College of Science and Engineering PGR Reviews Guide

• Reviews are not a formality that the PGR passes by default. PGRs should prepare for them thoroughly and expect searching questions – good preparation for the viva!
• Reviews are an important mechanism for assuring the quality of our research degrees: both the training and experience provided to the PGR and the resulting thesis/papers.
• The committee has a responsibility to the PGR, to the school, and to the university to ensure the PGR completes their degree successfully and on time: any issues should be tackled earlier rather than later.
• If progress is not satisfactory, the committee will make recommendations and require another meeting (usually within three months). A new review will be created on the system for this review, and a new set of forms will be completed (the first review should be completed, not left open until the 2nd meeting). Committees should not shy away from this option, which does not necessarily reflect badly on the PGR who may have suffered setbacks outside their control. Note: problems and setbacks are not a reason to avoid holding a review by the deadline, or to pass a PGR without a second meeting.
• The review meeting is not just assessing the PGR. The committee should also consider the PGR’s needs (for training, support, equipment etc) and whether these are being adequately met. Committees will make recommendations to supervisors or the school (via the PGR leads) if additional support is required – make sure PGR leads are aware of any issues. 

• The reviews should not be treated as a bureaucratic box ticking exercise: have rigorous, interesting discussions about the science.
• The annual review is an opportunity for the PGR to get input from another subject specialist who has read their work thoroughly, in addition to their supervisors.
• The committee will comment on whether the PGR is on course to produce publishable work: a PhD thesis is required to contain work of publishable quality and expect MScRes and MPhils to also produce publishable work.
• The PGR will provide their plans for publishing their research. The experience of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is an integral part of research training and the college’s expectation is that all PGRs will publish at least one peer-reviewed paper from their research degree.

• PGRs who have been through robust annual review meetings will be much better prepared for their viva.
• Committees should treat the reviews like a scaled down viva (especially in the final year), and PGRs should prepare accordingly. Just like a viva, they will include plenty of searching questions and in-depth discussion, in a positive and constructive environment. Supervisors should not answer for the PGR: generally, they should be “seen and not heard” though the committee may direct specific questions to the supervisors.

NB: not all MScRes will have a viva

• MScRes: Feb-March (for those who registered in Sept/Oct). 4-5 months post registration for others, i.e. by end May for Jan starts. Reviews will also be held for any MScRes who go into their second ‘grace’ year, normally during Feb-March regardless of when they originally started.
• PhD and MPhil: no later than 9 months post-registration (and 21, 33 etc months post reg in subsequent years). I.e. for PGRs who started in an October reviews should be completed before the end of June each year.
• Re-reviews, if needed, should normally be completed within 3 months of the 1st review.

• If a PGR has suspended their studies for a period (e.g. maternity leave) the review deadline can be delayed until they have returned to work but should be conducted within a couple of months of return. Of course, the time out should be taken into account by the committee when considering progress, but it is important the PGRs have a review to ensure they are adequately supported.
• If the previous year’s review was delayed (e.g. due to suspension) the next year’s review can be held up to 9 months after the previous year’s review, with appropriate allowance made when judging progress.
• Part-time students should be reviewed every year, with appropriate allowance for their PT status in terms of the progress expected. So: PT status is NOT a reason to delay a review.
• PGRs who have submitted their thesis do not need a review unless the PGR or supervisor thinks one would be useful (e.g. as viva prep).
• We will not cancel/postpone reviews for students who are “about to submit”. Experience shows that this often takes longer than planned! Instead, it is better to hold them as early as possible to maximise usefulness. If a PGR really is nearing submission, they will have a near complete draft of their thesis and preparing the forms for the review meeting should be a very easy task!
• In all cases, please email pgr.studentadmin@bangor.ac.uk and the relevant PGR lead if you believe the deadline needs to be changed or if a review is not required.
• Review meetings can be held by Teams or face to face.
   

PGRs

• PGRs should contact their supervisors as soon as the reviews are created to discuss when and how the meeting will be arranged – some supervisors may delegate this to the PGR, some may prefer to set it up themselves.
• Schedule a minimum of 1hr for an MScRes review meeting, and 1.5hrs for PhD/MPhil.
• Complete your PGR form AND survey on the review system https://apps.bangor.ac.uk/postgrad_review/ at least a couple of weeks before your review meeting.
• Beware of timeouts! The new system is much better, but we still recommend saving progress frequently, or drafting lengthy text in Word and pasting in. 
• You might want to also email any uploaded documents to your committee, in case of technical problems, and so they know that you have completed the forms.
• If uploading more than one chapter/paper, the PGR should let their Internal know which is the most important to read in detail.
• After the meeting, you will get an automated email asking you to “Agree” the outcomes of the meeting – you should log into the system and either agree them or consult with your chair if you have concerns (don’t “disagree” until you have first consulted with the chair).

Supervisors

• Contact the PGRs as soon as the reviews are created, to discuss arranging the meeting, and what the PGR needs to do to prepare.
• Help the PGR set a date for the meeting
• Once a date and time has been agreed the supervisor can enter as a note on the review in the online system, but this isn’t essential. However, if the review will be after the deadline for some unavoidable reason, this would be a good idea so that PGR Directors know it’s in hand (it won’t stop automated reminders).
• Help the PGR prepare for the review – give timely feedback on e.g. their lit reviews etc.
• Submit the supervisor’s form in plenty of time.
• Supervisors are normally welcome to attend meetings, especially in the first year. However, they should usually be “seen and not heard” and should refrain from answering questions instead of the PGR.
• After the meeting, your supervisor will get an automated email asking you to “Agree” the outcomes of the meeting – you should log into the system and either agree them or consult with your chair if you have concerns (don’t “disagree” until you have first consulted with the chair).

Chairs

• Although the supervisor/PGR should take the lead in organising the meeting, the chair is ultimately responsible for ensuring it happens and the review is concluded by the deadline. So, if you haven’t heard anything in the first few weeks you will need to chase up. 
• Read the forms before the meeting (the chair doesn’t need to read uploaded documents like chapters or lit reviews). If the PGR’s forms are submitted too late to allow proper scrutiny, the chair should consider returning an unsatisfactory verdict and scheduling a new review.
• Chair the meeting and ask questions, ensuring that the PGR is treated fairly, and is given the opportunity to talk about the supervisory relationship in confidence (without the supervisor present). Note: the chair should always do this even if all seems to be well. They should not ask the PGR if they want this opportunity.
• Ensure that supervisors, if present, do not dominate proceedings.
• Ensure that the forms are completed in a timely fashion after the meeting (in consultation with the internal) and ensure that the supervisor and PGR agree to the outcomes. Usually the best way is for the internal and chair to stay on for a few minutes after the meeting to complete all the forms there and then.
• NB: The internal and chair have equal access to all documents and functions on the review system.

Internals

• Internals should read at least one substantial doc (draft chapter or lit review) in full for each annual review, in addition to the thesis plan and other shorter docs, and provide feedback.
• During the meeting, Internals will normally ask most of the questions of the PGR.

The chair: a senior academic: research active and experienced in supervising and examining PhDs, not necessarily a subject specialist. They chair the meeting, ensure due process, and advise on the progress expected at each stage. They will also normally chair the PGR’s viva. By default they act as the PGR’s personal tutor, with whom the PGR can discuss anything which they do not want to discuss with their supervisor. While supervisors should always be the PGR’s first point of contact, if there are issues they do not wish to discuss with their supervisors, PGRs are encouraged to discuss them with their chair/personal tutor at any time during their degree. Chairs are appointed by the PGR lead/PGR admin shortly after PGRs register, and PGRs and supervisors will receive an email informing them of this.

Internal: a subject specialist, qualified to evaluate the research and provide subject-specific advice. They will normally act as the internal examiner at the viva, but this should be reviewed as the viva approaches. When a PGR starts, the supervisor identifies a suitable internal and, having secured their consent, lets the PGR lead and PGR admin know, and the PGR is informed.
PGRs and staff can check who the committee is by looking at the review system or on MyBangor.
 

Supervisor(s). Unlike the viva, supervisors can attend review meetings. This will be especially valuable in the first and second year. However, the PGR should do the talking and the supervisor should only contribute when requested by the committee. 

External supervisors. Many PGRs in CoSE have external supervisors from other institutions. Although they won’t be able to access the online system directly (unless they have a Bangor login) they are encouraged to contribute to the supervisor’s evidence form and to attend the review meeting. After the review meeting, the chair’s form and actions should be shared with external supervisors (it can be downloaded and saved as a PDF).
 

Post-Graduate Researcher’s form

• Incomplete forms can be saved without submitting, but it is recommend to draft the text for the form in Word then pasting into the online system and/or saving the form frequently to avoid losing text if it times out.
• This form is completed by the PGR prior to the meeting. It is only seen by the committee (internal and chair) not by the supervisor(s).
• However, PGRs can ask their supervisors for advice on any part of the form. e.g. PGRs would normally discuss their chapter plan and other documents with their supervisors before submitting.
• Make sure you give clear and self-explanatory file names to all of your documents.
• Remember that you can also discuss issues in confidence with your chair/personal tutor at any time during your studies. If you have an important/sensitive issue to discuss with them you might wish to arrange to see them prior to the annual review meeting.

PGR’s confidential survey
As well as the form above, PGRs complete a survey (which again is only seen by the chair and internal). Unlike the PGR and staff forms, this survey is standardised across the whole university.

Supervisor’s evidence form

• Incomplete forms can be saved without submitting, but I recommend drafting the text for the form in Word then pasting into the online system.
• This form is completed by the supervisor(s) prior to the meeting (co-supervisors who are university staff have equal access to the system).
• Normally the principal supervisor will complete the form in discussion with co-supervisors, but any Bangor University co-supervisor can complete the form (as long as they are listed on Banner as a co-supervisor). Supervisors are welcome to share/discuss drafts of the form with co-supervisors outside Bangor (e.g. CEH, KESS partner).
• NB: The supervisor’s form is only seen by the committee, but the chair’s form will be seen by all.

Chair/Internal’s report

• This is no longer constrained to be identical to the supervisor’s form. It is completed by the committee (internal & chair) during/after the meeting, based on the supervisor’s form, the Post-Graduate Researcher’s (PGR’s) form and survey, and the meeting itself.
• Chair and internal have identical access to the form.
•  The chair & internal must also note some actions to be undertaken by the PGR, supervisor, or other parties (e.g. the PGR lead). They will also choose an “outcome”.
• Once the form is finalised and at least one action added, the form is automatically sent to the PGR and supervisor for their agreement. If they do not agree, they will be able to add a comment explaining why they don’t agree, and the chair & internal can choose to either modify the report/actions/outcome or overrule them.

Progress Rubric

On the staff forms, “progress rubric” is a scale with the following options:

• Met or exceeded all specified requirements.
• Substantively met requirements, targeted improvement needed in some areas.
• Failed to meet requirements in some areas. Significant improvement is required.
• •Failed to meet requirements for the programme.

A PGR doesn’t need to be given the highest result in every section to end up with a “proceed” outcome. Indeed, it is common for a committee to class several areas as needing targeted or significant improvement, but still recommend “progress/continue”. The PGR and/or supervisors should then be given specific actions to complete before the next annual review.

Outcomes

The committee can recommend the following outcomes:

• Progress/Continue (in which case another review will be held in 1 year’s time)
• Unsatisfactory: Re-review within three months
• Transfer to alternative program (e.g. for PhD transfer to MPhil or MSc by Research). 
• Withdraw from studies

The latter two cases should be discussed with the PGR lead and will be referred to the Dean of Graduate Studies, who makes the final decision. They should not normally be used the first time a PGR is reviewed, but rather on a re-review after a previous unsatisfactory outcome.