Policy on Progress Reviews for Research Students

Purpose / Policy Statement

All doctoral students at UCC must engage with a formal Research Progress Review on an annual basis at a minimum. This formal Research Progress Review is in addition to any regular meetings the student has with their supervisory team.  

All Masters by research students and all doctoral students who enter via the Prior Published Work entry-route and who are registered for more than one year, are also required to undergo an annual Research Progress Review.   

Scope

This policy applies to all full-time and part-time students registered on a postgraduate research programme in UCC.  This includes the following programmes: PhD, Practitioner Doctorate, Thematic PhD, MD and Masters by Research.   

Definitions

Student means a postgraduate research student who is registered on a Doctoral (PhD, Practitioner Doctorate, Thematic PhD, MD) or Masters by Research programme. 

A unit is a School or Department as appropriately defined by College Rules and University Governance.  

Graduate Education Manager (GEM) is the platform used for recording annual Research Progress Review.   

Guiding Principles

The following are recommended at a minimim:

Doctoral Students

Doctoral students (full time and part time) must complete a Research Learning Plan by month 3 of year 1. This outlines the plan for their training and research that year, as agreed with their supervisory team. Students will receive an email alert from GEM one month in advance of their Research Learning Plan submission deadline.   

Doctoral students must submit a Research Progress Review application on GEM by the end of month 9 of year 1, and every year thereafter until submission of their thesis (including beyond their approved period of study). The unit must complete the progress review by the end of the academic year of the student. It is recommended, however, that the review be completed within six weeks following the end of month 9 of the academic year. 

 Research Masters and PhD by Prior Published Work

Due to the shorter registration period, typically 1 year, Masters by Research and PhD by Prior Published Work students do not have to complete a formal progress review in year 1. They must, however, complete a Research Learning Plan by month 3 of year 1, which outlines the plan for their training and research that year, as agreed with their supervisory team. If these students go into year 2 or beyond, then they will have to complete a progress review at month 6 of the second year, and every year thereafter until submission (including beyond their approved period of study). It is strongly recommended that the student and supervisory team revise the research objectives by month 9 in year 1, reassess the timelines for completion between months 9 and 12 in year 1, and revise them if required.  

Annual registration is dependent on submission by the student of an annual Research Progress Review application on GEM no later than the end of month 9 of their academic year.  A student is not entitled to register in the absence of same. Prior to annual registration rollover a report will be run from GEM and any student who has not submitted an annual Research Progress Review application will be excluded from registration.  If a student has an unsatisfactory review, they must engage in a re-review in accordance with this policy.  Any student involved in a re-review will not be excluded from registration. 

The unit of the lead supervisor will be deemed, for administrative purposes, to be the unit of the research student. The student will be assigned to the Graduate Studies Committee of this unit (GSC of unit).  

As stated in the Guidelines on the Roles and Responsibilities of Unit Graduate Studies Committees, it is the responsibility of the Chair of the unit’s GSC to ensure that each doctoral student, completes a progress review in accordance with this policy at least once a year.   

 Policy Criteria

The purpose of the annual (at a minimum) Research Progress Review is: 

         a. To underpin the National Framework for Doctoral Education. The purpose of the Framework is to: “Facilitate consistent excellence in the quality of postgraduate education and training, including research undertaken at masters and doctoral levels;” UCC has endorsed the principles of the framework including “formal monitoring of progress to completion against published criteria, supported by institutional arrangements.” 

         b. To recognise and acknowledge good progress. 

         c. To provide an opportunity for the student to present aspects of their work and achievements to date. 

         d. For the student to receive feedback on their research progress, postgraduate research skills development, personal development, and performance to date. 

         e. To provide the student with the opportunity to highlight any matters about their research, training and supervision experience independently of supervisors. 

         f. To provide the supervisory team with the opportunity to highlight any matters about their supervisory experience independently of the student. 

         g. To gauge the feasibility of completion within the approved period of study, and hence to collectively draft mitigation strategies, if required. 

         h. To ensure that the student has set goals for the coming year’s study and training. 

         i. To ensure that the student is making sufficient progress with their studies, taking into account the considerations above to progress. 

         j. To prepare, or revise, the Research Learning Plan for the coming year. 

         k. To provide guidance by way of re-review where concerns are expressed by the Progress Review Panel (PRP) following review under the criteria above. 

In the event that a student fails to submit an annual Research Progress Review application by the end of month 9, the student will not be eligible to register for the next academic year.  As stated above, in this instance a report will be run from GEM, prior to annual registration rollover, and any student who has not submitted an annual progress review application will be excluded from registration. 

In the event that a student fails to present for a scheduled Research Progress Review meeting, this will be deemed as an unsatisfactory review.

Additional circumstances requiring a Research Progress Review are the following: 

When an extension is required, for example when a student does not complete the programme within the required timeframe (e.g. a student (whether full time or part time) is allowed a maximum of six years from their approved start date in which to complete a PhD, after which they must apply for an extension each year until submission). 

When a change from Masters by Research to a Doctorate is requested. 

When a PhD student returns from a Leave of Absence (LOA), their registration resumes from the point at which it was paused. The LOA period does not count towards their period of registration and essentially pauses it. 

The Research Progress Review (RPR) should be initiated in month 9 of the relevant year of registration and completed before the revised end date of that year, regardless of the duration of the LOA. 

Example: A PhD student begins Year 2 on 1st October, with an original end date of 30th September. The student takes a 3-month LOA from 1st April, having completed 6 months of Year 2. They return on 1st July and resume the remaining 6 months of Year 2, extending the end date to 31st December. The RPR should still be initiated in month 9 (end of September) and completed before the revised end date of 31st December. 

In respect of each of the above additoinal circumstances requiring a Research Progress Review, the Progress Review Panel (PRP) report will outline the decision of the PRP and must accompany the relevant change request application on GEM. 

Progress Review Process

It is the responsibility of the chair of the GSC of the unit to ensure that a Progress Review Panel (PRP) is appointed for each student. 

For each student, the PRP should comprise, at a minimum, two independent members of staff, one of whom will normally be a member of the GSC of unit (or their nominee). These members of staff are independent from the research of the student under review. If required, a member from another unit may be requested to be part of a PRP to ensure independence. One of these members of staff is assigned to be the Lead Reviewer. The Lead Reviewer is responsible for leading the review process and submitting the final report on GEM.   The members of the PRP should normally hold a doctorate degree and have already supervised at least one doctorate degree student to completion. 

The role of the PRP is to: 

• Assess if a student is progressing in line with disciplinary requirements in research and training. 
• Encourage student self-assessment in advance of the review. 
• Provide the supervisory team with the opportunity to reflect on student progress. 
• Be evidence-based, such that the PRP has sufficient information to advise the student and supervisory team on their progress. 

Process 

It is the responsibility of the student to submit an Research Progress Review application on GEM by the end of month 9 each year.  As part of their progress review submission the student is required to provide statements on the following: 

• Research aims and objectives 
• Research Integrity training  
• Ethical approval 
• Data Management 
• Potential issues and mitigating strategies 
• Agreement on frequency of meetings with the supervisory team, frequency of submission of written work, frequency and format of feedback on written work from the supervisory team, working hours, annual leave, additional teaching/demonstrating/outreach commitments (additional to the research, [paid and unpaid) if applicable, learning and development plan including modules and training to be taken. 
• Goals achieved to date and future goals 
• Self-assessment on progress made to date 
• Commentary on supervision.   

It is the responsibility of the lead supervisor to submit the supervisory team progress report to GEM no later than seven days after the student submission of their annual progress review application.  As part of their progress review submission the supervisory team is required to provide statements on the following: 

• Research Learning Plan 
• Ethical approval 
• Student progression 
• Goals 
• Issues that may have slowed or impeded research progression. 

The Research Progress Review format must include, at a minimum, one-to-one meetings between: 

• The PRP and the student; and 
• The PRP and the supervisory team independently. 

 It is the responsibility of the PRP to review all submitted documents. 

 The PRP will, following its review under this Policy, make one of the following recommendations regarding progression: 

i. That the student’s performance is satisfactory, and that the student may progress to the next stage. 

ii. That there were some concerns/shortcomings. In this instance, mitigation strategies should be proposed and agreed. The student is required to undertake a re-review within 3 months from the date of recommendation. 

If this is the 1st re-review, the PRP will consider the re-review and may make the following recommendations: 

a. satisfactory as in (i) above or 

b. recommend that shortcomings remain (although they will still need to be addressed). Where (b) arises, the student must undertake a subsequent final review which is to be completed by a specified timeframe and where possible within 3 months of the re-review; the outcome of which will result in either a conclusion that the progress is either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. The PRP Report must detail in writing the rationale for its conclusion. 

In the event that the final review is unsatisfactory, the GSC of unit will then consider all PRP related documentation (including, but not limited to, student’s independent reports, supervisor’s independent reports, PRP reports) and then decide that either: 

a. submission for a lower degree examination e.g. Master’s; or 

b. that no submission for a Doctorate degree or Master’s degree examination be completed by the student, and that registration of the student be terminated. 

The effective date of termination will depend on the circumstances of the case. 

Where the student has grounds to apply to an Independent Review Panel (IRP), termination will take effect from the date the student is informed of the IRP decision.  

Where the student does not have grounds to apply to an IRP review, termination will take effect from the date the student is informed by the chair of the GSC of the unit. Termination must be completed prior to the next available registration date. 

The chair of the GSC of the unit is responsible for consulting with the relevant stakeholders, and ensuring the decision it is clearly communicated to all parties concerned. 

The Progress Review Panel decision must be accompanied by a detailed rationale. 

The chair of the GSC of the unit is responsible for formal notification of the decision to the student and to the supervisory team.  The notification must clearly specify the student's right to request an Independent Review Panel (IRP) review, the process and deadlines for doing so, and all associated timelines, including the effective date of termination where relevant. 

Where applicable, the GSC of the unit will also inform the relevant unit administrators responsible for the student's funding. If, following the final review, the student is recommended for termination of registration and is in receipt of a scholarship, any associated fee support and stipend payments will be discontinued in line with the date of termination determined under this procedure. 

Request for Independent Review of the PRP recommendation

A Request for Independent Review on the outcome of the final PRP Report (hereafter “Request for Review”), can be lodged in writing with the Dean of Doctoral Studies within 21 days of the PRP recommendation being notified to the Student by the GSC of Unit, based on the grounds below listed. 

A Request for Review may be lodged on one or both of the following grounds: 

• Procedural Irregularity: There has been a substantive procedural irregularity that has demonstrably affected the outcome of the recommendation. 

• Extenuating Circumstances: At the time of the PRP consideration and for reasons outside of the student’s control, extenuating circumstances were not presented to, known by, or considered by the PRP at the time of the review. This information may have given rise to an alternative recommendation. 

Upon receipt of the Request for Review, the Dean of Doctoral Studies will write to the student to advise the student of the review grounds available (if not already outlined or claimed by the Student in the Request for Review received)  

The Dean of Doctoral Studies will convene an Independent Review Panel (IRP) within 21 days of receipt of the Request for Review. 

Independent Review Panel (“IRP”) 

The Independent Review Panel (“IRP”) will include the Dean of Doctoral Studies (or a nominee), the Chair of the University Examination Appeals Committee (or a nominee), and at least one member from a panel of four representing each of the four Colleges, who are nominated by the Academic Council. These four members will be appointed and approved by AC normally for a period of 3 years. The IRP membership will have no more than a 1/3 of the panel rotation on the same year. Members of the IRP must have acted as lead supervisor of two PhD students to completion, as a minimum.   Normally, the Dean of Doctoral Studies will act as Chair of the IRP. 

IRP Process 

The review will be determined by the IRP based on written Request for Review submission and documentary evidence.  

A copy of the Request for Review and any other relevant supporting evidence submitted by the student will be sent to the GSC of unit for a written response. 

The Chair of the IRP will arrange to provide the IRP with the following, in advance of its meeting: 

The PRP recommendation and any prior PRP reports and/or recommendations, and any documentation regarding re-review under this Policy. 

The application for Request for Review. 

The written response to the Request for Review (detailing grounds of review) of the student, by the GSC of unit. 

Any additional information that may be requested from time to time by the IRP following review of (a) and (b) above. 

Based on its review of the above documentation, the IRP will decide to either; 

• Uphold the Review, in full or in part or; 
• Not uphold the Review   

In cases where an IRP upholds the review, on either or both grounds stated above, the IRP will revoke the original decision of the GSC of unit, and as appropriate, require the relevant GSC of unit to allow the student one further opportunity to satisfy the requirements of a satisfactory progress review, with a new independent PRP, under the Policy. 

The decision of the IRP will be communicated to the student, the supervisory team and the GSC of unit, in writing by the Chair of the IRP, normally within 6 weeks of date of receipt of the Request for Review. The decision of the IRP is final.

Annual Review

Each year, the Dean of Doctoral Studies will prepare a report for Academic Council on the number and nature of Request for Reviews, identifying their outcomes and any issues that may have arisen.

Timelines

Re-review (and IRP review, if applicable) must be completed within 12 months of the current registration period. 

Approved by Academic Board 23 October 2026.  

The policy supersedes:

• Amendments by Academic Council, 24 November 2023
• Amendments by Academic Council, June 2014
• Progress Review Policy for Research Students, Academic Council, November 2010

Related Documents

UCC Policies for Research Students can be found at Doctoral Institute | University College Cork

National Framework for Doctoral Education 

Contact for Further Information

Doctoral Institute Manager, Doctoral Institute | University College Cork