Â鶹Éçmadou

At the beginning of their candidature, each candidate and their supervisor should select the review panel which best aligns with their research interests. The school has five Review Panels to facilitate the review process.

Panel A:Ìý John Lock (C), Nadeem Kaakoush, Zaklina Kovacevic, Nick Di Girolamo

Panel B: Fabio Luciani (C), Daina Sturnieks, Nicodemus Tedla, Levon Khachigian, Scott Berry Ìý

Panel C:Ìý Ingvars Birznieks (C), Jane Butler, Georg Von Jonquieres, Yann Gambin, Claire Boswell-Ruys Ìý

Panel D: Shane Thomas (C), Emma Sierecki, Vaishnavi Ananthanarayanan, Lindsay Wu, Daniel Fernandez RuizÌý Ìý

Panel E:Ìý Andrew Moorhouse (C), John Power, Natasha Kumar, Jennie Cederholm, Teri Furlong

Reviews are usually held in blocks twice a year between April to August and between September to December. For example, if you began your candidature in T3-2019, your first review will be between April to August 2020. If you began in T1-2021, your first review will be between September to December 2021.

The timing of the review sessions for each full-time HDR candidateÌýwill be as follows:

• First review - first year (normally take place nine months (FTE) from the start date of the term in which they commenced):
  • Candidate: Literature review completed (), research plan proposed.
  • Panel: Evaluate research plan.
• Second review - second year (approximately 12 months after the first review):
  • Candidate: Substantial progress made.
  • Panel: Monitor progress.
• Third review - third year (approximately 12 months after the second review):
  • Candidate: Experimental work being finalised, started writing papers.
  • Panel: Review thesis plan and timing for submission.

HDR candidatesÌýwho have completed 3.0 FTE will be scheduled for a review every 6 months until they submit their thesis.

A few weeks before the review, the candidateÌýand the supervisor will be contacted by the Research Administrator with a proposed date and time for the review. This date and time depends on the availability of the 5 members of the review panel, usually blocked on one morning or afternoon. The cooperation and goodwill of everyone in this process is important. Failure to show at the interview is unacceptable and will be referred to the Head of School and Higher Degree Committee.

• You will be contacted weeks prior to your review scheduled by your School; official e-mail communications from the school will be sent to your official university e-mail address (zID@unsw.edu.au). Please ensure that you have made the necessary forwarding rules if you do not check your university e-mail account regularly.
• Additional reviews may be scheduled for HDR candidates (by negotiation between all parties) outside these timelines to facilitate completion of a thesis or to resolve problems in progress.
• Part-time HDR candidates will be reviewed at least once a year.

The Review Panel will interview the HDR candidateÌýand the supervisor independently and together. Although not compulsory, the joint or secondary 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 mins.
• Candidate interviewed alone - 5 mins.
• Supervisor interviewed alone* - 5 mins.
• Panel discussion and agreed Report summary - 5 mins
• Total - 30 mins.

* can be accompanied by the co-supervisor.

At the first review, the Panel will discuss with the candidateÌýand the 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 candidate’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.

The first review is also theÌýconfirmation of candidatureÌýreview for PhD candidates. The candidate is required to:

1. Provide a written research proposal in accordance with Â鶹Éçmadou Medicine/School guidelines including:

• Key objectives, criteria and milestones of the research, Gantt chart.
• A literature review (10 pages minimum). Refer toÌý.
• A brief justification of the research.
• An assessment of the resources required to support the research.
• A statement of how the research will be conducted in accordance with the Â鶹Éçmadou policies for intellectual property, OHS, research and ethics.Ìý

2. Give an oral presentation in the presence of the Panel members and the supervisor/co-supervisor (in accordance with Â鶹Éçmadou Medicine/School guidelines). The presentation should be kept to a maximum of 5-10 minutes.ÌýPowerPoint presentations are optional (candidatesÌýwishing to do PowerPoint presentations should advise the Postgraduate Research Administrator when they receive notification of their reviews).

3. ProvideÌýevidence that the Â鶹Éçmadou Research Integrity module has been completed.

Note: The research proposal and literature review should be submitted as attachments, together with the online review form.

Setting of milestones is now required for every review to ensure candidates are making progress towards the completion of their degree. These milestones are recorded in the online review form.

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. Candidates should provide:

• An outline of achievements for the past 12 months against agreed objectives/criteria and milestones.
• An outline of key objectives/criteria and milestones for the next 12 months.
• A timeline and milestones for completion of the thesis.

At this stage of their candidature, candidates are expected to give a mid-candidature seminar presentation in one of the seminar series. Please refer to theÌýÌýwebpage for further information.

^For Master of Science candidates,Ìýtransfer to enrolment in a PhDÌýdegree requires that the candidate is qualified for admission to the PhD and that candidature is confirmed as part of the review. The candidate's confirmation will result from the Progress Review during the second year of candidature.

During that review, the panel will discuss with the candidateÌýand the supervisor the following points:

• Will the project make sufficient body of work for a PhD?
• 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 candidate’s literature review.
• Consideration of constraints that may inhibit the project including any specific training programs that may be necessary for the candidate to undertake.

On that occasion, the candidate is required to:

• Provide evidence of scientific achievement (in accordance with Â鶹Éçmadou Medicine/School guidelines). This could be in the form of:
• Publication of a scientific article.
• Getting an abstract accepted at a national/international conference.Ìý
• Significant contribution to a scientific article (a letter from the other contributing authors might be required to support the claim of the candidate).

Note that these publications must contain new data that have been collected during the candidature. They cannot be reviews of previous work or work of others.

Provide a written research proposal (in accordance with Â鶹Éçmadou Medicine/School guidelines including):

• Key objectives/criteria/milestones of the research, Gantt chart (this would typically include the original project but also expand it).
• A literature review (with potential additions).
• A brief justification of the research.
• An assessment of the resources required to support the research (if not already discussed at the first APR).
• A statement of how the research will be conducted in accordance with the Â鶹Éçmadou policies for intellectual property, OHS, research and ethics.

Note: The research proposal and literature review should be submitted as attachments, together with the online review form. Further information regarding the transfer process is on theÌý.

Ìý

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 candidateÌýand the supervisor. The Review Panel should highlight perceived problems and address how they may be overcome. Candidates should provide:

Ìý

• An outline of achievements for the past 12 months against agreed objectives/criteria and milestones
• An outline of key objectives/criteria and milestones for the next 12 months
• A timeline and milestones for completion of the thesis
• If the candidate plans on submitting within the next 12 months, a table of contents for the thesis together with the completion status of each section

Additional reviews. From this point on, additional reviews will be scheduled every 6 months until the student submits.

HDR candidates should refer to theÌýÌýand the section on Progress Reviews on theÌýÌýwebsite for more detailed information.

The Progress Review forms are now fully online. Candidates will receive an e-mail notification when they are required to start the review process. A link to the system is available through the notification e-mail or you can login directly to theÌýÌý(GRIS) using your zID and zPass.

The candidateÌýand the supervisor should submit and complete the online Progress Review Form no later thanÌý5 days before the review.

To document the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on your progress and milestones the following non-compulsory forms may be uploaded to GRIS as part of your Annual Research Progress Review documentation in consultation with your supervisor(s) and do not require PGC sign-off.ÌýHDR_COVID19_impact_templateÌýandÌýHDR_COVID19_impact_timeline_template.Ìý

For candidates applying for the completion scholarship (3.5-4 years EFTSL),Ìýthe review must:Ìý-

• • outline how their progress has been delayed by the COVID-19 situation;
  • provide a detailed timeline for their thesis submission;
  • have strong supporting statements from the review panel that the completion plan is in place and is realistic.
  • have milestones with dates that are achievable (and not all at the time of the next review)

After that the studentÌýcan apply for the Completion Scholarship.

Ìý

After each review, the Review Panel will record the review outcome on the online form in theÌýÌý(GRIS). In all reviews, regardless of the outcome, the Panel, together with the candidate and the supervisor(s), must set milestones for the next review and these will be used to assess progress in the program. Areas of concern must also be noted in the review outcome, including any specific points which must be reconsidered at a subsequent review, as well as any remedial action required of the candidateÌýand/or the supervisor. Grievances by either the candidate or the supervisor must be indicated, and if applicable, whether 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 the review is marginal or unsatisfactory, an additional review is scheduled, and if necessary, referred to the Higher Degree Committee (HDC). ÌýAll review outcomes are reviewed and published by the Postgraduate Coordinator.

The candidate will receive an automated e-mail advising them of the outcome of the review. The candidate can also review the comments and recommendation of the panel and/or Postgraduate Coordinator by logging intoÌýGRIS.Ìý

HDR candidates should refer to theÌýÌýand the section on Progress Reviews on theÌýÌýwebsite for more detailed information.