Code of Practice for Research Degree Candidature and Supervision 2024-25

3. The Higher Degrees of Master of Philosophy (MPhil) and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

3.1 The MPhil and PhD are higher degrees involving a programme of research training and supervision and leading to the production of a thesis or, in the case of research students in the disciplines listed in section 21 of this Code (Production and Submission of the Thesis: Alternative formats of thesis submission), the production of a body of work as appropriate to the discipline completed in conjunction with a critical written component. The MPhil and PhD are two separate, distinct awards with the MPhil differing from the PhD in terms of the scope of study required and the extent of the original personal contribution to knowledge. Section 4 of this Code (The Difference between Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Master of Philosophy (MPhil)) provides more details on the levels of attainment required for the MPhil and for the PhD.

The Thesis

3.2 The thesis (or equivalent submission as specified in section 21 of this Code (Production and Submission of the Thesis: Alternative formats of thesis submission)) which is the outcome of the research project and the training programme, must be composed clearly and presented in the required format. The subject should be dealt with in an orderly manner using appropriate research methods and techniques and displaying critical discrimination in evaluating the evidence.

4. The Difference between Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Master of Philosophy (MPhil)

The award of Doctor of Philosophy

4.1 For the award of Doctor of Philosophy, research students must have demonstrated²:

the creation and interpretation of new knowledge through original research or other advanced scholarship of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend the forefront of the discipline and merit publication;
a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of knowledge, which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or an area of professional practice;
the general ability to conceptualize, design and implement a project for the generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront of the discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen problems;
a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and advanced academic enquiry.

4.2 Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to:

make informed judgements on complex issues in specialist fields, often in the absence of complete data, and be able to communicate their ideas and conclusions clearly and effectively to specialist and non-specialist audiences;
continue to undertake pure and/or applied research and development at an advanced level, contributing substantially to the development of new techniques, ideas or approaches.

4.3 In addition, holders of the qualification will have:

the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the exercise of personal responsibility and largely autonomous initiative in complex and unpredictable situations, in professional or equivalent environments.

The award of Master of Philosophy

4.4 The Master of Philosophy is an award of considerable distinction in its own right and is awarded for the successful completion of a substantial element of research or equivalent enquiry. The MPhil differs from the PhD only in terms of the scope of study required and the extent of the original personal contribution to knowledge.

4.5 More specifically, for the award of Master of Philosophy, research students must have demonstrated²:

a systematic understanding of knowledge and a critical awareness of current problems and/or new insights much of which is at, or informed by, the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study or area of professional practice;
originality in the application of knowledge together with a practical understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline;
conceptual understanding that enables the research student to:
- evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the discipline; and
- evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where appropriate, to propose new hypotheses;
a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own research or advanced scholarship.

5. Doctoral Degrees with a Substantial Taught Element

5.1 The University offers a number of doctoral degrees with a substantial taught element; for example the Engineering Doctorate and the Doctor of Clinical Psychology. The University also offers the Integrated PhD programme in certain disciplines. These are all covered by this Code.

5.2 In terms of comparability with the standard-route PhD, it is appropriate to regard the professional doctorates as having no more than one third of the degree as being at master's level (FHEQ Level 7) and the subsequent research and thesis preparation at doctoral level (Level 8). For the Integrated PhD programme, typically one quarter of the degree will be at master’s level with the subsequent research and thesis preparation conducted at doctoral level Further guidance regarding the structure of doctoral degrees with a substantial taught element can be found in the QAA’s underpinning document: The Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree-Awarding Bodies, October 2014.

6. Selection and Admission of Research Students

Entry requirements

6.1 Only suitably qualified and prepared applicants will be admitted to degree programmes leading to the award of a University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 research degree. Applicants must demonstrate that they have the motivation and potential to undertake and complete a sustained piece of research and to produce a thesis for examination. Applicants will normally be expected to possess one or more of the following:

an undergraduate degree, normally with at least upper second (2i) honours classification (or equivalent) in a relevant subject;
a master's-level qualification (or equivalent) in a relevant subject;
evidence of prior professional practice or learning that meets the University's criteria and good practice guidelines for accreditation of prior experiential and/or certificated learning. Guidance is available in the University’s Recognition of Prior Learning Policy.

6.2 Advice and guidance on qualifications and equivalencies can be obtained from the Global Recruitment and Admissions Team (email admissionspolicy@soton.ac.uk) and the Admissions Policy sets out some general principles for selectors.

6.3 Applicants may, depending on their intended area of research, be required to meet other conditions (e.g. a Disclosure and Barring Service (enhanced) check, or an occupational health assessment).

English language proficiency

6.4 All programmes leading to a University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 research degree are delivered in the medium of English and applicants must demonstrate that they possess at least a minimum standard of English Language proficiency in accordance with the requirements specified in the University’s course webpages. Successful applicants are expected to demonstrate that their ability to understand and express themselves in English (including in reading, writing, speaking and listening) is sufficient to enable them to achieve the full benefit from studying at the University. Precise programme requirements for English language proficiency are set out in the University’s course webpages.

References

6.5 Two references setting out the applicant’s suitability and academic potential to undertake research at doctoral level must be received from individuals independent of the selectors for all applicants. Referees should not normally be the applicant’s potential supervisor.

Selection procedures

6.6 Selection procedures should be clear and consistently applied and always demonstrate equality of opportunity. Procedures should take into account any additional requirements imposed by funders, subject to these not conflicting with the University’s expectations. Reference should be made to the Equality and Diversity Statement, to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the University’s Regulations for Admission to Degree Programmes, and to the Admissions Policy in considering the impact of equality and diversity. The Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee is responsible for ensuring the effective monitoring of the admissions process to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements and, in particular, with regard to equality of opportunity.

6.7 Faculties should provide clear, accessible, jargon-free information for applicants and for staff involved in the admissions process, recognising diversity and different needs.

6.8 All staff involved in the selection and admission of applicants must be familiar with:

the Regulations for Admission to Degree Programmes;
the Admissions Policies;
the Academic Regulations applicable to the degree;
section 6 (Selection and Admission of Research Students) of this Code;
the admissions and recruitment guidance in the CHEP Resources for Doctoral Supervisors webpages.

6.9 The Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for ensuring that such staff have received sufficient instruction, guidance and advice in selection and interviewing processes and techniques to enable them to effectively conduct their duties and to maintain the quality and standards of the admissions process. Selectors can also obtain specialist advice and guidance from the Global Recruitment and Admissions Team (email admissionspolicy@soton.ac.uk).

6.10 The selection of applicants should involve at least two members of suitably trained academic staff and each application must be assessed against the required criteria for admission.

6.11 Interviews by at least two suitably trained members of academic staff must be used as part of the selection process to assess applicants’ suitability, and reasonable adjustments should be made, where feasible, to ensure similarity of opportunity for applicants who are unable to attend for interview in person (e.g. by the use of videoconference). Staff responsible for interviewing applicants must have received sufficient training in inclusion, diversity and equality and in interviewing techniques, and should be familiar with the support available for applicants with a disability and/or additional support need. Faculties should also ensure that due attention is given to ensuring that there is diversity in the membership of interview panels.

6.12 Partnership agreements for research projects that involve commercial partners or other third-party collaborations may include clauses that set out potential restrictions and embargoes on the publication or other use of data from the project, during and after it has been completed. This information should be discussed at interview and clearly set out in the formal offer of a place to study to enable applicants to make an informed choice regarding their acceptance of the offer. The same disclosures should be made to applicants when it is expected that a commercial agreement is expected to be in place after the project has commenced.

6.13 Before making a recommendation that a formal offer of a place to study is made, Faculties must make applicants aware of the costs of the planned research and of any available financial support, Applicants should also be made aware of opportunities to apply for special funding, and how to apply for such funding. Information should also be provided to applicants regarding the support that may be available for research students with disabilities, how to access it within the University, and how to fund it.

6.14 Should applicants feel they have cause for complaint, they should, where possible, first raise their concerns informally with the relevant Faculty staff.??If matters cannot be resolved, applicants should refer to the University's Regulations Governing Complaints from Applicants.

Accepting an applicant

6.15 Prior to approving a recommendation to admit an applicant, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School must be satisfied that:

in assessing the application, the selection procedures have been complied with in full;
the applicant’s chosen subject for research, their qualifications, experience and English Language proficiency have been adequately assessed;
the research degree is within the applicant's capabilities and the applicant is judged to have the motivation and potential to undertake a sustained piece of research and to produce a thesis for examination;
the applicant has been judged to be capable of sustaining research at doctoral level and to complete their chosen research degree within the maximum length of candidature;
the applicant will be supported by a suitable supervisory team and that there is access to adequate resources and facilities within an appropriate research environment as specified in section 2 of this Code (Introduction to the Research Environment), including any access to additional support strategies, specialist equipment or assistive technology required by the applicant.

6.16 All applicants with non-standard entry qualifications must be recommended for approval by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School to the Associate Dean (Education) on a case-by-case basis.

Transferring from another institution

6.17 Applications from research students wishing to transfer to the University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 with their supervisor from another institution must be accompanied by the following from the previous institution:

an official release together with details of the duration of the research student's previous research study;
a brief progress report approved by an appropriate officer or committee at the previous institution;
information as to whether the research student has upgraded from MPhil to PhD or PhD registration has been confirmed in a formal progression stage; and
details of that process if it has taken place in line with the University’s requirements as stated in section 18 of this Code (Progression Monitoring and Reviews: The second progression review (confirmation of doctoral candidature)).

6.18 If appropriate, the Faculty may wish to re-assess the research student’s English language proficiency in order to ensure the University’s English language requirements are being met.

6.19 Applications from research students wishing to transfer to the University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 independently of their previous supervisor and institution must be accompanied by the information described above, but also:

two references relating to recent previous study and which are in accordance with the requirements set out in section 6 of this Code (Selection and Admission of Research Students: References);
copies of regular progress reports (preferably annual reports) from the previous institution where these exist;
a clear recommendation from the selectors, following an interview with the research student, explaining why the research student wants to transfer institution, and why it is felt that prospects for successful completion will be better at the University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载.

6.20 All such applications are subject to confirmation by the Faculty concerned; that satisfactory arrangements for supervision have been approved; and that the Faculty is satisfied as to the arrangements for financial support for the research student and facilities for the project (including the provision of any additional support strategies, specialist equipment or assistive technology required by applicants with a disability or additional need).

6.21 International applicants holding a Student visa sponsored by another institution should refer to the Visa and Immigration Student Advice Service for guidance.

6.22 Any applicant accepted for transfer will be required to be in candidature at the University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 for a minimum of 12 months between the date of transfer and the submission of their thesis for examination, irrespective of whether the applicant has previously upgraded from MPhil to PhD or had their doctoral candidature confirmed in a formal progression review at their previous institution.

6.23 The Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for approving recommendations to accept an applicant for transfer from another higher education institution to the University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载. Section 6 of this Code (Selection and Admission of Research Students: Selection procedures and Accepting an applicant) also applies to applicants transferring from another institution, unless agreed otherwise by the Dean of the relevant Faculty.

Formal offer letter

6.24 The formal offer letter forms the basis of the contract between the applicant and the University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 and must define and clearly communicate the terms and conditions relating to the offer and its acceptance. Any offer of funding is distinct and independent of the offer of candidature. The duration of any funding offered may be different to the maximum duration of candidature that is specified in the formal offer letter.

Enrolment of research students

6.25 Research students are expected to enrol promptly each academic year according to the procedures set out by the University and their Faculty. This will normally be through the University's online enrolment process.

Research student information and induction

6.26 The Faculty will provide research students with sufficient, timely information to enable them to commence their studies with an understanding of the academic and social environment within which they will be working. Guidelines on information that may usefully be provided are given in this Code (Appendix 1: Induction Information). The timing and frequency of inductions should also take account of part-time and international research students. Additional information regarding any special arrangements or facilities should be made available to research students with a disability. This should have been discussed and agreed individually with the research student prior to the commencement of their studies.

7. Research Training and Transferable Skills Training

Research skills training – discipline-specific and generic

develop good oral and written communications skills equipping them with the skills to articulate ideas clearly to a range of audiences;

use information technology appropriately for data management, recording and presenting material, etc.;

apply effective project management skills including realistic goal setting and prioritization of activities;

appreciate the factors which contribute to the success of formal and informal teams;

provide effective support to others when involved in teaching, mentoring or demonstrating activities (see section 13 of this Code (Teaching and Demonstrating Duties) for further guidance);

take ownership of their own career progression.

8. Ethical Considerations

Regulations Governing Academic Responsibility and Conduct for further information.

9. Candidature

Staff candidature

9.4 As set down in the Regulations for Members of Staff in Candidature for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, an employee of the University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 may also be registered as a research student. Their performance as an employee and their progress as a research student should be assessed and treated separately.

10. Supervision

10.3 The maximum weighting allocated to any single member of the supervisory team should be no more than 80% and the Faculty Director of the Graduate School should carefully consider proposals for any single member of the supervisory team to have a weighting of less than 10%. Section 10 (10.11 The contact details and responsibilities of all members of the supervisory team should be readily available to research students throughout their programme (see section 10 of this Code (to ensure that the research student has access to information about events organised for, or open to, research students in the discipline/Faculty/University and externally (including workshops, seminars and conferences);
to be accessible at other reasonable times when advice is needed, keeping in mind the needs of the individual research student;
to keep the research student informed of events organised for, or open to, research students by the discipline/Faculty/University or externally, encouraging them to participate;
11.1 The ultimate responsibility for the thesis lies with the research student and it is therefore essential that they participate fully in planning the research project, considering advice and discussing the work with the main supervisor or supervisory team. Particular responsibilities of the research student will include:
Showing commitment to the research project and programme of studies and agreeing with one or more members of the supervisory team the amount of time to be devoted to the research and the timing and duration of any holiday periods (also see section 17 of this Code (Holidays and Absence Due to Ill Health: Holidays). Research students should commit sufficient time to their studies in order to complete their degree within the maximum period of candidature. For a full-time student, this is expected to translate to, on average, around 35 hours per week, although the nature of research means that longer or shorter periods of working may, on occasion, be required. Expectations for part-time research students are on a pro-rata basis. See section 17 of this Code (Holidays and Absence Due to Ill Health: Holidays) for information on holiday entitlements.
Discussing with one or more members of the supervisory team the type of guidance and commitment found to be most helpful, and agreeing a schedule of meetings, and the importance of adhering to the schedule and preparing for these meetings.
Analysing, with assistance from one or more members of the supervisory team, any initial or on-going training needs with respect to research and generic/transferable skills as part of the Academic Needs Analysis and participating in training activities as advised by one or more members of the supervisory team in order to meet these needs.
Maintaining the progress of the work in accordance with the research plan as agreed with the supervisory team. This includes the provision of information and the submission of written material in sufficient time to allow for comment and discussion before proceeding to the next stage, complying with the deadlines associated with progression monitoring and reviews (see section 18 of this Code (Progression Monitoring and Reviews)).
Providing regular updates on progress (through Activity Reports on PGR Manager, or equivalent system), at least every three months.
Depositing data from the research project as required in the University repository.
Taking the initiative in raising problems or difficulties however trivial they may seem (this is a recognised aspect of the relationship between a research student and the supervisory team). Where difficulties are perceived (by the research student) to stem from inadequate supervision, this should be raised with the relevant Faculty through appropriate means.
Where applicable, discussing with one or more members of the supervisory team any changes in learning support needs which may arise during the period of study.
Attending conferences and participating in staff and research student seminars, presenting work where appropriate and as guided by the supervisory team.
Being aware of the diverse cultural, social and educational backgrounds of fellow research students, recognising the actual and potential benefits this brings to the learning experience.
Preparing papers for publication or presentation at conferences, as guided by the supervisory team.
Abiding by the institutional health and safety policy, observing safe working practices at all times, and following procedures prescribed by the supervisory team.
Deciding when the thesis is to be submitted after taking due account of advice from one or more members of the supervisory team.
Submitting the thesis. Timely preparation of the thesis is required to ensure that it is accessible and that it conforms to PDF-A requirements. Due to the work required, it is recommended that the student familiarises themselves with the guidance as set out in the Research Degree Candidature: Submission and Completion section of the Quality Handbook in the early stages of thesis preparation. Theses may be subject to restriction only in exceptional circumstances – see section 23 of this Code (Access to the Thesis).
11.2 In addition, it is the responsibility of the research student to conform to both the University's Intellectual Property Regulations, and the University’s Ethics Policy (see section 8 of this Code (Ethical Considerations)), consulting if necessary with a relevant member of the supervisory team.
11.3 Research students who fail to engage with these responsibilities will be subject to the Procedures for circumstances that may lead to termination of postgraduate research degree candidature, with the exception that failure to abide by health and safety requirements will be referred for investigation under the Regulations Governing Student Discipline.

Submission and completion rates
13.1 Having completed the required training, research students should, wherever possible, be offered the opportunity to undertake teaching or demonstrating duties, provided this does not encroach on their studies. Faculties should refer to the Research Students Who Teach: Policy for guidance.

14.1 Research students will be encouraged by their supervisory team to produce articles and papers for publication during candidature. Students should not be unduly restricted from publishing their work unless there are matters related to funding, confidentiality or intellectual property that prevent publication. Preparation of publications should not take precedence over the writing of the thesis and the supervisory team should give advice about an appropriate balance.

15.1 It is the supervisory team's responsibility to advise the research student on safety procedures, especially if the research project entails working with dangerous equipment and materials or is being carried out in a laboratory environment. It is the research student's responsibility to abide by the University’s Health and Safety Policy, and that of any other institution or organisation where they may from time to time be located in pursuit of their research, to comply with safe working practices at all times and to follow those procedures prescribed by the supervisory team.

16.1 It is the supervisory team's responsibility to ensure that the University’sEquality and Diversity Policy is taken into account in all aspects of the research student's experience related to their degree.

Holidays
17.1 In addition to University closure days and Bank Holidays, full-time research students are permitted to 26 days of annual leave each academic year (or in accordance with funder conditions). The annual leave allowance is calculated on a pro-rata basis for part-time students and those who commence their studies part-way through the academic year. The academic year runs from 1 August to 31 July and any annual leave not taken within the current academic year cannot be carried over into the next academic year. Students should seek the prior agreement of their supervisory team (in practice this will normally be the co-ordinating supervisor) regarding the timing of holiday absence and should apply for annual leave via PGR Manager. Further guidance regarding annual leave for international research students on a Student visa can be obtained from the Visa and Immigration Student Advice Service.
Absence due to ill health
17.2 Research students experiencing illness that affects their studies are subject to the Regulations Governing Special Considerations and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students. These Regulations apply to all research degrees but do not cover taught assessed components of research degrees which are governed in accordance with the Regulations Governing Special Considerations (including Deadline Extension Requests) for all Taught Programmes and Taught Assessed Components of Research Degrees. For research students in receipt of a medical certificate confirming that they are unable to pursue their studies for medical reasons, and for periods of illness longer than five days, discussion of the effect of the illness on their studies must be held with their main/co-ordinating supervisor (see the Attendance and Completion of Programme Requirements Regulations). This also applies to part-time research students on a pro-rata basis. Externally funded research students should check the terms of their studentship with regard to advising their funder of any absence due to illness and the provision of a medical certificate. It is good practice for research students to keep their main supervisor or co-ordinating supervisor advised of any short periods of illness, particularly if these are frequent, so that any potential effect on progress can be identified and any additional support provided if thought necessary.

Monitoring and supporting research students’ progress
18.1 Faculties will have in place, and bring to the attention of research students and relevant staff, clearly defined mechanisms for monitoring and supporting students’ progress.
18.2 Faculties should have clear mechanisms for feeding back information on progress to research students, and on actions that are taken in response to any issues encountered.
18.3 It is good practice to keep records of meetings between research students and supervisors. Faculties will provide guidance on keeping appropriate records of meetings and related activities to research students, the supervisory team and others involved in progression monitoring and review processes. Normally, the appropriate mechanism to record the outcome of meetings will be Quarterly Activity reports in PGR Manager (or equivalent system). Quarterly Activity reports should be submitted by research students and reviewed by supervisors.
18.4 Supervisory teams and research students should establish a mutually agreed series of meetings, both formal and informal, to discuss progress and any problems arising.
18.5 When reviewing progress, the supervisory team should routinely assess whether the support needs of their research students are being effectively met.
18.6 It is the responsibility of the main/co-ordinating supervisor to inform the research student of unsatisfactory progress as soon as this becomes apparent. Significant academic concerns about a student’s progress may result in the scheduling of an Exceptional Progression Review.
Progression reviews – overview
18.7 The Regulations Governing Academic Responsibility and Conduct apply to all Progression Reviews and the Assessment Panel is responsible for referring any suspected breach to the relevant School’s Academic Conduct Officer for their investigation.
18.8 Progression reviews must be sufficiently rigorous to provide an adequate test of the research student’s knowledge and understanding of the subject material, of progress to date, and of plans for the remainder of their candidature. Faculties will bring to the attention of research students, and relevant staff, clearly defined formats for the written report submission which will inform each Progression Review, and the criteria to be used for defining outcomes from Progression Reviews (according to the requirements specified in the paragraphs below). Any additional assessment criteria specific to the student’s programme of study will be published in the Academic Regulations.
18.9 Students should highlight any particular problems they have encountered (e.g. access to resources, facilities or other additional disability-related or language support requirements) together with details of the action taken. The student’s written report should also indicate whether any additional support requirements or facilities already being provided are continuing to meet their needs, or if any different or additional adjustments are required.
18.10 Each Progression Review must include a review of the student’s Academic Needs Analysis and the Data Management Plan.
18.11 Each Progression Review must include a viva voce, which should take place in a supportive way. In conducting the assessment, arrangements will be made, where necessary, to accommodate any additional needs of the research student. Following each Progression Review, the research student will be given constructive written feedback by the Assessment Panel and, if necessary, guidance on actions to be taken to support progress in their candidature.
18.12 The Assessment Panel for each Progression Review will be constituted according to the requirements specified in the paragraphs below. A second attempt at a Progression Review must include the addition of an Independent Chair (see section 22 of this Code (Examination: The independent chair). Requests for an independent notetaker to attend the Progression Review and to record a summary of the discussion may be made to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School.
18.13 The Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for reviewing the Panel’s recommendation and for confirming the outcome. In circumstances where they deem this appropriate, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School may choose to delegate this to a nominee; any such nominee must be a member of the Faculty Graduate School directorate. Where this is done, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School is responsible for ensuring that appropriate training and support is in place for the nominee and that there is a clear and transparent process within the Faculty to ensure that decisions are applied consistently across all programmes within the Faculty.
18.14 Should there be any concerns regarding the Assessment Panel’s recommendation, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School (or their nominee) should take steps to engage the Assessment Panel in discussions with a view to satisfactorily resolving the matter. Where amendments are considered necessary, a record of all discussions should be retained and the assessment documentation revised and resubmitted prior to the approval decision being made.
18.15 Decisions will be made in accordance with the timings as set out in the tables in section 18 of this Code (Progression Monitoring and Reviews: Progression reviews – timings). Two attempts at each Progression Review are permitted:
A research student who fails to meet the criteria required for a successful Progression Review at their second attempt and where the Assessment Panel does not (or, as in the case of MPhil candidates, may not) recommend transfer to MPhil candidature will be withdrawn from the degree and their candidature will be terminated in accordance with the Procedures for circumstances that may lead to termination of postgraduate research degree candidature.
A research student who does not submit material by the specified deadline for their first attempt at a Progression Review, and where no request has been submitted and approved under the Regulations Governing Special Considerations and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students, will be deemed to have failed that attempt.
A research student who does not submit material by the specified deadline for their second attempt at a Progression Review, and where no request has been submitted and approved under the Regulations Governing Special Considerations and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students, will be deemed to have failed their second attempt and candidature will be terminated in accordance with the Procedures for circumstances that may lead to termination of postgraduate research degree candidature.
18.16 Termination of candidature has additional significance in the case of research students with Student visas and they should contact the Visa and Immigration Student Advice Service for guidance.
Progression reviews – timings
18.17 Research students who enrolled on their studies after 1 August 2016 are required to undertake Progression Reviews as outlined in the Summary of timings of progression reviews for research students who enrolled on their studies on or after 1 August 2016 tables below. The Second Progression Review is known as confirmation of doctoral candidature and must be successfully completed before a research student may submit a thesis for examination.
18.18 Should a student’s candidature extend more than twelve months after their Third Progression Review (excepting when that student has already transferred to a period of nominal registration not exceeding six months), the supervisory team should ensure that the student is provided with additional review(s) so as to ensure that there is ongoing supervision and assessment of their progress in the latter stages of their candidature. Such additional reviews should follow the format and process of the Interim Progression Review.
18.19 Research students will be required to submit the material for a Progression Review normally not later than four working weeks in advance of the decision deadline. These timings are defined to enable the Assessment Panel to consider the submitted material, hold the Review, and make a recommendation within the specified timeframe. Timings refer to the full month, i.e. the decision from the first attempt at the First Progression Review should be made before the end of month 10.
Summary of timings of progression reviews for research students who enrolled on their studies on or after 1 August 2016 (full-time programmes)³
First attempt Second attempt
Submission window Decision deadline Submission window Decision deadline
First Progression Review 7 - 9 months Before the end of month 10 10 - 11 months Before the end of month 12
Second Progression Review (Confirmation) 18 - 20 months Before the end of month 21 21 - 23 months Before the end of month 24
Third Progression Review 30 - 32 months Before the end of month 33 33 - 35 months Before the end of month 36
Summary of timings of progression reviews for research students who enrolled on their studies on or after 1 August 2016 (part-time programmes)³
First attempt Second attempt
Submission window Decision deadline Submission window Decision deadline
First Progression Review 15 - 20 months Before the end of month 21 21 - 23 months Before the end of month 24
Second Progression Review (Confirmation) 30 - 41 months Before the end of month 42 42 - 47 months Before the end of month 48
Third Progression Review 61 - 65 months Before the end of month 66 66 - 71 months Before the end of month 72
18.20 In exceptional circumstances, and only where a student can be shown to be making exceptional progress, a research student may be permitted to undertake their Progression Review earlier than the timeframe specified. In such a case, the request must be made by the main supervisor to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School for recommendation to the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee for approval.
18.21 Research students who first enrolled on their studies before 1 August 2016 will follow the progression monitoring timings and procedures that applied at the time of their year of entry and as determined by their Faculty (including those for upgrade/transfer from MPhil to PhD). A summary of the applicable timings, depending on year of entry, is set out in the table below and students should refer to their Faculty for further information. However, the policy and procedure outlined in section 18 of this Code (Progression Monitoring and Reviews: The second progression review (confirmation of doctoral candidature)) will apply to research students who first enrolled on their doctoral studies before 1 August 2016 when completing their upgrade/transfer from MPhil to PhD.
Summary of timings of confirmation of doctoral candidature/upgrade from MPhil to PhD³
Time of Entry Full-time Part-time
After 1 August 2016 18 - 21 months 30 - 42 months
1 August 2015 to 1 August 2016 18 - 21 months 30 - 42 months
Before 1 August 2015 At least 6 months before final thesis submission At least 6 months before final thesis submission
The first progression review
18.22 As a minimum, the research student should submit a written report which:
defines the aims and objectives of the research project;
describes how the proposed research relates to other work in the area;
presents the work that has been carried out to date;
presents a plan for progression to the Second Progression Review (Confirmation of Doctoral Candidature.
18.23 The format of assessment informing the First Progression Review will be determined by the Faculty and will be conducted by an Assessment Panel consisting of an internal Independent Assessor and a member of the supervisory team⁴. During the Review, the Assessment panel must satisfy itself that the research student:
is undertaking a viable research project;
has made satisfactory progress to date;
has developed an adequately detailed plan of work to enable the research degree to be completed within the allowable period of candidature;
has defined the preliminary objectives and scope of the research project adequately;
has made an appropriate survey of the relevant literature and demonstrated an ability to make critical evaluation of published work;
has acquired an appropriate knowledge and understanding of applicable research methods;
has begun discussing the ethical implications of their research with their supervisory team and can articulate how these are incorporated into their research plans.
18.24 Following the Review, the Independent Assessor will recommend either: to progress to the next stage of candidature; or to re-assess. If re-assessment is recommended, the research student will be given written guidance on preparation for their second (and final) attempt.
18.25 The second attempt at the First Progression Review will have the same format as the first attempt, and will usually be conducted by the same Panel as for the first attempt but with the addition of an Independent Chair. In exceptional circumstances, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School may wish to appoint a fourth panel member independent of the supervisory team. The second attempt at the First Progression Review will involve a repeat viva voce. However, if the Assessment Panel deems that the research student’s written resubmission is of sufficient quality to permit progression, the repeat viva voce will be cancelled. The second attempt at the First Progression Review will lead to one of three recommendations: to progress to the next stage of candidature; to transfer the research student to MPhil candidature; or to terminate the research student's candidature.
The second progression review (confirmation of doctoral candidature)
18.26 The Second Progression Review consists of the confirmation process and all research students will follow the policy and procedure outlined in the following paragraphs. The process for students who enrolled on their doctoral studies before 1 August 2016 is known as Upgrade/Transfer from MPhil to PhD and will follow the timings as specified in the Summary of timings of confirmation of doctoral candidature/upgrade from MPhil to PhD table above. However, it should be noted that all upgrade/transfer and confirmation panels must consist of at least two Independent Assessors regardless of year of admission (see The confirmation panel)). The exception to this is for those research students who are in candidature for an MPhil degree. Such candidates will be required to undertake the Second Progression Review in accordance with the timings set down for doctoral candidates but the criteria for confirmation will not apply.
18.27 All research students who are registered at doctoral level must successfully meet the requirements of a confirmation panel. The precise format of the assessment will vary according to the discipline and should involve the practice and criteria set out in this Code (Criteria for confirmation of doctoral candidature).
18.28 A member of the supervisory team will normally be invited to attend the viva voce as an observer, however, the research student can ask to meet the confirmation panel without a supervisor being present. Such requests should be submitted by the student to the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team for approval by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School.
The confirmation panel
18.29 The recommendation whether or not to confirm doctoral candidature will be made by a confirmation panel constituted for this purpose. The confirmation panel will consist of at least two members of staff who have had no direct involvement in the research and can take the role of Independent Assessors. One of these members of staff should act as chair of the panel and is responsible for leading the viva voce. In exceptional circumstances, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School may approve an Independent Assessor to the confirmation panel who has been appointed as a Visiting Professor, Fellow or Academic (as defined in the Visitors to the University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 Policy) to the University. Any such individual may not take the role of panel chair.
18.30 The confirmation panel for the second attempt at the Second Progression Review (Confirmation) will be conducted by the same panel as for the first attempt but with the addition of an Independent Chair.
Supporting evidence
18.31 The confirmation panel making the recommendation must have reviewed a sufficient body of written work in order to make a judgement on the criteria noted in this Code (Criteria for confirmation of doctoral candidature). This body of work should include:
an overview of the research problem and rationale for the project;
a substantial literature review;
well-developed plans for fieldwork and data analysis.
Criteria for confirmation of doctoral candidature
18.32 In order for doctoral candidature to be confirmed, the confirmation panel must satisfy itself that the research student has demonstrated the ability to:
manage the research project;
become proficient in the special field of research involved;
achieve success at doctoral level given adequate motivation and perseverance.
18.33 The confirmation panel must also satisfy itself that the project being undertaken is of sufficient scope, originality and theoretical interest to constitute a genuine contribution to the subject in the form of the understanding of a problem, the advancement of knowledge or the generation of new ideas.
18.34 Students who first enrolled on their research degree on or after 1 August 2020 will not be confirmed in Doctoral Candidature by the Faculty following the Second Progression Review (Confirmation) should any training mandated by the Doctoral College remain unsatisfactorily completed.
The confirmation panel’s recommendation
18.35 Faculties should have a clear policy on the scrutiny of confirmation reports and confirmation of doctoral candidature should be recommended only after the confirmation panel has formally reviewed the research topic, its suitability for development into a doctoral thesis, and the research student's ability and progress. The recommendation should be supported by all members of the confirmation panel and paragraph 18.38 in this section of this Code sets out the process to be followed in circumstances where a unanimous decision cannot be reached.
18.36 Research students who have been successful in their confirmation should receive written feedback on the confirmation process highlighting, where appropriate, any potential areas of concern. If the recommendation is not to confirm doctoral candidature, the research student must be given a written report giving a statement of the reasons, and guidance regarding any ways in which they might reach the required standard.
18.37 The second attempt at the Second Progression Review (Confirmation) will have the same format as the first attempt and will involve a repeat viva voce. However, if the confirmation panel deems that the research student’s written resubmission is of sufficient quality to permit progression, the repeat viva voce will be cancelled. The confirmation panel for the second attempt at confirmation of doctoral candidature may make one of three recommendations: to recommend that a research student's doctoral candidature is confirmed; to recommend that the research student is transferred to MPhil candidature, or to recommend that the research student's candidature is terminated.
18.38 If a unanimous recommendation cannot be reached in either the first or second confirmation panel, an Additional Assessor shall be appointed by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School. This Additional Assessor will be provided with a copy of the confirmation report and the separate reports of the two original Assessors by the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team. The Additional Assessor shall be permitted to interview the research student before submitting a final report and recommendation to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School who shall consider the independent reports of the original Assessors and the report of the Additional Assessor before making a final decision.
The third progression review
18.39 As a minimum, the research student should submit a written report which:
outlines the thesis structure;
summarises the work that has been carried out to date;
summarises work still to be done;
outlines a plan for submission of the thesis.
18.40 The format of assessment informing the Third Progression Review will be determined by the Faculty and, as a minimum will include detailed discussion of the thesis structure and a plan for submission. The assessment will be conducted by not less than two members of the student’s supervisory team, and they must be satisfied that the research student:
has made satisfactory progress to date;
has developed an adequately detailed plan of work and is on track to enable the resaerch degree to be completed within the allowable period of the candidature.
18.41 The Review will lead to one of two recommendations: to progress; or to re-assess. If re-assessment is recommended, the research student will be given written guidance on preparation for their second (and final) attempt.
18.42 The documentation required for the second attempt at the Third Progression Review will be the same as for the first attempt, and the assessment will be conducted by a Panel consisting of all members of the supervisory team and an internal Independent Assessor appointed by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School.⁵ The Panel will also include an Independent Chair. The second attempt at the Third Progression Review will involve a repeat viva voce. However, if the Assessors deem that the research student’s written resubmission is of sufficient quality to permit progression, the viva voce will be cancelled. The second attempt at the Third Progression Review will lead to one of three recommendations: to progress to the final stage of candidature; to transfer the research student to MPhil candidature; or to terminate the research student's candidature.
The interim progression review
18.43 All research students who have not undergone a Progression Review in the previous twelve months of candidature and who are not due to submit their thesis within the next three months should undergo an Interim Progression Review to ensure that there is ongoing supervision and assessment of their progress between the standard timings of the First, Second and Third Progression Review process. If a research student is due to submit a Progression Review Report within one month of the next Interim Progression Review, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School may waive the requirement for an Interim Progression Review.
18.44 An Interim Progression Review cannot lead directly to termination of candidature. However, Interim Reviews are formal point in a research student's candidature and should be treated as such.
18.45 As a minimum, the research student should submit a written report which:
presents the work that has been carried out to date;
presents a plan for the next stage of the degree;
outlines a plan for submission of the thesis.
18.46 The format of the assessment informing the Interim Progression Review will be determined by the Faculty, and will involve all members of the supervisory team. It will usually involve a review of progress since the last Progression Review, a review of the Academic Needs Analysis and the Data Management Plan, and, where relevant, details of the research student's plan to submit the thesis. During the Review, the supervisory team must satisfy itself that the research student:
has made satisfactory progress to date;
has developed an adequately detailed plan of work for the next Progression Review;
is on track to enable the research degree to be completed within the allowable period of candidature.
18.47 Following the Review, the research student will be given written feedback and any necessary guidance on actions to be taken to support progress in their candidature.
18.48 Following the Review, the Assessment Panel will recommend either: to continue in candidature; or to re-assess. If re-assessment is recommended, the research student will be given written guidance on preparation for their second (and final) attempt. The second attempt at the Interim Progression Review will have the same format as the first attempt and will be conducted by the same Panel as for the first attempt but with the addition of an Independent Chair.
18.49 The second attempt at the Interim Progression Review will involve a repeat viva voce and will lead to one of two recommendations: to continue to the next Progression Review; or, if progress is deemed to be unsatisfactory, referral to an Exceptional Progression Review.
The exceptional progression review
18.50 An Exceptional Progression Review may be scheduled on the direction of the Faculty Director of the Graduate School if significant academic concerns about a research student’s progress have been raised, either independently or through the Progression Review process.
18.51 An Exceptional Progression Review usually follows the procedures for the Second Progression Review (Confirmation of Doctoral Candidature) and should be carried out by two Independent Assessors.
18.52 Following the Review, the Assessment Panel will recommend either: to continue in candidature; or to re-assess. If re-assessment is recommended, the research student will be given written guidance on preparation for their second (and final) attempt. The second attempt at the Exceptional Progression Review will have the same format as the first attempt, and will be conducted by the same Panel as for the first attempt but with the addition of an Independent Chair.
18.53 The second attempt at the Exceptional Progression Review will involve a repeat viva voce and will lead to one of three recommendations: to continue in candidature; to transfer the research student to MPhil candidature, or to terminate the research student's candidature.

19.1 A research student may be permitted to transfer from PhD to MPhil candidature at any time prior to the submission of their thesis for examination. Transfer may follow the outcome of a Progression Review or may be at the request of the research student in consultation with their supervisory team at any stage during candidature. The MPhil is an award in its own right (see section 4 of this Code (The Difference between Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Master of Philosophy (MPhil)), and a viva voce is required as part of the MPhil examination. The Faculty should ensure that research students are made aware of this requirement. The University will comply with its obligations under the relevant immigration legislation which may be updated from time to time. A research student who is concerned about their entitlement to remain in the UK following transfer to MPhil should seek urgent advice from the Visa and Immigration Student Advice Service.

20.1 A research student may be permitted to transfer to nominal registration, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the Regulations for Research Degrees (Nominal Registration). Applications to transfer to nominal registration must be submitted on-line through PGR Manager (or equivalent system) or through the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team. The application should contain confirmation of all the items in section 9 of the Regulations for Research Degrees (Nominal Registration). This should also include the date of submission and electronic version of a draft of the thesis and the supervisory feedback.
20.2 Whilst in nominal registration, and until the award of the degree has been made, research students may retain access only to library and computing facilities. Access to office space may be extended at the discretion of the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee in accordance with Faculty policy.

21.1 As stated in section 6 of the Regulations for Research Degrees(Duration of Research Degrees), a research student who fails to submit a thesis by the end of the maximum period of study will be deemed to have withdrawn from the programme and candidature will be terminated. The requirements for the production of the thesis for submission (as set out in the Research Degree Candidature Submission and Completion section of the Quality Handbook) should be followed.
Decision to submit
21.2 The decision to submit the thesis must be the research student's own. The research student should take note of supervision advice but this advice should not be taken as an indication that the final thesis will fulfil the requirements of the examiners. The main supervisor must inform the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team in writing if the research student submits without their agreement; this information will not be made known to the examiners but may be referred to in any subsequent discussions about the outcome of the examination, particularly where failure leads to an appeal.
Notification of intention to submit
21.3 Via PGR Manager, research students must inform the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team of their intention to submit no later than two months prior to the date of submission in order to allow adequate time for examination arrangements to be made.? A student who has paused their study is not permitted to indicate intention to submit, and may only do so on their return giving the required minimum two months’ notice as specified above.
Maximum length of thesis
21.4 The maximum length of a thesis is normally 75,000 words for a PhD or 50,000 words for an MPhil, excluding references and bibliography, or equivalent in the case of alternative formats of thesis (also see section 21 of this Code (Production and Submission of the Thesis: Alternative formats of thesis submission)). Where appropriate, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, in their capacity as Chair of Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee, may determine a higher word limit for a specific discipline. All such decisions must be reported to the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee. A thesis submitted for an MPhil after a PhD examination is not subject to a maximum length of 50,000 words. The maximum length of the thesis does not include supporting material or evidence which may be bound in as appendices.? Appendices should be clearly marked as such and listed on the contents page. ?If appendices are submitted in separate volumes, they must be prepared and bound in the same style as the thesis.? All supporting material or evidence will be available to the examiners and will form part of the record.
21.5 In deciding whether to include an appendix, the research student should consider?the requirements of the research funder as well as the University’s policy?on Research Data Management.
21.6 It is important to remember that the stated maximum word limit is not a target figure; an important aspect of scholarship that must be demonstrated in a thesis is the ability to convey information concisely. Research students who exceed the stipulated length for the thesis may be required by the examiners to re-submit their thesis in a format which does not exceed the maximum length.
21.7 Prior to notifying their intention to submit, a research student may present a statement to their supervisory team indicating that the thesis cannot be contained within the stipulated length for reasons relating to the subject material. Should the supervisory team consider a longer thesis is appropriate, its recommendation must be submitted to the Faculty Director of the Graduate School for a decision in advance of the student submitting their thesis for examination.
Thesis written in a language other than English
21.8 A thesis may be written in a language other than English with the approval of the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee. When considering such a request, the nature of the research and discipline will be taken into account by the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee. It will require assurances that there will be no problems in examining the thesis and that the subsequent published work will be accessible to subject specialists.
Alternative formats of thesis submission
21.9 An alternative format of thesis submission is permitted in the following disciplines and details will be advised by the Faculty:
Art and Design
Dance
Drama
English
Film
Music
Performing Arts
21.10 The submission must consist of two parts: a body of work as appropriate to the discipline (for example substantial original practical work) completed in conjunction with a critical written component with a maximum length of 40,000 words and an indicative minimum of 20,000 words (30,000 and 15,000 words respectively for MPhil). The nature and extent of each component must be proposed by the research student in consultation with the supervisor, for consideration and approval by the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee by the time of the first Progression Review. The relationship of the components must be such as to form a holistic original research project, demonstrating the criteria as described in section 4 of this Code (The Difference between Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Master of Philosophy (MPhil).
21.11 The submission must consist of two parts: a body of work as appropriate to the discipline (for example substantial original practical work) completed in conjunction with a critical written component with a maximum length of 40,000 words and an indicative minimum of 20,000 words (30,000 and 15,000 words respectively for MPhil). The nature and extent of each component must be proposed by the research student in consultation with the supervisor, for consideration and approval by the Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee by the time of the first Progression Review. The relationship of the components must be such as to form a holistic original research project, demonstrating the criteria as described in section 4 of this Code (The Difference between Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Master of Philosophy (MPhil).
Declaration of authorship
21.12 At the time of submission, a thesis should include a signed declaration from the research student that the material presented for examination is their own work and has not been submitted for any other award (and, where relevant, how it relates to a group project).
Academic responsibility and conduct
21.13 The Regulations Governing Academic Responsibility and Conduct state that research students are required to complete their work, and where relevant their professional practice, in accordance with the principles and practices set out in those Regulations. In particular, all research students should avoid breaches of academic responsibility and conduct such as plagiarism, cheating, falsification and recycling, breaching ethical standards and misconduct in research. Suspected breaches of academic responsiblity and conduct will be investigated via the procedures set down within the Regulations.

Examiners: role, responsibilities and general criteria for appointment
22.8 Examiners, both internal and external, should have sufficient experience and appropriate subject expertise to be able to examine effectively. They should also be sensitive to, and take into account in the examining process, reasonable adjustments, equality and diversity. Collectively, the examiners should have acted as examiner for at least three doctoral examinations, and be familiar with examination practice and standards in the UK. As an example, if the external examiner possesses subject expertise but limited UK examining experience, this may be compensated for by a suitably UK-experienced internal examiner.
Internal examiners: criteria for appointment
External examiners
22.13 External examiners should normally hold an academic post in another higher education institution. Nominations for external examiners who do not hold such positions should be accompanied by a statement outlining their suitability and ability to examine, and there should be sufficient evidence of their research experience and expertise in the subject.
22.15 External examiners should have had no formal academic contact with the research student during the period of research candidature and, although reciprocity may be more difficult to avoid than for taught programmes, examiners should not be appointed from within a Faculty where University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 members of staff have recently examined for the same subject if at all possible. Similarly, external examiners would not normally be expected to be reappointed if they have examined a research student at the University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 within the last two years. In exceptional circumstances, the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, in consultation with the Director of the Doctoral College, may appoint an external examiner who has examined a doctoral degree at the University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 within the last two years. Members of University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 staff are ineligible to act as external examiners for University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 awards.
Consideration of examiners’ recommendations
Outcome and award
22.32 Following approval of the examiners’ recommendations, the approved outcome should be communicated to the research student by the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team within one month of the date of the viva voce. A copy of the completed examiners’ Joint Report and Recommendation Form and, if amendments are required, written guidance on revisions to the thesis should be provided. The timing for amendments begins at the point the research student receives the written report from the Doctoral College (Faculty) Team.
22.33 A research student required to make minor or modest amendments, or to submit a revised thesis for re-examination, should be given a clear and prompt statement by the examiners of what is required. When minor amendments have been submitted, the research student should normally be informed whether the amendments have been certified within three weeks of their submission. In the case of modest amendments, the research student should normally be informed whether the amendments have been certified within six weeks of their submission, or sooner if possible. It is the responsibility of the co-ordinating supervisor to ensure that the amendments are approved by the examiner(s) promptly so that the research student's degree can be awarded as soon as possible.
22.34 Should a member of the original examining team be unable or unwilling (e.g. failure to respond within expected timescales) to complete the assessment of further work required of a student following the examination outcome (e.g. minor or modest amendments and/or attendance at any additional viva voce), the Faculty Director of the Graduate School should submit a proposal to the Postgraduate Research Quality Monitoring and Enhancement (PGR QME) Subcommittee for a new examiner to be appointed.
22.35 As specified in section 15 of the Regulations for Research Degrees (Outcomes of the Examination), a research student who fails to submit an amended or revised thesis by the date set by the examiners shall normally be regarded as having failed the examination, the recommendations of the examiners shall lapse and the candidate shall be deemed to have withdrawn from the degree. In exceptional circumstances a revised date for submitting corrections may be approved in accordance with the Regulations Governing Special Considerations and Pause in Study for Postgraduate Research Students.
22.36 The award will be made by Senate on the recommendation of the Faculty Education and Student Experience Subcommittee.

23.1 The results of research should be freely available. Theses are accessible in the University Library or electronically through the University of 天发娱乐棋牌_天发娱乐APP-官网|下载 Research Repository. In exceptional circumstances, access to a thesis may be restricted, through embargo by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School, in their capacity as Chair of Faculty Graduate School Subcommittee, where such restriction is regarded as desirable on commercial grounds, pending publications or patent applications, or as necessary to maintain confidentiality, national security, or the safety of those involved in the research (e.g. students, supervisors, and participants). The period of restriction shall be determined by the Faculty Director of the Graduate School but shall normally not exceed three years from the date of examination (or twelve months for pending publications). The period of restriction may be subject to extension in some circumstances and will require the approval of the Director of the Doctoral College. The period of extension may not exceed one year in duration. Each instance of approval of restriction of access to a thesis should be reported by the Faculty to the University Library, via the Permission to Deposit thesis process. The University Library will maintain a master list of thesis embargoes which should be presented annually to the Doctoral College Committee.

Summary of timings of progression reviews for research students who enrolled on their studies on or after 1 August 2016 (full-time programmes)³
	First attempt		Second attempt
	Submission window	Decision deadline	Submission window	Decision deadline
First Progression Review	7 - 9 months	Before the end of month 10	10 - 11 months	Before the end of month 12
Second Progression Review (Confirmation)	18 - 20 months	Before the end of month 21	21 - 23 months	Before the end of month 24
Third Progression Review	30 - 32 months	Before the end of month 33	33 - 35 months	Before the end of month 36

Summary of timings of confirmation of doctoral candidature/upgrade from MPhil to PhD³
Time of Entry	Full-time	Part-time
After 1 August 2016	18 - 21 months	30 - 42 months
1 August 2015 to 1 August 2016	18 - 21 months	30 - 42 months
Before 1 August 2015	At least 6 months before final thesis submission	At least 6 months before final thesis submission