3 minute read
Guidelines for the internal PhD proposal evaluation process
Swiss TPH Research commission (RC) – version 2022
PhD supervisor Within the first six months of registration of the PhD student at the University of Basel / Swiss TPH, the PhD supervisor overviews the proposal writing of the student. The proposal should be presented at an RC meeting about six months after registration at the University. When the proposal is ready for review, the PhD supervisor: 1. suggests and finds two Swiss TPH colleagues (project leaders who are not directly involved in the project, reviews across departments/units are welcome) who agree on reviewing the PhD proposal, plus a statistical reviewer (contact Marek Kwiatkowski). The PhD supervisor conveys this information to Nicole Peter / the research commission 2. decides at which forthcoming RC meeting the research proposal will be discussed
PhD candidate
1. writes his/her research proposal according to the guidelines (https://team.swisstph.ch/s/MapGAgp7QRusIh7icCAG0w) 2. submits the complete document to both reviewers four weeks before the scheduled RC meeting at the latest, and uploads all requested files to his/her designated Alfresco folder 3. schedules a meeting (no later than two weeks before the scheduled RC meeting) to discuss the proposal with both reviewers and the PhD supervisor 4. resubmits the revised proposal (in which all issues have been adequately addressed) to both reviewers (no later than one week before the scheduled RC meeting) 5. submits the final proposal including a concise abstract of their PhD project to the research commission. 6. prepares a short presentation to introduce his/her PhD project to the RC audience (see below
‘Proposed Structure of PhD Project presentation at the Research Commission meeting’)
Reviewers
The evaluation process consists of three phases: P Phase 1: Within two weeks after receiving the first version of the proposal, the reviewers: 1. evaluate the proposal and use the PhD proposal evaluation form as a tool to assess all relevant criteria 2. discuss the outcome of their evaluation with the PhD candidate and supervisor in a meeting organised by the PhD candidate (if meeting in person is impossible, this exchange has to take place by other means) 3. Statistical review: no need for an evaluation form, as each PhD work has its individual method challenges
P Phase 2: Within one week after meeting with the PhD candidate and supervisor, the reviewers receive the final, revised proposal from the PhD candidate 1. The reviewers fill out the evaluation form a second time. Criteria that are sound may simply be check-marked and commented by a single phrase if necessary. Only those issues that remain to be solved in the revised version need specific but concise comments. The reviewer also recommends the final proposal for approval, minor or major revision. However, the whole idea behind this streamlined evaluation process is that final proposals can be approved in principle by the research commission
P Phase 3: Presentation at the FK Meeting 1. The reviewer and supervisor briefly comment on the proposal after the presentation by the PhD candidate 2. Major issues may be discussed in the plenary again before the chair decides on further steps if necessary.
– Presentation should not exceed five minutes! – Limit presentation to five slides and a title page. – Use the ppt template available from the communications intranet page (https://intranet.swisstph.ch/en/aoc/communications/templates/) – Send the slides one day before the meeting to the research commission or upload them to your
Alfresco folder. – Be prepared for questions from the plenary after the presentation.
Suggested Slides: Title page: Title of PhD proposal, your name and affiliation, members of doctoral committee and their function (Primary Supervisor, Secondary Supervisor, additional experts, external expert (as far as known already)) 1 Give some information on who you are (background training) 2 Short background of project. Is it part of a larger research activity, SNF / EU funded? 3 What are the research questions / hypothesis? 4 Methods and expected outcomes 5 Time plan, planned training during PhD
