School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences

Guidance for reviewers

A complete description of the progression review process and detailed guidance for research students can be found on the top link in the left hand margin (you may need to maximise your browser window).

 
Scope

All research students undergo regular progression review (PR) – typically once a year, though additional reviews may be required in some cases. The purpose is

  • To provide assessment of progress, by reviewers independent of the supervisors, taking into account the stage of the PhD (or MPhil)
  • To help research students reflect on their work and receive constructive feedback
  • To provide research students with an opportunity to be heard on and give feedback on supervision, working arrangements, their well-being, professional services, training, and facilities, in a confidential setting
  • To explore career options and review training arrangements

Schedule

Research students have individual review timetables showing the precise date ranges for the required reviews. Normally this comprises:

  • Starter review (after 3 months of study; carried out by student and supervisors)
  • Year-1 review (after 7-9 months)
  • Year-2 review (after 19-21 months)
  • Year-3 review (after 31-33 months)
  • Thesis readiness review (2 months for funding end or 5 months before maximum registration, whichever is earlier; or earlier if requested by the student)

Part-time students also have main progression reviews at intervals of 12 study months.

On occasion (for example, as a result of concerns about progress), interim reviews may be required by the Director of Doctoral Studies.

Role of the reviewers

The reviewers should facilitate the four aims listed above. As regards progress, they should assess what has been achieved; the suitability of the forward plan; and clearly identify any risks to on-time submission. Reviewers are independent of the supervision team, but are (later) legitimate internal examiners for students they review. Reviewer assignments for a student, wherever possible, remain the same over the course of the PhD.

Year-1 reviews are carried out jointly by both reviewers. In subsequent reviews, normally only the lead (first) reviewer reviews. The last review is the thesis readiness review, normally in year 4, also (currently) carried out by the first reviewer.

Reviewer assignments can be obtained by emailing the Research Support team on mps-pgrsupport@sussex.ac.uk (We cannot put the details online due to GDPR requirements).

Before the interview

Students are responsible for contacting reviewers to schedule a meeting. Students are required to complete their reviews by certain dates, so please respond promptly to scheduling requests. Students are responsible for uploading all required documents to their individual box folder well in advance of the interview (one week before, or as agreed between student or reviewers). These are:

  • Student’s Report and forward plan
  • Student Questionnaire (Form A)
  • Training record (Form A1)
  • Completed Training Needs Analysis (TNA) form (TNA form)
  • Supervisor Questionnaire (Form B)
  • Thesis draft (Thesis readiness review only)

The folders are confidential to student, reviewers, DDS/sub-director and contents must not be shared with others (including supervisors).

You should read the report in detail (as if you were refereeing a journal paper or examining a thesis). Particularly in year 1 this is a substantial text (ca 10 pages). Make sure you know what type of review you are carrying out (this is for example stated on the student’s timetable, which you can find in their individual box folder).

During the interview

An interview will normally take about one hour. It should cover

  • Academic progress
  • Training
  • Supervision arrangements and engagement, as well as possible issues of a non-academic nature (see forms A and B). Where appropriate, signpost students onward and/or contact the Director of Doctoral Studies or Sub-Director; consider the guidance for well-being matters and signposting.
  • Career plans

You may find it easiest to go, in addition to discussing the report, through each question on Form A,  Form B, and Form C during the interview, which should ensure that nothing is forgotten.

As regards academic progress, please assess at each review:

  1. Whether the candidate’s work is of PhD calibre. This is a requirement for progression beyond 12 months of registration.
  2. To what extent original results have been obtained. The two relevant measures are 1) the threshold for a PhD degree and 2) what would be typical at a given stage of the degree. Please describe what the results are in the space provided in Form C.
  3. Whether a credible plan through to completion has been presented. (Have students followed the report-writing guidance?  Mathematics , Physics & Astronomy ).  A meaningful plan should specify goals and milestones, and an intended timetable for achieving them, and not just consist of activities. The key criterion is whether sufficient original results will be credibly obtained and written up by the time of submission (beyond meeting this criterion, plans can be flexible).

Following the interview

Complete the reviewer’s report form (Form C), upload it to the box folder and let the student know. This should be done without delay, as students will need to discuss it with their supervisors and address reviewer feedback before their review deadline.

Your report serves two purposes.  1) It provides feedback to student and supervisor. 2) It forms a basis for the Director of Doctoral Studies and Sub-Director's further actions which include decisions on a student's registration status, putting in place additional support, or specifying additional review points.

Please make sure that your answers are substantive and that any concerns are clearly stated, such that they can be addressed (for example, through revised plans and/or interim reviews). The focus of the review is on supporting students toward a successful submission, not on failing them.