phd annual report

College of Engineering

Graduate Annual Report

All graduate students in the MSU College of Engineering are required to submit an annual report each year, regardless of when they started graduate studies (note that this is a change from previous years, when annual reports were not required until students had completed 9 graduate credits.) As part of this report, students will report their progress during the previous year, review their academic and professional goals, and communicate with their adviser(s) about their plans and progress toward degree completion. Students who do not complete the annual reporting process will have a hold placed on their accounts.

Download our Instruction guide on how to complete the annual report.

Please review this information carefully, as well as the frequently asked questions (and answers) and other resources on this page.

If you have technical questions or are unable to log in, please email [email protected] .

January 31: students must complete their part of the annual report using the online Graduate Reporting System (GRS) system and must click to notify their adviser that it's ready for review

February: advisers provide written feedback using online GRS system; students and advisers meet to review and sign the report

March 1: students must verify report completion using online GRS system

Failure to meet the March 1 due date for completing and verifying the annual report will result in a hold being placed on students' accounts.

Submission Instructions

Successful completion involves the following steps:

• Students enter their information in the online report
• Students select Submit Report from the menu and then click the "Send Email" button to notify their adviser to review the report
• Primary advisers reviews the report and adds their feedback
• Students log into the GRS system and "Verify Report"
• Students upload a PDF copy of their verified report as the required "Annual Review" in the MSU GradPlan system (see page 10 of this document )

Graduate Reporting System (GRS)

All annual reports must be completed online using the Graduate Reporting System (GRS).

If you have technical questions or are unable to log into the GRS system, please email [email protected] .

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Current graduate students.

• Career preparation
• Funding Opportunities
• Resources, reports, and forms
• Responsible Conduct of Research
• Annual report
• Doctoral Candidate Information
• Online exam proctoring
• Dual B.S. and M.S.
• Conference Travel Grants
• Graduate studies
• Graduate handbooks

Our websites may use cookies to personalize and enhance your experience. By continuing without changing your cookie settings, you agree to this collection. For more information, please see our University Websites Privacy Notice .

The Graduate School

Template for annual reviews for doctoral students.

As part of an ongoing effort to foster good graduate student mentoring and facilitate communication between graduate advisors and advisees, The Graduate School has developed a template for annual reviews for doctoral (and potentially other) students .  The purpose is to provide a tool that programs can use to: (1) allow students to report and reflect on their progress and accomplishments during the previous year and plan their activities and efforts for the coming year, and (2) aid major advisors in providing their graduate students with feedback on their progress to date and plans.   The template is attached, along with examples of similar forms currently being used by some departments (English, Marine Sciences, and Psychology).  The template draws from examples such as these, and incorporates feedback received from the Graduate Faculty Council and the Executive Committee.

Importantly, the template is designed to be   customizable .  We anticipate that programs will modify it — adding, changing, or deleting items – to suit the specific needs of their programs.  Although use of this or any form is purely voluntary (i.e., there is no Graduate School requirement that annual reviews of this sort be conducted), we strongly urge programs to institute a process based on some version of a tool like this.

We are distributing this template now so that programs that want to do so can use it this academic year.  However, we view this as a “living document” that we will be revising as we receive feedback on it.  In addition, we will be developing guidance/tips on implementations suggestions and strategies that we will be posting on the TGS website, along with the template itself, over the coming months.

Download Template

If you have any questions or suggestions regarding the template itself or its use, please reach out to us at   [email protected]   or   [email protected] .

Kent E. Holsinger Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor Vice Provost for Graduate Education  and Dean of The Graduate School

Kathleen Segerson Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor Associate Dean of The Graduate School

Contact Information

860-486-3617

[email protected]

The Whetten Graduate Center, Second Floor University of Connecticut 438 Whitney Road Extension, Unit-1152 Storrs, CT 06269-1152

8:30am to 4:30pm Monday through Friday

UConn Today

• New Alzheimer’s Treatment Available at UConn Health
• Connecticut’s Latino Population Continues to Grow and Confront Disparities
• Marissa Salvo Named the 2024 School of Pharmacy Faculty Service Award Recipient
• Mathew Chandy ’24, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences 
• Opinion: Why UConn Health Should Expand

Upcoming Defenses

Doctor dissertation oral defense of veronica hanna.

Monday, April 29th, 2024

Family Studies Building

Human Development and Family Sciences - “The Role of Religion in Sexual and Gender Diverse Youth and Young Adults’ Lives”

Veronica Hanna: [email protected]

Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense of Weizi Wu

12:45 PM - 02:45 PM

Storrs Hall

Nursing PhD “RNA Differential Expression Pre- and Post-Chemotherapy and Its Association with Pain/Fatigue in Colorectal Cancer Patients”

[email protected]

Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense of Eilyn Lombard

365 Fairfield Way, Storrs, CT 06269

Power, Performance and Poetry in Latin America (1970-2022)

[email protected]

Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense of Jerin Lee

Tuesday, April 30th, 2024

Jerin Lee, [email protected]

Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense of Marco J. Echeverria

01:00 PM - 04:00 PM

Title: Investigating Materials Behavior Under Extreme Conditions: Dynamic Deformation and Failure of Metals at the Atomic Scale

Marco J. Echeverria [email protected]

• Undergraduate
• Master’s
• Areas of Focus
• Centers + Institutes
• Labs + Facilities
• Featured Research
• Undergraduate Research
• Graduate Group
• Open Faculty Positions
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Outreach Mission
• Local Programs
• Global Programs
• Why Penn Bioengineering?
• Bioengineering Blog
• Penn Engineering Blog
• Seminars + Events
• Visiting BE
• Make a Gift
• Current Students
• Annual PhD Progress Report

Ph.D. Student Handbook

Annual ph.d. progress report.

Starting in their second year, students will meet with a mentoring committee annually. Prior to candidacy, the mentoring committee will be composed of their Qualifying committee. After candidacy, the mentoring committee will be composed of their Dissertation committee, which depending on the nature of a student’s thesis may include members of the Qualifying committee. At least one week prior to the annual meeting (which also includes the candidacy exam), the student will provide a brief progress report (3-page max, excluding non-mandatory figures), an updated CV, and a copy of their IDP. At the beginning of the meeting, the student will meet alone with the committee, followed by a meeting of the advisor(s) with the committee. The committee chair will fill out the PhD Committee Meeting Report.

Access the Progress Report Submission form her e.

The purpose of the Dissertation Committee is to provide objective advice and fresh points of view to the student and Advisor. A lively discussion may be expected at these meetings, which is sure to benefit the student and the student’s research. Committee meetings are also important for ensuring that the student is: i) on schedule to complete the Thesis in an appropriate time frame, including maintaining the appropriate balance of experiments, analysis, writing, and dissemination; ii) thinking about and effectively pursuing post-graduation career plans; and iii) at the appropriate time is given permission to defend.

Doctoral Program:

• Student Directory
• Fellowships + Support
• New Students
• Transfer Credits
• Degree Requirements
• M.D. + Ph.D.
• V.M.D. + Ph.D.
• Certificate Programs
• Diversity Advisors
• Academic Forms, Advising Resources and Feedback Forms

Your BE Contact:

Kathleen Venit Associate Director, Graduate Programs 240 Skirkanich Hall

Graduate Student Groups:

Graduate Association of Bioengineers

Graduate Student Engineering Group

Skip to Content

• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Creative Writing
• News & Events

Other ways to search:

• Events Calendar

The Department of English has moved from Hellems and Denison to Muenzinger . The main office is in Muenzinger D110.

Annual Report for PhD Students

PhD students in their second year and beyond are required to submit an annual report on the progress of their PhD work by October 31 of each year. These reports are used to assist the Associate Chair for Graduate Studies and (for more advanced students) the student’s Dissertation Director in advising about progress in the program.

Students without current reports on file may not be considered eligible by the department for fellowships or teaching positions. Reports should be no more than one page in length and can be submitted in person to the Graduate Program Coordinator via e-mail to [email protected] .

For a template of the report, click here . 

Instructions

If you are completing coursework (second year).

• Outline your plans to complete your coursework in the current academic year, listing the courses you plan to take.
• List the members of your Advisory Committee and identify the Chair.
• If you have grades of Incomplete outstanding, outline your plans to complete the course(s). Grades of Incomplete may disqualify you from holding a teaching appointment.
• Outline how you have completed or plan to complete the foreign language requirement for the PhD.

If you have completed coursework (including grades of Incomplete) but have not yet passed the Qualifying Examination (Third year):

• Indicate when you will be taking your Qualifying Examination.
• Provide the title of your prospectus and a description of your field and method.
• List the five Advisory Committee members who will administer your exam, including the outside member.

If you have passed the Qualifying Examination (Third Year first semester and beyond)

• List the names of your Dissertation Director and the other four members of your dissertation committee, including the outside member.
• Describe your progress on the dissertation. Indicate chapters finished and expected date of completion.
• If applicable, indicate date of dissertation defense.

If you are currently a GPTI

List the name of a faculty member who will be visiting your classroom and providing a written evaluation of your teaching for your file.

All Students

If you are engaged in extracurricular or leadership activities outside of the English Department or CU Boulder (e.g. serving as an officer in a student organization or club, participating in off campus programs or organizations that benefit your community, participation in national or regional professional organizations) and would like to disclose these, please do so. This can help our department identify candidates for campus-wise funding and recognition opportunities.

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

How to Present PhD Progress Report to Doctoral Committee Members in 03 Simple Stages

As I reflect on my journey through the challenges and triumphs of presenting my PhD progress to the doctoral committee, I’m reminded of the invaluable lessons learned and the transformative experiences gained along the way.

1. Diverse Committee Composition: From the outset, the composition of the doctoral committee struck me with its diversity—comprising experts from within and outside my university, each member brought a unique perspective and wealth of knowledge to the table. Their ability to seamlessly map my research problem to their respective domains underscored the richness of their insights and the importance of their feedback in shaping the trajectory of my study.

2. Thorough Preparation: Meticulously crafting my presentation was only the first step. I realized the necessity of thorough preparation, ensuring that each slide effectively communicated my research objectives, methodology, preliminary findings, and future directions. Despite the initial nerves, I remained composed and focused, drawing upon months of dedication and hard work invested in my research.

3. Anticipating Diverse Requests: During one particularly memorable meeting, the committee members had varied requests—one member asked for a demonstration of my work, while another member wanted to delve into the intricacies of my data collection, cleaning, and wrangling process. These diverse requests underscored the importance of being prepared for any eventuality during the presentation, including the need for live demonstrations and detailed explanations of data-related processes.

4. Embracing Constructive Criticism: I welcomed the committee’s feedback with an open mind. Their constructive criticism and encouragement not only bolstered my confidence but also reignited my passion for my work. I learned to recognize the invaluable role of feedback in guiding the next steps of my research journey.

5. Displaying Previous Meeting Observations: One valuable lesson I learned along the way was the importance of displaying and addressing previous committee meeting observations in subsequent presentations. It was during my second presentation that one committee member suggested this approach, highlighting the need to showcase how suggestions were addressed and incorporated into the research progress. From that point onward, I made it a regular practice to include this information in my presentations, ensuring transparency and accountability in my research journey.

In retrospect, each PhD progress presentation was a transformative experience, shaping me into a more resilient, prepared, and adaptable researcher.

As I reflect on the journey of presenting my PhD progress, I invite you to join me in exploring the intricacies of navigating these pivotal meetings. From preparation to presentation, and from feedback to refinement, each step of the journey offers valuable insights into the art and science of doctoral progress presentations.

Introduction

Summary of plan of actions before phd progress presentation meeting, presentation tips, summary of plan of actions during phd progress presentation meeting, summary of plan of actions after phd progress presentation meeting, email template to doctoral committee members for extension or modification for the work proposed, mastering the art of oral and visual presentations for phd presentations, what should be included in the one-page summary for phd doctoral committee members, how can i effectively demonstrate a software-based project during the phd progress presentation, what level of detail should i include in the background section of my presentation, how can i ensure that there are no surprises for my supervisor during the doctoral committee meeting, what types of questions can i expect from the committee members regarding my research plan, how should i respond to suggestions and feedback given by the committee members during the meeting, under which circumstances phd progress presentation can be rejected.

The PhD Doctoral committee is constituted by the university in which the candidate has registered for PhD. The committe is there   to support and guide the research scholar  till his final thesis is submitted. The committe involves the experts in the domain of the candidate from various universities and research labs. The Committee will evaluate your progress and help to make sure that you are on track to get your dissertation within a reasonable time.

At the beginning of your research, their focus will be on making sure you have defined reasonable and achievable objectives. Later, they will help you decide when it is time to write your thesis. Finally, they will be there at your thesis seminar and defence presentations. Their support as mentors will likely continue as you move on in your career.

Doctoral committee meeting happens usually once in 06 months. Here it is expected that the research scholar has to present his  PhD progress work of the past six months. The meeting should not be felt like an exam. The outcome should be productive advice to you for your future research.

The  Presentation of  PhD Progress Report to Doctoral Committee Members happens in three stages namely: i) Before the meeting:   i.e. Once you start preparing the report for the meeting to till the meeting begins. ii) During the meeting:  i.e. From entering into the meeting hall to  till the meeting gets over and iii) After the meeting:   i.e. From the time meeting concludes to till the next six months before you really start preparing for your next meeting report.

Before the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

Along with your supervisor go through all the comments given in the previous PhD progress doctoral committee meeting. Discuss in detail with your supervisor the work carried out for the past six months. If any issues are still pending have justification for not addressing or partially addressing those issues.

Do not hide details regarding the implementation and pending issues with your supervisor.  This actually helps the supervisor to defend you and take inputs from the committee members regarding the future course of directions.

A summary of  PhD progress and plans should be prepared and submitted to the  Doctoral committee at least one week prior to the meeting. Make sure that you have gone through the report with all grammatical corrections and plagiarism checks.

Send out the agenda to your committee members beforehand, but also remind them of the topics you want to cover before you begin the presentation. If you have any manuscripts published or accepted send your committee a copy of the same.

You should prepare a  PhD progress presentation (no more than 20 minutes without interruption) that includes a brief background of your research, objectives and the work carried out from the last presentation to till date. Without fail discuss in detail the presentation slides with your supervisor. In your presentation slides list all the previous comments and your response for each committee in the form of a table.

If you are planning to change the title of your work getting consent from the committee members is essential. Have at least    04-05 titles which you and your supervisor feel appropriate beforehand. This will ease the process of changing the title immediately in the meeting and the committee can recommend the same to the university along with regular suggestions.

The best way to ensure that your  PhD progress meeting goes smoothly is to meet individually with each committee member to discuss your results well in advance. If you cannot meet with them in person, share your results ( refer my blog on how to write result section ) over email and ask for their feedback. If there are any disagreements, resolve them before the meeting by speaking with your supervisor to ensure that the meeting goes smoothly.

During the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

Before the start of the PhD progress presentation give copies of the one-page summary to other faculty members who are attending the session. Submit copies of the complete report to the committee members including your supervisor. No need to present details of any published work. Provide a reprint or preprint, preferably ahead of the meeting. If your work is software based then keep the demo ready. If you do not have a working module then show the video demonstration of the model. This will help the committee members to suggest future directions for your work.

During your PhD progress committee meeting, you should focus on the last six months’ work rather than the background. Only spend as much time on the background as is relevant to what you will be talking about.

There should not be any surprise slides/facts to your supervisor during your committee meeting.

At your first PhD progress Doctoral committee meeting, you will present an outline of your plan for your research. You can build a detailed description of what you plan to do ( literature survey to carry out,  algorithms or theorems to study,  experiments to carry out, software and hardware components to add, systems integration to perform, tests to accomplish ).  The plans can be represented with specific milestones and timelines with a  Gantt Chart .

Example: The sample Gantt chart below shows a set of activities planned for the next few months for the Research work. This can be extended to any length. This chart helps the committee members to know how well the researcher has planned the research activities.

At subsequent PhD progress meetings you should present a brief introduction (one or two slides) to remind the committee of your research area – don’t expect them to recall everything from the last meeting, but no need to go into great detail. Aim to put your work in context.

Show your current working objective in the form of a block diagram. This will set the boundary for the presentation and discussion. This will help the committee members to focus on the specified objective. For example in the figure below the candidate is focusing on the “Wheeled mobile Robot” objective in Robot Path Planning.

Make sure you are comfortable moving back and forth among your slides.  Do not cross the time limit. Add photographs of any field visits for data collection , or conference presentations in your presentation slides. If you had any interactions with domain experts in your area then add interaction details with a date. If you have visited any organization as a resource person relating to your Ph.D. work with your supervisor then add that details.

Seek advice from your committee members during the meeting. Note down all the suggestions by yourself or ask one of your research colleagues to note the same.  This is highly desirable, almost to the point that you should make it mandatory. Give a timeline of your plans. What will you be doing over the next month, and what do you hope to accomplish before your next meeting in the next six months’ time.

Keep additional slides along with your regular slides. Get into additional slides detail if any clarifications are sought on any equations or algorithms etc.

Additional slides can be presented as follows:

i) The equipment details you are planning to purchase or currently using for implementation.

ii) The Algorithms which you have implemented or planning to implement.

iii) The mathematical model you have developed,  or

iv) Any slides that you think are important but do not have time to cover at the end of your presentation.

Here are some tips regarding the presentation, including time management, devices, backup, laptop usage, uploading PowerPoint, video, and audio:

• Practice your presentation beforehand to ensure it fits within the allocated time.
• Use a timer or stopwatch during practice sessions to gauge your pace.
• Be mindful of the time during the actual presentation and make necessary adjustments to stay on track.
• Ensure your laptop or presentation device is in good working condition.
• Carry a backup copy of your presentation on a USB drive or cloud storage.
• Test the compatibility of your presentation files with the equipment at the presentation venue in advance.
• Close any unnecessary applications or notifications on your laptop to avoid distractions.
• Disable sleep mode or screensavers to prevent interruptions during the presentation.
• Familiarize yourself with the laptop’s function keys or shortcuts for adjusting display settings, volume, etc.
• Save your PowerPoint presentation in a compatible format (e.g., PPT or PPTX).
• Verify that all embedded media (images, videos, audio) are properly linked and functional.
• If possible, upload your presentation to the venue’s computer system before the session to avoid last-minute technical issues.
• Check the audio and video components of your presentation beforehand to ensure they work properly.
• If you plan to play a video, ensure it is in a compatible format and smoothly integrated into your presentation.
• Test the sound levels to ensure audibility for everyone in the room.

Additional tips (from personal experience):

• Rehearse your presentation multiple times to build confidence and familiarity with the material.
• Prepare cue cards or key points to refer to if needed, but avoid excessive reliance on them.
• Maintain eye contact with the audience to engage them and convey confidence.
• Speak clearly and project your voice to ensure everyone can hear you.
• Use visual aids and diagrams to enhance understanding and clarify complex concepts.
• Incorporate storytelling or real-life examples to make your presentation more engaging.
• Practice smooth transitions between slides and maintain a logical flow throughout.
• Be prepared to answer questions and engage in discussions following your presentation.

Remember, the more prepared and confident you are, the better you can deliver your presentation effectively.

After the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

End your  PhD progress committee meeting with a summary of what you have discussed, common points that you have reached and an action plan for the next six months. Your action plan needs to have “actionable” items, specifically what milestones you will work towards after the meeting and approximate timelines.

A written summary of the  PhD progress committee meeting will be prepared by the supervisor and the committee, and that will be sent to the University. You will receive a copy of this and a copy will be placed in your research file.

Send an email note to each of your committee members through your supervisor to thank them for their time, and summarize the action items or milestones you agreed to. This will give your committee members another chance to give you feedback or suggestions.

During the meeting, you might have accepted to complete some implementation before the next meeting, but you may run out of time or you may not get any ideas regarding implementation. In such situations, have a discussion with your supervisor and the committee members and discuss the challenges faced by you. They may either extend the implementation time or ask you to change the methodology of implementation.

Simply do not wait for suggestions from committee members till the next PhD progress presentation meeting. In order to build trust between you and your committee members, you need to take committee members and your supervisor into confidence before taking any major decisions.

In the meeting, the committee might have suggested publishing your work in a quality conference or journal for better citations. Selecting a reputable journal and avoiding predatory conferences and journals is crucial for maximizing the visibility and impact of your research article.

By publishing in a respected journal, you increase the likelihood of attracting a broader and more qualified readership, thus increasing the chances of your article being cited by other researchers. Choosing the right journal involves considering factors such as the journal’s scope, target audience, impact factor, indexing in reputable databases, peer-review process, and overall reputation in the field.

Additionally, it is important to stay vigilant and avoid predatory conferences and journals that may engage in unethical practices or lack rigorous peer-review processes. These predatory outlets may hinder the credibility and recognition of your work. By carefully selecting a reputable journal, you position your research for greater exposure, credibility, and citation potential.

Visit my articles on ” How to identify and avoid predatory conferences and journals ” and “ Identifying Reputable journals for your research paper “. These articles will help you in getting your articles cited by many authors.

Here is an email template which you can communicate to your doctoral committee members in case you fail to keep the deadline or are unable to work on the ideas you proposed. Please take consent from your supervisor before sending any communication to Doctoral Committee members.

Improving both oral presentation and visual presentation skills is crucial for effective communication. To enhance your oral presentation skills, focus on aspects such as clarity, organization, and delivery. Practice speaking clearly, using appropriate tone and volume, and engaging with your audience. Additionally, consider refining your body language, utilizing effective gestures, and maintaining eye contact. For further guidance and resources on honing your oral presentation skills, you may explore reputable platforms and online courses available in this domain.

When it comes to visual presentation skills, it is essential to create visually appealing and impactful slides or visuals. Pay attention to design elements, such as color schemes, fonts, and layout, to ensure coherence and readability. Utilize visuals, such as graphs, charts, and images, to convey information effectively. Incorporate appropriate animations or transitions to enhance the flow and engagement of your presentation. To access valuable tips, techniques, and tools for enhancing your visual presentation skills, you can explore recommended platforms and tutorials available online.

If you are interested in further developing your oral presentation skills, I recommend checking out this comprehensive course on oral presentation skills . It covers essential techniques, strategies, and practical exercises to help you deliver impactful presentations confidently. Likewise, if you want to enhance your visual presentation skills, you may find this resource on v isual presentation design highly beneficial. It provides valuable insights, best practices, and examples to create visually stunning and effective presentations. Feel free to explore these resources to elevate your presentation skills and captivate your audience.

Presenting your PhD progress report to the doctoral committee can be a daunting task, but it is an essential part of your PhD journey. The committee is there to provide guidance and support, ensuring that you are on track to complete your dissertation within a reasonable time. It is crucial to approach the committee meeting with a positive attitude and view it as an opportunity to receive productive advice for your future research.

Remember that the presentation of the progress report to the committee happens in three stages: before, during, and after the meeting. The preparation of the report should be meticulous and thoughtful, and during the meeting, you should be open to constructive feedback and suggestions. After the meeting, you should take note of the committee’s recommendations and use them to shape your future research endeavours.

As you move forward in your career, the support and guidance of the doctoral committee will likely continue to be a valuable resource. By effectively presenting your progress report to the committee, you can make the most of this opportunity and receive the guidance you need to succeed in your PhD program.

Frequently Asked Questions

Research Objective: Clearly state the objective of your research and the problem you are addressing. Methodology: Provide a brief description of the methodology or approach you are using to conduct your research. Key Findings: Highlight the major findings or results you have obtained so far in your research. Progress Update: Summarize the progress you have made during the past six months, highlighting significant achievements or milestones reached. Challenges: Briefly mention any challenges or obstacles you have encountered in your research and how you are addressing them. Future Plans: Outline your planned next steps and future goals for your research, including anticipated timelines or milestones. Relevance and Impact: Discuss the relevance and potential impact of your research in your field or discipline. Support Needed: Specify any specific support, resources, or expertise you require to further advance your research.

To effectively demonstrate a software-based project during the presentation: Have the demo prepared and functional Show a video demonstration if the software is not available or requires specific conditions Focus on showcasing key features and functionalities Provide context and explain the purpose of the software

Include only the necessary level of detail in the background section of your presentation, focusing on what is directly relevant to your research and the specific objectives you will be discussing. Keep it concise and provide enough context to help the doctoral committee members to understand the significance and motivation of your work without delving into unnecessary details.

Maintain open and regular communication with your supervisor throughout the research process. Share progress updates, challenges, and findings with your supervisor in a timely manner. Discuss any potential issues or deviations from the original plan as soon as they arise. Seek feedback and guidance from your supervisor at various stages of your research. Keep your supervisor informed about any changes in methodology, data, or results. Address any concerns or questions from your supervisor before the committee meeting to align expectations.

The types of questions you can expect from committee members regarding your research plan may include: Clarification questions seeking a deeper understanding of your research objectives, methodology, or proposed experiments. Questions about the theoretical framework or literature review supporting your research. Inquiries about the feasibility and potential limitations of your proposed research. Questions related to the significance and impact of your research in the field. Suggestions for alternative approaches or methodologies to consider. Questions about the expected timeline and milestones for your research. Inquiries about potential ethical considerations or data management strategies. Questions exploring the potential implications and practical applications of your research. Requests for additional details or explanations on specific aspects of your research plan. Questions about the expected contributions of your research to the existing body of knowledge in your field.

When responding to suggestions and feedback given by the committee members during the meeting: Listen actively and attentively to understand the suggestions and feedback. Thank the committee members for their input and valuable insights. Remain open-minded and receptive to different perspectives and ideas. Clarify any points of confusion or seek further clarification, if needed. Acknowledge the validity of the suggestions and show a willingness to consider them. Provide thoughtful responses that demonstrate your understanding of the suggestions. Clearly articulate your rationale if you choose not to implement a specific suggestion. Engage in constructive discussions and ask follow-up questions, if appropriate. Demonstrate your ability to integrate feedback into your research plan or adjust your approach. Express gratitude for the committee members’ support and guidance throughout the process.

Lack of Clear Objectives: If your progress presentation fails to clearly define and articulate the objectives of your research, it may be rejected. The committee expects a clear understanding of what you aim to achieve and the significance of your research goals. Inadequate Progress: Insufficient progress made during the specified period can lead to rejection. The committee expects tangible advancements in your research within the given timeframe. If there is a lack of substantial work or limited progress, they may question the feasibility or dedication to your research. Methodological Issues: If there are flaws in your research methodology or data collection techniques, the committee may reject your progress presentation. It is essential to demonstrate a robust and well-designed research approach that aligns with the requirements of your field. Poor Presentation Skills: Your presentation skills play a crucial role in conveying your research effectively. If your presentation lacks clarity, coherence, or fails to engage the audience, it may lead to rejection. Effective communication and the ability to present complex ideas in a concise and understandable manner are vital. Inadequate Literature Review: A comprehensive literature review is expected in a progress presentation. If your review of existing literature is incomplete, lacks depth, or fails to address relevant studies, your presentation may be rejected. It is essential to showcase a thorough understanding of the existing research and its relationship to your work. Failure to Address Committee Feedback: If you neglect to incorporate previous feedback and suggestions from the committee, it may result in rejection. The committee expects you to demonstrate the ability to reflect on and address their recommendations, showing your commitment to improving your research. Remember, the specific parameters for rejection may vary depending on your academic institution and the expectations set by your doctoral committee. It is crucial to consult your supervisor and committee members for clear guidelines and expectations for your progress presentation.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Posts

• How to End Your Academic/Research Internship?
• PhD or Industry Job? A Comprehensive Career Guide
• Post Doc Positions in India
• 04 Reasons for Outsourcing Academic Conference Management
• How to Put Research Grants on Your CV ?
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

• Show search form Hide search form
• Quick links
• Staff search
• Search Search --> Websites Staff search Start search

Annual Progress Reports

Doctoral candidates have to submit a progress report every year once they have passed the public presentation. The annual progress reports serve two purposes:

First, they take stock of the progress made during each year of the doctoral studies. This may sound trivial, yet it helps both doctoral candidates and their supervisors to keep track of their doctoral projects and to avoid pitfalls that could have been easily avoided in retrospect (e.g. unrealistic timetable, procrastination, etc.).

Second, in the annual reports changes can be documented that become necessary or even desirable during the doctoral studies which could not have been anticipated when the dissertation agreement was signed. For instance, it might occur that the initially intended data collection becomes impossible because access to special archives or datasets was denied. Alternatively, it might be that new opportunities turn up, such as a new conference or workshop on the topic of the doctoral project. These changes to the dissertation agreement need to be documented in the annual reports. However, it is important to emphasize that ultimately it is up to the Director of the Doctoral Study Programme to accept these changes.

 Submission of Annual Progress Reports

The annual progress report has to be sent to the respective SSC. Please check the website of your SSC for submission deadlines and for documents which have to be submitted in addition to the annual progress report.

Please note that for many funding schemes (e.g. dissertation completion fellowship) studying according to the university regulations is required. This includes the subsmission of annual progress reports.

 Downloads

Annual Progress Report

DZ.V2 Annual Report.doc

File size:  191 kB

University of St Andrews

Mms documentation.

• Module Evaluation
• Misconduct Alerts
• Auditing PGR
• MMS Academic Alerts
• Postgraduate administration
• PGR-Supervision Groups
• Staff Project Meeting Log Guide
• MMS and Teams
• CLA Material
• MMS Student Guides

Annual Reviewer Progress Report

Introduction.

Each year a review should take place for each PGR student in a school. This review should be informed by the Student and Supervisor annual progress reviews for that student. The Reviewer Progress Report is used to highlight and record any issues that students may undergo within their PhD and ensures that university regulations are adhered to. As with the Examining Committee Nomination form relevant PGR forms can be generated in the RESEARCH module in MMS for your unit. Tailored reports for each student can be accessed on the 'Annual Progress Reports' tab in the 'Postgraduate administration tool'. Each unit will have an associated research module. Reports can be created by supervisors however the reports can only be submitted to registry by the Head of School or the Director of Postgraduate Studies.

• Creating a Report

Question Guidance

• Reviewer Report Submission

Notifications

Please consult the Policy on Progress Reviews for Postgraduate Research Students and the associated Guidance for Schools, Supervisors, Reviewers and Students policy for guidance, or for technical help and assistance please email the ITS service desk, including ‘Reviewer Report’ in the subject line, at [email protected] or download GUIDE - PGR Reviewer Report (PDF, 735 KB) .

Creating a Reviewer Progress Report

To create a Reviewer Progress Report, the Reviewer will have to be assigned to the students Supervision Group. For more information see: PGR Supervision Groups .

Once a reviewer has been added to a supervision group they will be able to create a review for the student corresponding with that supervision group. Reviewer progress reports are created on the ‘Annual Progress Reports’ tab which can be accessed by clicking the ‘Postgraduate Administration’ link in the RESEARCH module, as shown in Figure 1 . The drop-down list at the top of the page can be used to filter the table if the user has a module or unit level role. Existing reports will appear in the ‘Previous Reviews’ column.

Figure 1 : Link to Postgraduate Administration tool and Reviewer Report overview

Click on the ‘New Review’ link in the row associated with the reviewee to generate a new Reviewers progress report. The top section will be automatically populated with details about the student, the supervision and review teams.

The Reviewer progress report is comprised of eight questions. Questions one through seven are compulsory, as indicated by the pale red border. Once a form has been saved, questions that have been completed will update to have a green border, and questions for which answers are still required will be bordered in bright red. All borders must be green before a form can be submitted.

Question 1 relates to how often the student was in contact with the supervisory team, please select the answer from the drop-down list provided.

Question 2 asks about the suitability of the supervision, use the radio buttons next to the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ options. The text box should be used to provide further information.

Question 3 asks about the ethics approval and if this has been received. To answer select the radio button to the right of the possible options.

• ‘Yes, approval received or in progress’ should be selected if ethical approval is required and is in hand
• ‘Yes, action needed to obtain proper approvals’ should be selected if ethical approval is required and action needs to happen to achieve approval.
• ‘Unsure, further investigation needed’ should be selected if the reviewer is unsure if ethics approval is needed.
• ‘No’ should be selected if ethics approval is not needed.

Question 4 relates to the likelihood of the student completing within the allocated period of study. Select ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Unclear’ using the radio boxes to the right of the options. The text box should be used to provide details of the progress so far and to highlight any concerns.

Question 5 should be answered in the text box provided. The answer should cover

• if the student and supervisory team have considered the students training needs;
• if the student and supervisory team have considered the students career development needs;
• if both the training and career development needs are being met, or what actions should be taken to enhance training and career development;
• whether or not the reviewer has concerns regarding the balance between research and non-research commitments and how these concerns might be addressed.

Question 6 relates to communications the reviewer has had with the student relating the any issues the student has that are effecting their studies. Either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ should be selected using the radio buttons to the right of the options. If the student has indicated any issues, then the reviewer should note these and along with details of any advice given by the reviewers (e.g. speak to the DoPG, make contact with Student Services, seek out further training or language support, etc).

Question 7 asks the reviewer to classify the student’s progress using the St Andrews 4 tier assessment criteria, occasionally referred to as ‘traffic lights’ or ‘review outcome codes’, which is comprised of green for ‘satisfactory’, yellow for ‘minor concerns’, amber for ‘major concerns’ and red for ‘unsatisfactory’. The reviewers should select the classification by selecting the radio button to the right of the option. The text box should then be used to give reasons for this classification. More information on these can be found in the Progress Reviews for Postgraduate Research Students (PDF, 522 KB) .

Question 8 asks about any additional school level requirements and should be answered using the text box provided. This space allows reviewers to report on any School level requirements, such as particular taught components or presentations which the School requires of PGR Students. It may be left blank if there are no such requirements for the School.

The Reviewer progress report may be saved at any stage, using the ‘Save’ button at the bottom of the report. Once saved the user can navigate away and will be able to access the report again from the ‘New Review’ column on the ‘Annual Progress Reports’ tab. A PDF of the report can also be downloaded using the ‘Download PDF preview’ icon in the top right of the report.

Report submission

Once the report is ready for submission to the DoPG the reviewer should save and check the PDF preview to ensure the accuracy of the review. Once the reviewer is happy to submit the report they should click the ‘Submit Review’ button (or ‘Resubmit Review’ button if the review has been returned) at the bottom of the report. This will auto-save the report, change the report status to ‘submitted’ and ping the DoPG to inform them that the report is ready. The report will only be submitted if all the required fields have been completed, any that are uncompleted will appear highlighted in red.

If the user does not have permission to accept the report, the report will be frozen and no further edits can be made. The reviewer can then use the ‘Module Overview’ icon at the top or bottom of the page to return to the RESEARCH module.

If the user does have the permission to accept the report, once the report has been submitted then the majority of the form will be frozen to further edits however the buttons at the bottom of the report will change ‘Accept Review’ and ‘Return to Reviewer’.

At various stages in the Progress Review cycle, MMS will email out notifications to users. The following table outlines when notifications will be sent to users:

* To reduce the numbers of emails, these emails are in the form of a daily digest, containing all Progress Report updates relevant for the user.

Report acceptance or return

Once a Reviewer Progress Report has been submitted, it can still be found in the ‘New Review’ column on the ‘Annual Progress Reports’ tab. Any user who can approve the PR, usually the DoPG, will also have received a link via email once the report is ready for approval.

Note: Only users who have permission to accept a review will be able to accept or return the review and neither the supervisor(s) or the student will be able to view the review until it has been accepted.

The DoPG should open the report by clicking on the ‘Submitted’ link. Once the report has been checked, the DoPG can approve the report by clicking the ‘Accept Review’ button at the bottom of the report. At this point the report will become visible to the student and to the supervision team.

If the user is not happy to approve the report, then the ‘Return to Reviewer’ button should be clicked. This will generate a new field at the bottom of the report for information for the reviewers. To save this information and to return the report, click the ‘Return to Reviewer’ button again. This will ping all members of the Review team, asking them to make the necessary changes. The report will then become editable again and can be submitted again at a later date. There is no limit to how often the Reviewers Progress Report can be returned and re-submitted.

A Pocket Guide to First Year Annual Review

Annual reviews are deemed important points of progression during the PhD journey.  

In addition to being a progression review, the annual review helps to support students to successfully conti nue and complete their PhD journey.  F or first – year PhD students, annual reviews may be considered one of the most important points in their year, more so  than   subsequent  annual reviews.  They   are   one of the two major points of  review  for a first – year  doctoral candidate , the first being 10-week report.  Possible outcomes  of the review  mainly include:   (1) confirmation of registration for PhD and progression to year 2 ,  (2)   repeating the review   within  3 months ,  or (3)   registration to a different  programme  like an  MScR  or  discontinuation  of registration entirely.  

With  Annual Review frenzy right around the corner  and most first – year PhD students  eagerly  waiting for their  assessments , here is a pocket guide to  ‘ survive ’  the first-year annual review.   

1. Keep the timeline of your review in mind- 

Annual reviews  typically occur  between 9 to 12 months of the   programme  starting date. Hence, it is advisable to keep in mind the timeline for the first year and plan accordingly.   

2. Follow the proper procedure of the Annual Review- 

Each subject area within the School might have slightly different procedures when it comes to conducting the annual review ; h owever,  it generally consists of finalizing the date of the review, filling out a form on EUCLID (in the Student Record section in  MyEd ), submitting a paper before the said date ,  and   giving  a short presentation on the day of the review  (although not required, but most reviews involve some form of presentation) .   

  For more details about the procedure of the Annual Review, please visit: https://www.ed.ac.uk/files/atoms/files/copsupervisorsresearchstudents.pdf  

3. Ensure open channels of communication with the supervisors- 

All PhD students are , at a minimum, allotted  two supervisors — both  a primary and secondary super visor or co-supervisors . The supervisory team  is  one of the most important support structures throughout   one’s  PhD   progression . It is imperative (and  cannot be stressed enough) to  maintain  honest and open communication with  one’ s supervisory team  at all times . If you are facing a ny  problem or  feeling overwhelmed, they should be the first people to know about it.   

I think you can’t help but compare yourself to other PGRs, but it is really important to remember that every supervisor and critical friend has different expectations and preferences.  Definitely talk  to your supervisory t eam and your critical friend about how to organize the review process! For some it might be more formal, but my Annual Review was very ca sual and more of a conversation with colleagues.     -Anonymous  1

4. Maintain consistency-

Now, we all know that we never end our PhD’s with the same research topic that we start with, rather, it is a whole process of evolution and deliberation of thoughts and ideas. However, in cases where we wish to make a radical change from one research interest to another, it is  advisable to consult  o n e ’ s supervisory team  before doing so  because ,  in some cases, they might not specialize in the changed/ suggested research topic  or they would want to include other supervisors on the team to better assist with the new research topic ; thus,  it ’s  always best to keep them in the loop.   

I was very surprised, and pleased, when by the time I had to present my annual review, I realized my project had slightly changed from what I initially proposed. This process was a bit scary, but my supervisors told me that it was natural and even expected to have a change in thoughts during the whole process of the PhD. The first year wasn’t an exception, as they expected refinement of the project and a more critical development of it. In my case the core topic was the same, but the intricacies of it and the methodology is what changed.   -Anonymous 2

5. Critical Friend-

As  part of the annual review process, each PhD student gets a  ‘ critical friend ’ allotted to their research . The Critical Friend will be involved with the supervision team in reviewing the annual  progress and  might offer occasional advice to the student  regarding the project during the following years. One of the most important roles of the critical friend is to provide feedback following the first-year annual review and  subsequent annual reviews.  The critical friend is someone the student can speak with if they are facing difficulties in supervision that they would like support with.   

In my particular case, having a critical friend provided a sense of stress as you are showing your project to an external person for the first time, but also, when I knew her expertise in both the topic and the methodology, I felt relieved as I knew her feedback was going to make my project more rigorous and rich.   -Anonymous 2 

6. Keep in constant touch with the PGR community- 

The PhD journey can  become quite isolated, especially when  o n e’s  colleagues   are also  consumed by their own research projects ;  however, it is important, especially   during unpre c e dented  uncertain times ,  to  consistently interact  with other PhD students to know that you are most definitely not alone! The school   has appointed ‘PGR Reps’ who are designated to address concerns of the rest of the PGR community — while they cannot actively help your concerns or change your situation, they can definitely provide a  signpost  in the right direction.   

I did a peer-presentation for my 1st year review and attended a couple. The PhD students who had been through the process gave some feedback and asked a few questions. I asked some people to read my first-year review draft, give me their comments and I also asked a couple of them to share their first-year review documents.   -Anonymous 3   One of the best advices I got from my peers and supervisors was to write small pieces of thoughts, paper summaries and rationales for decision making processes since the very beginning of my PhD as this would be material you can always refer to when you present your annual review. It will give structure to your thoughts and will bring more material to your PhD. Keeping a journal of your activities and small pieces of writing is a good practice whilst doing a PhD. – Anonymous 2

7. Be realistic in your approach-  

While it is easy to get carried away with your project — because let’s be real, it is our baby in the making — it is  essential to be realistic.  Keeping in mind both p roject feasibility  and situational circumstances  is important . It is highly important to be pragmatic about  timelines  and ,   if you tend to get overwhelmed, do not hesitate to apply for extensions and  special   circumstances .  The school provides  a lot of resources for the same.   

When I was in my first year, my supervisors asked m e  how many PhDs I  was  in tending to do. You probably can’t change the  whole  world with your project, but you can do it in a way that it changes you  – use your PhD to learn new skills and to challenge yourself ! I had to learn that a well-designed project about a small topic area is better than a big superficial project.    -Anonymous  1

8. Maintain a healthy work-life balance-  

All work and no play  makes  Jack a dull boy! Getting a PhD is a long  journey; hence, it is highly important to maintain a life outside your PhD and research.  Indulging in other activities and hobbies will not only  relax you but also help instill some transferable skills which can prove to be important both for personal and professional development. So, it is imperative for you to have a life outside the office, something which doesn’t involv e your research and help you unwind.   

Very often you hear stories (I know I did) that most of the first annual review ends up being your first chapter, but this puts a lot of pressure to produce something that is ‘PhD Thesis’ quality.  The reality is that PhDs are dynamic, literature is dynamic, so there is no way you can just copy paste your 1st annual review in your first chapter 3 years later, and that’s ok. Don’t see your annual review as a PhD chapter. See it as a work in progress!   -Anonymous   4

Remember, the above list is  quite  explorative ,  and there is no ‘One Size Fits All’ formula. The University   has an  Advice Place   ( https://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/support_and_advice/the_advice_place/ ) to  help students address   both  academic and non-academic concerns. While e veryone has  different  plans of action or support  which might work for them , this small list of simple  ‘ do’s and don’t s ’  might come in handy for those who are going to appear for their annual review in the coming months.  Although the first year review may seem quite daunting and stressful, it acts as an important reality check for the students to plan out the subsequent years; getting feedback from both the supervisory team and the critical friend,  proves quite useful for the rest of the years to come.   

To   learn  more about the Annual Review Process, please click on the link below  (EASE Login Required) : https://www.learn.ed.ac.uk/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_17186_1&content_id=_617596_1    

One comment

Many thanx for sharing this!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and site URL in my browser for next time I post a comment.

HTML Text A Pocket Guide to First Year Annual Review / Research Bow by blogadmin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0

Plain text A Pocket Guide to First Year Annual Review by blogadmin @ is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner .

Study at Cambridge

About the university, research at cambridge.

• Undergraduate courses
• Events and open days
• Fees and finance
• Postgraduate courses
• How to apply
• Postgraduate events
• Fees and funding
• International students
• Continuing education
• Executive and professional education
• Courses in education
• How the University and Colleges work
• Term dates and calendars
• Visiting the University
• Annual reports
• Equality and diversity
• A global university
• Public engagement
• Give to Cambridge
• For Cambridge students
• For our researchers
• Business and enterprise
• Colleges & departments
• Email & phone search
• Museums & collections
• Current students
• PhD students
• Progression
• Department of Computer Science and Technology

Sign in with Raven

• People overview
• Research staff
• Professional services staff
• Affiliated lecturers
• Overview of Professional Services Staff
• Seminars overview
• Weekly timetable
• Wednesday seminars
• Wednesday seminar recordings ➥
• Wheeler lectures
• Computer Laboratory 75th anniversary ➥
• women@CL 10th anniversary ➥
• Job vacancies ➥
• Library resources ➥
• How to get here
• William Gates Building layout
• Contact information
• Department calendar ➥
• Accelerate Programme for Scientific Discovery overview
• Data Trusts Initiative overview
• Pilot Funding FAQs
• Research Funding FAQs
• Cambridge Ring overview
• Ring Events
• Hall of Fame
• Hall of Fame Awards
• Hall of Fame - Nominations
• The Supporters' Club overview
• Industrial Collaboration
• Annual Recruitment Fair overview
• Graduate Opportunities
• Summer internships
• Technical Talks
• Supporter Events and Competitions
• How to join
• Collaborate with Us
• Cambridge Centre for Carbon Credits (4C)
• Equality and Diversity overview
• Athena SWAN
• E&D Committee
• Support and Development
• Targeted funding
• LGBTQ+@CL overview
• Links and resources
• Queer Library
• women@CL overview
• About Us overview
• Friends of women@CL overview
• Twentieth Anniversary of Women@CL
• Tech Events
• Students' experiences
• Contact overview
• Mailing lists
• Scholarships
• Initiatives
• Dignity Policy
• Outreach overview
• Women in Computer Science Programme
• Google DeepMind Research Ready programme overview
• Accommodation and Pay
• Application
• Eligibility
• Raspberry Pi Tutorials ➥
• Wiseman prize
• Research overview
• Application areas
• Research themes
• Algorithms and Complexity
• Computer Architecture overview
• Creating a new Computer Architecture Research Centre
• Graphics, Vision and Imaging Science
• Human-Centred Computing
• Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence
• Mobile Systems, Robotics and Automation
• Natural Language Processing
• Programming Languages, Semantics and Verification
• Systems and Networking
• Research groups overview
• Energy and Environment Group overview
• Declaration
• Publications
• Past seminars
• Learning and Human Intelligence Group overview
• Technical Reports
• Admissions information
• Undergraduate admissions overview
• Open days and events
• Undergraduate course overview overview
• Making your application
• Admissions FAQs
• Super curricular activities
• MPhil in Advanced Computer Science overview
• Applications
• Course structure
• Funding competitions
• Prerequisites
• PhD in Computer Science overview
• Application forms
• Research Proposal
• Funding competitions and grants
• Part-time PhD Degree
• Premium Research Studentship
• Current students overview
• Part IB overview
• Part IB group projects overview
• Important dates
• Design briefs
• Moodle course ➥
• Learning objectives and assessment
• Technical considerations
• After the project
• Part II overview
• Part II projects overview
• Project suggestions
• Project Checker groups
• Project proposal
• Advice on running the project
• Progress report and presentation
• The dissertation
• Supervisor briefing notes
• Project Checker briefing notes
• Past overseer groups ➥
• Part II Supervision sign-up
• Part II Modules
• Part II Supervisions overview
• Continuing to Part III overview
• Continuing to Part III: 2023 guidance
• Part III of the Computer Science Tripos
• Overview overview
• Information for current Masters students overview
• Special topics
• Part III and ACS projects overview
• Submission of project reports
• ACS projects overview
• Guidance for ACS projects
• Part III projects overview
• Guidance for Part III projects
• Preparation
• Registration
• Induction - Masters students
• PhD resources overview
• Deadlines for PhD applications
• Protocol for Graduate Advisers for PhD students
• Guidelines for PhD supervisors
• Induction information overview
• Important Dates
• Who is here to help
• Exemption from University Composition Fees
• Being a research student
• Researcher Development
• Research skills programme
• First Year Report: the PhD Proposal
• Second Year Report: Dissertation Schedule
• Third Year Report: Progress Statement
• Fourth Year: writing up and completion overview
• PhD thesis formatting
• Writing up and word count
• Submitting your dissertation
• Papers and conferences
• Leave to work away, holidays, and intermission
• List of PhD students ➥
• PAT, recycling, and Building Services
• Freshers overview
• Cambridge University Freshers' Events
• Undergraduate teaching information and important dates
• Course material 2022/23 ➥
• Course material 2023/24 ➥
• Exams overview
• Examination dates
• Examination results ➥
• Examiners' reports ➥
• Part III Assessment
• MPhil Assessment
• Past exam papers ➥
• Examinations Guidance 2022-23
• Marking Scheme and Classing Convention
• Guidance on Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct
• Purchase of calculators
• Examinations Data Retention Policy
• Guidance on deadlines and extensions
• Mark Check procedure and Examination Review
• Lecture timetables overview
• Understanding the concise timetable
• Supervisions overview
• Part II supervisions overview ➥
• Part II supervision sign-up ➥
• Supervising in Computer Science
• Supervisor support
• Directors of Studies list
• Academic exchanges
• Advice for visiting students taking Part IB CST
• Summer internship: Optimisation of DNN Accelerators using Bayesian Optimisation
• UROP internships
• Resources for students overview
• Student SSH server
• Online services
• Managed Cluster Service (MCS)
• Microsoft Software for personal use
• Installing Linux
• Part III and MPhil Machines
• Transferable skills
• Course feedback and where to find help overview
• Providing lecture feedback
• Fast feedback hotline
• Staff-Student Consultative Forum
• Breaking the silence ➥
• Student Administration Offices
• Intranet overview
• New starters and visitors
• Forms and templates
• Building information
• Health and safety
• Teaching information
• Research admin
• Fourth Year: writing up and completion
• PhD resources

All candidates for the PhD Degree are admitted on a probationary basis. A student's status with the Student Registry is that he or she will be registered for the CPGS in Computer Science . At the end of the first academic year, a formal assessment of progress is made. In the Department of Computer Science and Technology, this takes the form of a single document of no more than 10,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, bibliography and appendices.

The document is principally a PhD Proposal . That is, a document that demonstrates a clear path from the candidate's current position to a complete PhD thesis at the end of the third year. The document has two purposes: (i) to help the candidate to reflect on and plan their research project and (ii) to allow the Computer Laboratory to assess the student's progress and planned research.

In the document, the candidate should do the following:

• Identify a potential problem or topic to address for the PhD.
• identifying the seminal prior research in the topic area
• the most closely related prior work, and
• their strengths and weaknesses.

The goal is to show the limitations (or lack) of previous work. One method that could be employed to do this is to provide both a taxonomy of prior work and a gap analysis table: a table whose rows are the closest related work, the columns are the desired attributes of the solution, and each table entry is a Yes or a No. This would then clearly show that no prior work meets all the desired attributes.

This section of the document might be expected to form the basis of part of the candidate's final PhD thesis.

Candidates should have already done some preliminary research. This may be early attempts at proofs, a detailed analysis of existing methods, a critique of existing systems, assembly and testing of investigative apparatus, conduct of a pilot experiment, etc. This section of the document may form the basis of a chapter of the final PhD thesis. It is common for the candidate to have produced an academic paper (even if this is a minor paper for a workshop, for example), where they are the main author. The paper does not need to have been published, but the assessors should be able to see that it is of potentially publishable quality. Such a paper can be submitted as an appendix to the document; in this case the material in the paper should not be reproduced in the document, but should be summarised briefly in a self-contained way.

This should indicate, at a high level, the research that might be undertaken in the second and third years of the PhD. It needs to show that there is a viable route to a thesis in two years' time. In particular, it must state the specific research question or questions that are being addressed. If there are more than one question being addressed, it needs to be made clear how they are interconnected and how answering them would result in a coherent thesis story. They need to also be accompanied with a brief discussion of why they are important and interesting questions that are worthy of a Cambridge PhD, and why they are new (the gap analysis table could be used for this). Next, the candidate needs to describe the proposed method of attacking the questions, for example, by listing the major steps to completion through the next two years.

Some candidates find it useful to structure this as a cohesive one-page summary of the proposed thesis, with a tentative title, a paragraph setting the context, and three or four paragraphs describing chunks of the proposed research, each of which could be the basis for an academic paper and each of which could be expected to be a chapter of the final thesis. The chapters should make a cohesive overarching narrative of the thesis, rather than be stand-alone pieces of work.

A paragraph identifying criteria for success is recommended where the candidate explains how they will convince the research community that their approach is successful.

Potential risks are recommended to be identified: what could derail this methodology (technically) and if this happens what is plan B?

• Timeplan: provide a detailed timetable, with explicit milestones for each term in the next two years against which the candidate will measure their progress. This would ideally include technical tasks that are planned to be accomplished during each time chunk.

It is essential that the supervisor(s) agrees that the document may be submitted. The document will be read by two other members of staff (assessors), who will interview the student about the content of the document in a viva. It should therefore give sufficient information that the assessors can satisfy themselves that all is well. It is expected that the interview will take place before the end of the first year.

Submission deadlines (electronic)

• For students admitted in Michaelmas Term, by June 30, 23:59
• For students admitted in Lent Term, October 30, 23:59
• For students admitted in Easter Term, by January 30, 23:59

All submissions should be made electronically via the filer.

Electronic version (in PDF format) should be provided via the PhD report and thesis upload page . This deposits uploaded files on the departmental filer at /auto/anfs/www-uploads/phd = \\filer.cl.cam.ac.uk\webserver\www-uploads\phd.

Students intending to take up research placements during the vacations which begin on, before, or shortly after the submission deadlines must submit their report one month before departure to enable the examination process to be completed before the internship begins . No other extensions will be permitted unless otherwise authorized by the Secretary of the Degree Committee.

Oral examination

The student will be invited to discuss the documents with two assessors appointed by the student's principal supervisor. Neither of the assessors should be the student's principal supervisor though one may be the student's second advisor. Occasionally, the principal supervisor may be invited to clarify elements of the PhD Proposal and to attend the viva as an observer.

Where the initial PhD Proposal document is unsatisfactory, the assessors must ask for a revised submission and arrange a further discussion. Where the PhD Proposal is acceptable, it may still help the student to record suggested modifications in a final version of the Proposal. A copy of the revised document must be submitted to the Secretary of the Degree Committee.

The PhD Proposal document is internal to the Laboratory. However, since it is the basis for formal progress reports including registration for the PhD Degree and those made to funding bodies, assessors should endeavour to arrange a meeting where the documents should be assessed and discussed by the end of the student's first year at the latest. The Secretary of the Degree Committee should be informed of the result by the assessors and by the supervisor on the Postgraduate Feedback and Reporting System as soon as possible thereafter.

The report will be considered by the Degree Committee which will make its recommendations on the registration of the student to the Board of Graduate Studies.

In those cases where the student's progress is wholly inadequate, the supervisor should give them a written warning by 15 September (or the appropriate corresponding date - 15 December or 15 March) that they are in danger of termination, with copy to the Secretary of the Degree Committee.

The word limit is a maximum; it is not a target. Successful PhD Proposal documents can be significantly shorter than the limit. Writing within the word limit is important. It is part of the discipline of producing reports. When submitting reports (and the final PhD thesis), students will be required to sign a Statement of Word Length to confirm that the work does not exceed the limit of length prescribed (above) for the CPGS examination.

Originality

Attention is drawn to the University's guidance concerning plagiarism. The University states that "Plagiarism is defined as submitting as one's own work that which derives in part or in its entirety from the work of others without due acknowledgement. It is both poor scholarship and a breach of academic integrity." The Faculty's guidance concerning plagiarism and good academic practice can be found at https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/teaching/exams/plagiarism.html .

Reports may be soft-bound in comb-binding or stapled.

Secretary of the Degree Committee September 2013, updated September 2021, updated March 2022

Department of Computer Science and Technology University of Cambridge William Gates Building 15 JJ Thomson Avenue Cambridge CB3 0FD

Information provided by [email protected]

Privacy policy

Social media

© 2024 University of Cambridge

• Contact the University
• Accessibility
• Freedom of information
• Privacy policy and cookies
• Statement on Modern Slavery
• Terms and conditions
• University A-Z
• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• Research news
• About research at Cambridge
• Spotlight on...