research Administrator who will propose a date and time for the review. This date and time depends on the availability of the 4 members of the review panel, usually blocked on one morning or afternoon. The cooperation and goodwill of everyone in this process is important.
The student's Annual Progress Review Form (prepared and partly filled in by the Graduate Research School) will be emailed to the student and supervisor (see
sample ). The student and supervisor will fill their respective sections and return the document electronically to the Research Administrator
no later that 5 days before the review.
Note: Failure to show at the interview is unacceptable and will be referred to the Head of school and Higher Degree Committee.
3. Reviews
The Review Panel will interview the student and supervisor independently and together. Although not compulsory, the co-supervisor can be present at the review and can stay with the supervisor at the interview. A record of the interview is the responsibility of the panel secretary.
Each review session will be scheduled as follows:
- Presentation and discussion. 15 min
- Student and supervisor sign their respective sections on the printed version of the Annual Progress Review Form
- Student interviewed alone. 5 min
- Supervisor interviewed alone *. 5 min
- Panel discussion and agreed Report summary. 5 min
- Total: 30 min
* can be accompanied with co-supervisor
At the first review, the Panel will discuss with the student and supervisor the following points:
- Will the project make an original scientific contribution?
- Whether the research plan, including methodologies, is feasible, including consideration of the availability of resources and/or how they will be obtained? Is the project a suitable training program for a research career?
- The adequacy of the student’s literature review
- Consideration of constraints which may inhibit the project; including any specific training programs which may be necessary for the candidate to undertake.
For the second review, the Panel will focus mainly on the progress of the experimental work. Problems or impediments to progress must be identified, discussed and hopefully resolved. Students must be clearly identified at this time with a recommendation for:
- Upgrading from an MSc to PhD or downgrading from PhD to an MSc.
- Essential remedial action prescribed, with nomination of the date of a further interim review.
- Cancellation. Note that this is the last time at which cancellation should seriously be considered.
At this stage of their candidature, students are expected to give a seminar presentation in one of the seminar series of the school (Anatomy seminar series, Pathology seminar series and Physiology & Pharmacology Postgraduate seminar series). This seminar should review the literature, discuss the methodologies being used/to be used in the project, and should include some results. It will take the form of a 20 minutes presentation with 10 minutes for questions. Academic Staff of the department will come to these seminars and the Supervisor and Co-supervisor are strongly urged to attend. The scheduling of the seminars will be done in consultation with the student, and the seminar series coordinators in each department. Note that the oral presentation is compulsory, however, if the student has already given an oral presentation elsewhere at a meeting or at another seminar series, then he/she will be exempted.
For the third review, the Review Panel should focus on realistic targets for completion, to allow prompt submission of the thesis. A realistic time frame, with milestones, should be drawn up by the student and supervisor. The interviewing committee should highlight perceived problems and address how they may be overcome.
Additional reviews. From this point on, additional reviews will be scheduled every 6 months until the student submits.
Reports
After each review the Review Panel will write a progress report which will be entered on the Panel section of the Annual Progress Review Form. Areas of concern must be noted in the report, including any specific points which must be reconsidered at a subsequent review, as well as any remedial action required of the student and/or supervisor. Grievances by either the student or the supervisor must be indicated, and if applicable, wether there is any concern about the quality of the supervision.
The Panel then makes a recommendation on whether the progress is satisfactory, marginal or unsatisfactory. If marginal or unsatisfactory, an additional review is scheduled for the next semester, and in the worst case referred to the Higher Degrees Commmittee.
This section is signed by the Chair of the Review Panel and Postgraduate Coordinator and copies of the Review Form are sent to the supervisor and student.