phd annual review presentation

A Pocket Guide to First Year Annual Review

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

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

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

1. Keep the timeline of your review in mind- 

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

2. Follow the proper procedure of the Annual Review- 

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

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

3. Ensure open channels of communication with the supervisors- 

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

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

4. Maintain consistency-

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

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

5. Critical Friend-

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

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

6. Keep in constant touch with the PGR community- 

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

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

7. Be realistic in your approach-  

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

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

8. Maintain a healthy work-life balance-  

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

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

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

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

One comment

Many thanx for sharing this!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

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

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

Report this page

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

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

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

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Before the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional slides can be presented as follows:

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

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

iii) The mathematical model you have developed,  or

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

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

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

Additional tips (from personal experience):

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

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

After the PhD Progress Presentation Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upcoming Events

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Posts

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

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

The Graduate School

Template for annual reviews for doctoral students.

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

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

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

Download Template

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

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

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

Contact Information

860-486-3617

[email protected]

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

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

UConn Today

• OPIM Professor Chen Wins Prestigious Early-Career Award
• UConn Keeping Air in Connecticut Classrooms Safe
• Art Committee, Assemble!
• Pinnacle of Performance: Caring for Concussions
• Transformative Scholarship Awarded to FNP Nursing Students

Upcoming Defenses

• Oct 24 Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense of Benjamin Stockton 1:00 PM
• Oct 25 Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense of Mark Stukel 4:00 PM
• Oct 29 Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense of Stephanie Chiappa 2:00 PM
• Nov 1 Doctoral Dissertation Oral Defense of Jeannette Koziel 12:00 PM

View all Upcoming Defenses

• My presentations

Auth with social network:

Download presentation

We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Preparing for your annual progress review

Published by Suzan Clemence Fleming Modified over 6 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Preparing for your annual progress review"— Presentation transcript:

Inclusivity in the research community and academic staff development Dr Stan Taylor, Academic Staff Development Officer.

Preparing for your first annual progress review FMS research student development workshop Monday 3 March 2014 Professor Dianne Ford Director of PhD Studies,

Preparing for Confirmation of Candidature

Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B PREPARING FOR CONFIRMATION OF CANDIDATURE 2014 School of Exercise & Nutrition Sciences.

Placement Workshop Y2, Sem 2 Professional Practice Module (PPM)

PhD PROPOSAL AND SUPERVISORY AGREEMENT FORM

Completing your Production Log. Page no.ContentsCompleted by.... Page 1 Front sheet  Completed by candidate, signed by both candidate and supervisor.

MSc Dissertation in Economics

Student Progression John Kirby Graduate School Faculty of Medical Sciences.

PhD progress panels FMS postgraduate training workshop

Literature Reviews and First Year Reports John Kirby and Alicia Cresswell Graduate School Faculty of Medical Sciences Newcastle University.

Preparing for your first annual progress review FMS postgraduate training workshop Monday 2 March 2015 Professor Dianne Ford Associate Dean for Taught.

Your second annual progress review FMS postgraduate training workshop Tuesday 17 March 2015 Professor Dianne Ford Associate Dean for Taught Postgraduate.

PhD progress panels FMS postgraduate training workshop Monday 7 March 2011 Professor Dianne Ford Director of PhD Studies, FMS PhD supervisor/progress panel.

A MEMBER OF THE RUSSELL GROUP PGR PERIODIC REVIEW Sara Crowley

Unit 2: Managing the development of self and others Life Science and Chemical Science Professionals Higher Apprenticeships Unit 2 Managing the development.

The Learning Agreement, Intellectual Property Rights and Project Approval Professor Dianne Ford Director of PhD Studies, Faculty of Medical Sciences.

Annual Review Information Session January Session outcomes What Annual Review is and what it is not The benefits of Annual Review How to prepare.

About project

© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.

Wayne State University

Graduate school graduate school, annual review/individual development plan for ph.d. students.

All Ph.D students must complete an Annual Review and Individual Development Plan (AR/IDP) each year between April 1 and October 1 through the graduate school's electronic forms system.

The  Annual Review  helps programs monitor a student's progress towards degree and identify goals and areas for support and improvement. The  Individual Development Plan  is a framework for constructive conversation between Ph.D. students and their advisors.  It asks students to reflect on their career-related skills, interests and values so that their mentors can advise them about career paths and steps for professional development success. Before completing the AR/IDP, students are encouraged to explore the excellent, free professional development planning resources provided by Imagine PhD  and My IDP: Science Careers .

Academic programs may require additional elements for the annual review and IDP.  An annual AR/IDP is required for all doctoral students regardless of funding status. 

Contact  [email protected]  with any questions about this process.

Complete the Annual review/Individual development plan  

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

Ph.D. Student Handbook

Annual ph.d. progress report.

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

Access the Progress Report Submission form her e.

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

Doctoral Program:

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

Your BE Contact:

Kathleen Venit Associate Director, Graduate Programs 240 Skirkanich Hall

Graduate Student Groups:

Graduate Association of Bioengineers

Graduate Student Engineering Group

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Tress Academic

#44: What to present from your PhD study when you don’t have a lot to show yet?

March 10, 2020 by Tress Academic

Were you asked by your supervisor to present your PhD work at a research seminar? Perhaps there’s an annual PhD-day in your graduate school where all new PhDs have to present their work. Or your funding body requires you to give a first project presentation. Reluctantly, you agreed, but you don’t feel too good about it because as you are not very far into your PhD project, you think you have nothing to show yet. What do you do now? What can you present with only incomplete results from your own PhD to work with? Follow our suggestions and develop a structured content plan that can still impress! 

We remember the first presentations of our own PhD work very well. Our expectations of these first talks were sky-high. We wanted them to be not just good, they should be impressive so that everybody understands and likes the work we are doing and encourages us to go ahead. 

But deep inside there was a little voice telling us that it probably wouldn’t go down like this. Our PhD studies had not progressed far enough. We couldn’t present all the good stuff that we’d hoped to have found by the end of the project. It wasn’t that we couldn’t present because the data collection was incomplete – all we had were ideas and good intentions. How could somebody ask us to present our work at such an early stage? But we were asked! Our supervisors had simply signed us up to the upcoming research seminars. So what could we possibly present? 

Is this a situation you will eventually find yourself in as well? Did your supervisor also “suggest” you give a presentation of your PhD study soon? Or do you have other requirements that compel you to present your work? Are you also thinking it’s far too early because you have nothing to show yet? 

If you’ve answered YES to these questions, keep reading, because TRESS ACADEMIC can help you. We’ll give you quality suggestions and ideas for what you can present even if your own research results are not ready yet. On top of that, we’ll tell you how to get the most out of this presentation and how to deliver it well. Best of all, you can download our free worksheet to create a “Content plan for early PhD presentations” to be on the safe side the next time you are asked to present. Let’s start by analyzing this presentation and ways to use what you do have from your PhD effectively.

1. What is the purpose of the event and who is the audience? 

The first step would be to identify the purpose of the event you are presenting at. Is it a recurring event at your institute, like a research seminar series that comes up every month? Or is it a single event that was set up for a special occasion? Will you be the only presenter at the event or are multiple speakers scheduled? It’s important to have an idea about the intentions behind getting these people together to listen to you and other presenters.

The second step is to find out who is attending the event. Will it be people from your cohort, your institute and your university or will it also include people from outside? Will you know the people who attend or, like most conferences, will it be a mixed bag of researchers from your field, most of whom you don’t know? Knowing the people who you are presenting your work to makes a huge difference when selecting your presentation content and form. 

Once you have the answers to step one and two, then you can better identify what the purpose of your presentation will be. Knowing this will aid you to prepare the appropriate content for the occasion.

These kinds of events can have multiple purposes. Your aim for giving a presentation there could be:  

• to present your PhD research to (international) peers
• to inform members of your institute about the research that you are currently doing at their institute
• to receive constructive input and criticism on the PhD work that you present
• to discuss problems that have come up in your work and to ask for possible solutions
• to inform your supervisory committee or your thesis advisory committee about the progress of your project
• to gain experience in presenting in front of an audience
• to have the possibility to attend an international meeting 

and more. 

The purpose and the type of event also influences how long you are expected to present. At an internal meeting at your institute, your presentation could span of 15-30 minutes plus time for discussion. At a conference, it is more likely to be 5-15 minutes, including poster presentations or mini presentations. 

Find out more of these details before you decide what to present. The better you know the context, the better you can define what would be a good fit. 

2. Content that you could present  

When you are still in the early phase of your PhD project, there are not many original findings that you can base your presentation around. Everybody is aware of this and so don’t worry, you are not expected to present anything final or groundbreaking. Instead, you have several content options that you could talk about: 

A) Give a project overview

Present to your audience what your project is about. Tell them what the aim of your research is, which methods you plan on using, how you will collect and treat your data and what most likely will be your research aim. Try to also include aspects that are unknown or difficult for you to get feedback on. Don’t forget to give a short outlook on the potential benefits of your work. 

Taking this type of classical approach to your presentation content always works. Your audience will get a full overview on your PhD topic, the aim, the methods and expected outcomes. Typically, the audience will come with their own questions on various aspects of your presentation as you cover many different things at once. 

You want to keep this presentation rather short because what you want to achieve is your audience getting an overview on your project and its potential outcomes. They do not need to understand every single detail or consideration, so if they are interested in learning more they can ask you afterwards. You want to leave the audience with the impression that the project you are working on is interesting, relevant and achievable. 

B) Give a state-of-the-art report on your research problem

In this type of presentation, you should focus less on the work that is still to be done in your project and focus instead on the research aim of your work. You are providing the wider background or “bigger picture” of your PhD project. 

A presentation like this is based on a detailed literature review of your research problem, which you’ve usually completed in the initial phase of your PhD anyway. Now you can show the audience what the larger context is and how your own project is embedded within it. At the end, you’ll briefly sum up the major steps of your research design (if you know them already) to give the audience a glimpse of how you’ve approached the problem that you presented. 

This presentation is particularly helpful in the very early stages of a PhD project. You want to leave the audience with the impression that they have understood why you do what you do in your project. They should be able to place your work within the bigger context of research in your field. 

C) Give a justification for why your project is needed  

This presentation is less about the background of your PhD project but more about its relevance. You won’t go into the full details of the literature review, but rather you draw a picture of the burning problem that you’re addressing and why you need to do something about it. 

Be careful not to sound too pretentious in your presentation. This is often a risk for these type of presentations. You’ll probably make clear to everybody that the problem you are working on is a relevant one, but this does not automatically mean that the project is good. Try to convince your audience with the quality of the approach you developed to address the research problem. You need to convince the audience of two things: first, the relevance of the problem and second, the quality of your work to address the problem. Thus, you should already know quite a bit about the research steps you will go through even though you have not yet conducted them. This type of presentation content is suitable for occasions where the audience is not working on the same topic as you on a daily basis.   

You want to leave the audience with a clear understanding of the relevance and importance of your work. They should become aware of the potential benefits that arise once you will have successfully completed your project.

D) Give an outlook on a potential application of your work  

In some PhD projects, you are working towards a concrete application that will result directly or indirectly from your work. This application should be the content for this type of presentation. 

If the problem and the relevance of your work are clear and not a question of debate, your presentation could instead focus on the moment the work is completed. You briefly sketch out the problem, how you address it and then draw attention to the (multiple) applications that your findings could lead to. Such content is particularly valuable for an audience that works in the same field and has a clear understanding of the potential applications that your work addresses. 

You want to leave the audience with the impression that they appreciate your project because of its strong real-world impact. They see that your PhD project is one step on the way to reach something else important. This type of presentation is interesting for the audience as it will shift the focus from the project level (research) to the real world (potential application), which is farther reaching. 

E) Give the first results 

In this presentation, you present the first (preliminary) results from your work to your audience. You give them an introduction to the problem so that they understand your research aim and you tell them how you’ve approached it. 

Then, you focus on one or a few aspects where you already have results. Leave out a report of all other aspects or potential results that you might achieve, as they blur the picture. Also avoid reporting any method steps that are not related to your presented results. If somebody wants to know more about it, they can ask afterwards. 

This type of talk is equally suitable for conferences as research seminars where you inform peers on the progress and findings resulting from your work. In this talk, you discuss problems, validity, reliability, and consequences of your first results. You want to leave your audience with the impression that you have already made the first steps in your work and that these steps look promising. 

F) Give insight into problems that you struggle with 

With this type of presentation your aim is to openly discuss the problems and struggles in your work. This can be the most difficult type of presentation for you to present, but also the one where you stand to benefit the most. You can pick the brains of your audience and basically say: This is what I want to do, this is how I want to do it, but I have this problem … any ideas how to solve it?”

When you pick this kind of content for your presentation, your aim is not to show what you have achieved or done, but to ask for advice and support from your colleagues on a problem that came up during your work. Clearly, this type of presentation is more suitable in environments where you don’t feel exposed, but respected, and surrounded by people who want to support you. 

You want to leave the audience with the impression that you are working on an interesting project which you are confident enough in to ask your fellow colleagues for advice to improve it. Most likely, they will appreciate your openness and are happy to advise. It also gives your audience a far more active role to play in your presentation than in any of the other types of content suggested above. 

3. A few words on how to present this content

Sure, the content that you present is an important element of a good early PhD presentation, but so is HOW you present it. As a quick guide, stick to the following five principles for a good presentation experience: 

• Less is more when it comes to content. Don’t get lost in too many nitty-gritty details that dilute your message. 
• Be an engaged presenter, show enthusiasm for your work and interact with your audience. 
• Express yourself in simple words and communicate visually. 
• Have a clear take-home message that people can relate to. 
• Rehearse your talk and know what you want to say. 

We have published a handful of guides that support you in how to plan, prepare and deliver your (first) presentation, so have a look at the resources list below. 

Conclusion  

Next time your supervisor comes in and asks you for a short presentation on your PhD project, you don’t need to be scared. If you downloaded our free worksheet “Content plan for my early PhD presentations” , you will be well prepared to take on a spontaneous presentation slot. Analyse exactly what the purpose of the presentation is and then go for the most appropriate content to present and you will make a great impression! We know you can do it!

Soon we will be offering a free PhD Webinar to help you progress with your PhD project – if you’re interested, sign up here.    

Relevant resources: 

• Free worksheet: Content plan for my early PhD presentations
• Smart Academics Blog#3: How to cope with stage fright?
• Smart Academics Blog #7: Why your next presentation matters
• Smart Academics Blog #11: How much time is needed to prepare a good presentation?
• Smart Academics Blog #15: 5 smart strategies to get most out of conference posters 
• Smart Academics Blog #19: The 5 best free photo databases for your scientific presentation
• Smart Academics Blog #20: Best scientific photo databases  
• Smart Academics Blog #26: First conference presentation? 17 life-saving tips
• Smart Academics Blog #30: Questions from the audience you should be prepared to answer
• Smart Academics Blog #95: Apply these 5 tips to improve any presentation
• Expert Guide: 6 Reasons Why Presentations Can Fail 

Related courses and services:

• 1-day course: Presenting successfully at virtual conferences
• 3-day course: How to present at international conferences
• 1-to-1 advice: Presentation Check

More information:  

Do you want to successfully complete your PhD study? If so, please sign up to receive our free guides .  

© 2020 Tress Academic

#PhD #Presentation #ResearchSeminar #DoctoralStudy 

Adelaide Graduate Research School

Annual Review of Progress (Annual Review)

The annual review of progress is an appraisal of your progress by both you and your supervisory panel due every year on 31 October.

The annual review is intended to assess your progress against the quality and quantity of work performed to date and required for timely submission.  It is an important tool for identifying any problems that may be occurring so that they can be documented and resolved and, it provides you with an opportunity to formally set goals with your whole supervisory panel for the next stage of your project and in the next stage of your professional development.

Key requirements:

• Completion of the online annual review form to record and evaluate progress during the previous period and to plan and document research and professional development goals for the next year. 
• Presentation of a seminar if required by your School/Discipline.
• A review of your progress which involves your supervisors, the Postgraduate Coordinator and (if required by your School/Discipline), an independent discipline expert from outside the research group.
• Annual review
• 2023 Q&A Session Recording
• Annual Review 2022 Q&A Session

Purpose of the annual review of progress

The annual review is intended to be an open and frank appraisal of your rate of progress by both you and your supervisory panel. The Review is due every year on 31 October and serves several purposes. It:

• ensures that you highlight your achievements during the preceding year so that you can clearly see the progress you have made both in your research and your professional development (it is common for students to underestimate their progress and the review process can provide some useful reassurance);
• provides you with an opportunity to formally set goals with your whole supervisory panel for the next stage of your project and in the next stage of your professional development;
•  is an important tool for identifying any problems that may be occurring in your candidature so that they can be documented and resolved. Documentation is very important, as any problems you report on your annual review form (which were beyond your control and have negatively affected your progress) will be taken into consideration if you submit an application for a candidature or scholarship extension in the future.  If you are unable to raise a problem(s) at the School level, you can submit a confidential statement for the attention of the Dean of Graduate Studies;
• provides an opportunity to review and renegotiate your access to resources and facilities;
• provides an opportunity to review ethics requirements and a prompt to provide any necessary clearances to the Adelaide Graduate Research School;
• provides an opportunity to review your supervisory arrangements, including the frequency and usefulness of meetings; and
• serves to ensure that your postgraduate coordinator, the head of school and the Dean of Graduate Studies are kept fully informed of your progress.

Satisfactory completion of the annual review and other candidature milestones where applicable, is a pre-requisite for re-enrolment and scholarship continuation into the following year.

Do I need to do an annual review? As a research student who is actively enrolled or on approved leave of absence, you are required to participate in an annual review of progress every year, unless one of the following applies:

• Your enrolled in the current calendar year;
• You submitted your thesis for examination prior to 31 October;
• Your candidature lapsed prior to 31 October;
• You have been advised to complete a pre-submission review in place of an annual review of progress;

Before commencing your annual review

Login to MyAdelaide  and check the following:

• Are your personal details (e.g. address and contact details) correct? Update them if necessary.
• Are your supervisors and their roles and percentages of responsibility accurately recorded?  ONLY your official principal supervisor will be able to approve your annual review (your co-supervisor(s) will have view only access), therefore, it is essential that you advise the Adelaide Graduate Research School of any changes by completing the change of supervisor details form before you access the annual review form and commence the review process;
• Are your candidature details (e.g. research topic, attendance status) accurately recorded? If any changes are required, you will need to complete and submit the relevant form to the Adelaide Graduate Research School.
• If there are extenuating circumstances that will affect your ability to complete and lodge the annual review by 31 October, ensure that you discuss the situation with your principal supervisor and request that he or she apply for an extension on your behalf by emailing the Adelaide Graduate Research School . The email should detail the length of extension sought (typically one month) and the reasons for the request.

How to complete the annual review

Step 1 – Student

• Review your progress during the previous twelve months or since you started in candidature;
• Discuss and establish a plan of work and set academic and Career and Research Skills Training (CaRST) milestones or goals for the next twelve months;
• Review your ethics, IP, resource and supervision needs; and
• Identify any concerns/problems/grievances that may have interrupted/delayed your progress and their impact on your progress in terms of the number of research days lost.
• Make a second later appointment to discuss your progress with the person nominated by your principal supervisor to authorise the completed annual review on behalf of your School (the 'school approver'). The approver will normally be your postgraduate coordinator, however, if your PGC is a supervisor, it will be another senior academic from within your school which your principal supervisor will select from a pre-approved list
• Confirm your personal details and supervisory panel details are correct.
• Describe work completed during the review period.
• Upload a Gantt chart or completion plan.
• Detail any industry engagement that occurred during the year of review, including the name and URL of the organisation, the dates and type of engagement (placement or internship, supervision, mentoring, or employment).
• Provide clearance numbers of ethics approvals already provided to the Adelaide Graduate Research School, and upload copies of any clearance documents not previously provided.
• Consider whether your research involves any hazards (e.g. chemical, plant, equipment, biological, radiation etc.).
• Provide titles of intellectual property contracts and/or agreements previously supplied to the Adelaide Graduate Research School, and upload copies of any contracts and/or agreement documents not previously provided.
• Consider whether the agreed resources and facilities defined in the minimum resources proforma in your core component of the structured program (CCSP) have been provided since your last annual review/completion of your CCSP if this is your first review since enrolment.
• Total any leave of absence days you have taken in the reporting period.
• Detail any unavoidable delays, problems and/or grievances experienced during the review period.
• Upload a current PDF of your CaRST Progress Summary dated within 1 week of when your Annual Review form is submitted (navigate to the ‘Review’ page in CaRST Online, click the ‘Generate PDF’ button, and save as PDF), enter your total recognised credits, and provide a reflection on development activities completed since the previous milestone review and future development goals.
• Certify the form and submit to your principal supervisor for comment.

Step 2 – Supervisors and school approver

Following your progress review meeting, your supervisory panel will discuss and review your progress.

• On receipt of your submitted annual review, your principal supervisor will review the information you have provided, make comments in response on behalf of your supervisory panel and provide an assessment of your level of progress relative to the standards and timeframe for completion of your degree.
• The principal supervisor will be asked to nominate a ‘school approver’ from a pre-approved list to authorise the completed annual review on behalf of the School.  The principal supervisor will select the relevant postgraduate coordinator, except, where the PGC is a supervisor, in which case an alternate school approver who is a senior academic staff member will be selected from the pre-approved list.
• Once the principal supervisor has completed the supervisor sections on the annual review, the form will advance to the nominated school approver to review your progress and your supervisors’ recommendations on behalf of the School;
• After certifying the form on behalf of the school, the school approver will authorise the form’s return to you for final review prior to submission to the Adelaide Graduate Research School.

Step 3 - Student review

• On receipt of email notification that your completed annual review form containing supervisory comments and your school’s assessment of your progress is ready for viewing, access and review the annual review form in its entirety
• Following review, you will be prompted to agree with the school’s assessment of your progress (including, if applicable, any milestones/tasks that have been set for you to complete during a period of conditional re-enrolment).
• If you disagree with the school’s assessment or wish to report any complaints or grievances that you have been unable to resolve within your school, you will be able to upload a confidential report for the attention of the Dean of Graduate Studies.  If you attach such a report, it will not be visible to your supervisors, PGC or head of school.
• Authorise the submission of your annual review to the Adelaide Graduate Research School prior to the due date

Tracking progress of the annual review

• After submitting your portion of the annual review to your principal supervisor in the recommended timeframe, ensure you regularly log back into your annual review dashboard/form to track the progress of approvals by your supervisor and the school approver.
• If your annual review has not been actioned within the recommended timeframe or, within ~one week of being sent to an approver, please follow up with them to request that they review and action the form.
• Ensure that your annual review is on track to be returned to you for final review and submission to the Adelaide Graduate Research School prior to 31 October.
• If you will be unable to submit prior to the due date, it is your responsibility to prompt your principal supervisor to request an extension (normally for one month) on your behalf. 

Gantt chart and completion plan templates

Please download the most appropriate MS excel template for your needs:

3 year Gantt chart 4 year Gantt chart 5 year Gantt chart 6 year Gantt chart

Note. All templates are password protected. This means you have some limited editing privileges, including the ability to add and delete rows without a password.

Completion plan You may choose to use a completion plan. The Adelaide Graduate Research School has made an example plan available. Completion plan example

Annual review of progress timeline and workflow

View full size workflow image .

Download a PDF of the annual review workflow .

Why do I have to complete an annual review?

The annual review facilitates the formal discussion and evaluation of your progress whilst providing you with an opportunity to discuss your future research goals and any problems you may be experiencing with your supervisors and postgraduate coordinator or head of school. The information detailed in your annual review form is reviewed by the Adelaide Graduate Research School and the Dean of Graduate Studies to establish that your progress in the preceding year has been satisfactory and that your enrolment (and any scholarship payments) should continue. It is also an opportunity for you to request (confidentially), the Dean’s involvement in the resolution of any problems or concerns you may have that cannot be settled at the local level.

Making the most of the annual review describes how to get the most out of the review process and is recommended reading for all students.

Do I have to complete an annual review form if I enrolled this calendar year?

If your candidature commenced this calendar year, you do not need to complete an annual review.

Do I have to complete the annual review if I have another milestone due around the same time?

For some students the major review and annual review of progress will fall quite close together.  It is still important to complete both reviews as they serve different purposes.  Note that you can use the same progress summary for both.

The key purpose of the major review is to assess that your candidature is viable, that you are working at the required level for the degree and that your project can be completed within the allowed timeframe for the degree.  Whilst the annual review also involves an assessment of your progress, it additionally provides an opportunity to discuss and document any impediments to progress that have occurred and to plan your research and professional development plans for the next 12-month period.

Documented delays to progress that have occurred for reasons beyond your control e.g. inability to access resources, equipment failure or supervisor changes which impact on the direction of the project will be taken into consideration for any future scholarship extension application.

Furthermore, key information required for statutory Government reporting is only captured on the annual review form.

Do I have to complete the annual review if I plan to submit in November?

The due date for the annual review is 31 st October for all students. Whilst you can apply for a one month extension to the annual review deadline with the approval of your supervisors, if you are active in candidature when your annual review of progress is due, you will need to complete it. 

Please bear in mind that planned submission dates do sometimes get pushed out.

Where can I check if I have to complete an annual review this year?

You can login to  MyAdelaide  using your usual University login details to view all of your academic milestones and their due dates. Simply select ‘Research Candidature’ from the left hand side menu bar and ‘view all milestones’ within the ‘Upcoming Milestone’ box.

Your current supervisor, research and project details are also viewable in MyAdelaide .

The supervisor(s) listed on my annual review are incorrect and I have applied for a change. How will I know if my change of supervisor(s) has been processed?

The Adelaide Graduate Research School receives many requests to amend supervisor details ahead of Annual Review completion each year. Please be patient!  When a requested change has been processed, you will be emailed a confirmation of the revised details by the Adelaide Graduate Research School and you can then commence your annual review.

Your revised supervisor details will be reflected both in your annual review form and in MyAdelaide .

Where can I find details of my CaRST progress?

Your CaRST Progress Summary is available in the CaRST Online system.  After logging in, navigate to the ‘Review’ page, then click the ‘Generate PDF’ button and save as PDF.

The Progress Summary provides comprehensive information on your CaRST progress including how many CaRST credits you have completed in total and across all the CaRST domains, an assessment of whether your progress is acceptable relative to the requirements for your degree and a list of all the activities you have completed/lodged for approval to date.

I am having problems with my supervisor(s) but I don’t feel comfortable raising them on the annual review form, or within my discipline. What should I do?

Once your online annual review has been signed off by your supervisors and postgraduate coordinator/head of school, it will be returned to you for final review and submission. Prior to submitting the online form, you will have the opportunity to raise problems by attaching a confidential written report for the attention of the Dean of Graduate Studies.

Note that at any time, you can talk about problems you are having with the education welfare officers (EWOs); the EWOs are independent advocates who can provide you with confidential advice and assistance in dealing with complaints and grievances (telephone 8313 5430 or email [email protected] ).

Student life counselling support is available to all enrolled students seeking to address issues that may be affecting their study and life; the service is free and confidential.

Will I still be re-enrolled for next year if I am in bad financial standing with the University?

If you owe money to the University e.g. for tuition fees or library fines, your re-enrolment may be jeopardised. The Adelaide Graduate Research School will contact you separately if this is the case. You are strongly advised to settle any debts or enter into a payment plan with the University by 31 October. Also note that students will not be permitted to graduate from the University or to receive an official academic transcript until all monies owing have been paid.

I am not able to complete my annual review form by 31 October. What should I do?

If, for reasons beyond your control, you are unable to complete the annual review by the due date, you should request that your principal supervisor email the Adelaide Graduate Research School to request an extension on your behalf. The reasons for the extension and the length of the extension, normally one month, must be specified.

My principal supervisor is on leave when my annual review is due and will be unable to approve my annual review form. What should I do?

The 31 October is the last date for submission of the annual review; if your supervisor has leave plans, we recommend that you plan to complete and submit your review earlier. 

In extenuating circumstances, an extension to the deadline of up to one month may be permitted.

Note that if your principal supervisor will be absent for a period in excess of one month, a new principal supervisor should be appointed by completion of a change of supervisor form  (if this is a temporary change, another form may be completed to reinstate the original panel following return of the original supervisor from leave).  Once the change has been processed, your new supervisor will be authorised to complete your annual review assessment on behalf of the supervisory panel.

Do my Co/External Supervisor(s) need to record an assessment in my Annual Review form?

No,  your Principal Supervisor will record an assessment of your progress in consultation with and on behalf of your full supervisory panel.  This is a change from previous years, where Co/External Supervisors were required to enter an assessment in the Annual Review form.  Your Co and External Supervisors are still able to login to the Annual Review system to view your form.

You together with all members of your supervisory panel will receive a PDF copy of the completed Annual Review form for your records following processing by the AGRS.

What happens if my annual review form is submitted after the due date?

If your annual review form arrives late and you have not organised an extension with the Adelaide Graduate Research School your candidature and any scholarship payments may be suspended.

What happens if my candidature is suspended?

Suspension means that you are no longer enrolled as a student. If your candidature is suspended you will not be entitled to any of the rights and privileges associated with an active candidature, including supervision, insurance, access to libraries, laboratories and other University buildings and access to University computer facilities. If you are a scholarship holder, your payments will be suspended. A record of the suspension will be placed on your academic transcript and you will not be permitted to submit your thesis for examination.

How can I arrange to have my candidature reinstated if I am suspended?

To reinstate a suspended candidature and any scholarship payments, you will need to lodge your completed annual review form (within twelve months of the suspension date) and pay any fees due. Please note that any scholarship payments you would have received during the period of suspension had you been an active candidate are forfeit.

I have been on leave of absence since I completed my last annual Review. Do I still need to complete an annual review this year?

Yes. Even if you have made no progress towards your degree for twelve months, the annual review provides an opportunity for you to confirm your intention to return to study and the planned timeframe for the completion of your thesis with your supervisors. If you do not complete the annual review by the due date, it will be assumed that you do not intend to continue with your research program and your candidature will be suspended.

An Annual Review Information and Q&A Session was held on 30 August  2023.  Please see below for recording.

September Session

With the Annual Review 2022 due date approaching the AGRS invites you to join a Q&A session on how to complete your Annual Review on Tuesday 21 st September from 11:30am-12:30pm. There will be an update on changes to this year’s form as well as an opportunity for you to ask general questions about the process and how to complete the form.

We strongly recommend logging into MyAdelaide to review your candidature details (milestone due dates and supervision panel) prior to completing the Annual Review form. If you have any concerns about the information listed please contact [email protected] .  

October Session

With the Annual Review 2022 due date approaching the AGRS invites you to join a Q&A session on how to complete your Annual Review on Tuesday 18 th October from 11:30am-12:30pm. There will be an update on changes to this year’s form as well as an opportunity for you to ask general questions about the process and how to complete the form.

Login to the Annual Review of Progress

• Current Students
• News & Press
• Register as a student
• Student Portal
• Applying for a Student Visa
• Your Responsibilities
• INTO Newcastle Students
• Undergraduate Students
• Postgraduate Taught Students
• Postgraduate Research Students
• Change of Circumstances
• Standard Visitor Visa
• Your Visa and Right to Study
• Academic Technology Approval Scheme (ATAS)
• Bringing your Family to the UK
• Travelling Outside of the UK
• Lost/stolen passport, visa and BRP
• Graduate Route
• Working in the UK after your studies
• EU, Swiss and non-EU EEA students
• Register with the Police
• Access External Visa Advice
• Guide to your Visa
• Registration
• Learning agreement
• Faculty Research Training
• Project Approval
• Meeting Records
• Attendance Engagement
• Annual Progression Review
• Examination
• Council Tax
• Publications and Regulations
• Forms and Policies
• Covid-19 Mitigations
• Doctoral College
• Personal Extenuating Circumstances (PEC)
• Regulations
• Student Procedures
• Student Charter

The Code of Practice requires all postgraduate research (PGR) students to undergo a formal review of their progress on an annual basis, known as an Annual Progress Review (APR).

• Newcastle University
• Student Progress
• Guidance for PGR Students
• Key Activities

The APR assesses your progress against the research proposal and plan that was submitted as part of the Project Approval process.

The first APR should take place approximately 9 months after your initial registration.  Thereafter the APRs should take place every 12 months.  The School/Institute is responsible for determining the date of the APR Panel and communicating it to you and the Panel members.

APR Process

The Annual Progress Review involves the following stages:

The APR requires you to complete a form in the PGR CoP system which prompts you to reflect on the progress made in relation to various areas of your research.  This includes commenting on whether or not ethical approval has been obtained, the frequency of supervisory meetings, whether training needs have been identified and addressed, and the progress made in relation to the project plan.  You are also asked to upload documents to provide evidence of your progress.  These documents can include the submission of a piece of work or evidence of the research training undertaken.

If you have a Data Management Plan (DMP) you will be asked if you have reviewed this. The DMP is intended to be a living document in which a project’s approach to the management and sharing of data becomes more detailed over time and significant changes are included. This is especially relevant for PGRs whose skills and understanding of the research process will develop rapidly over the course of the project. Further information on DMPs and guidance .

If your progress has been impacted in any way by the Covid-19 pandemic, you should provide details of this impact in your APR report. Please also be aware of the PGR Covid-19 mitigations that the University has in place to support students . 

You can choose to make your form visible to your supervisor(s), but if you prefer not to do this, the form will be visible only to the APR Panel, the Head of School and the Dean of Postgraduate Studies (or their nominees).

Supervisors are required to complete a form in the PGR CoP system to provide their view of your progress.  Supervisors are asked to identify any risks that may affect your progress and to confirm that the required number of supervisory meetings have taken place.  They are also asked to comment on training needs and, for non-native speakers, English Language competency. 

Forms completed by the supervisors cannot be hidden from their students.

The forms submitted by you and your supervisors are considered by an independent review panel, the membership of which should be the same (or equivalent) to the panel that reviewed and approved the research project as part of the Project Approval process.  The Panel reviews the completed forms and documents, but may also ask you to attend a meeting to deliver a presentation on your research or undergo a viva or interview. 

After considering the evidence, the Panel prepares a written report and determines whether the research project will meet the standards for the award.  The following recomendations are available to the Panel:

• Performance is satisfactory and the student can proceed to the next stage;
• Overall performance is satisfactory and the student can proceed to the next stage, despite some concerns;
• Performance is unsatisfactory and a further assessment should be held within two months to determine whether progress on the programme will be recommended;
• Performance is unsatisfactory and that the student should be transferred from a PhD to an MPhil;
• Performance is unsatisfactory and the student’s candidature should be terminated.

The exact wording of the outcomes of the progression panel, can be found in the  Doctor of Philosophy Degree Progress Regulations  (Section J, sub-section 21).

If the Panel chooses the third option, it must also set out what you and your supervisory team must do to put the research project back on track prior to a reassessment

The Head of School (or nominee) is invited to review and comment on the reports submitted by you, your supervisor and the APR panel before submitting the form for approval by the Dean of Postgraduate Studies.

After reviewing the forms, the Dean of Postgraduate Studies (or nominee) can choose to endorse the recommendation made by the Panel or refer it back if they feel insufficient information has been provided to assist you.  The Dean must approve the Panel’s recommendation before the forms can be viewed by you and your supervisor(s).

Notification of outcome

If your progress is confirmed as being satisfactory (recommendations 1 & 2) then you will receive an automated email advising you of this from the PGR Code of Practice System once the Panel’s recommendation has been signed off by the Dean. In the case of all other recommendations, you will be notified via an email sent by your Graduate School.  In all cases your supervisors will be notified and you will be able to login to view the full comments in the PGR Code of Practice system.

Reassessment arrangements

In the case of a recommendation of unsatisfactory performance (recommendation 3) then a date will be set by your School/Institute for a further panel to take place.  You should work with your supervisors to address the requirements set out in the Panel’s report and, at the appropriate time, complete a new APR submission in the PGR CoP system. The APR Panel may request to meet with you again to consider whether progress has been such that the research project will now meet the standards for the award. Where the evidence demonstrates this, the Panel will recommend that you continue your studies or, alternatively:

• If the Panel is not satisfied that supervisory arrangements are adequate and appropriate, but considers that you would otherwise be able to achieve the standards of the award, it may recommend that all or part of your supervisory team should be replaced;
• If the Panel is satisfied that supervisory arrangements are adequate and appropriate but that you are unlikely to be able to achieve the standards for the award, it may recommend that you are registered for a lower degree where you are likely to be able to achieve the standards or, if you cannot meet the standards for those awards, that your registration is terminated.

On-going monitoring of progression

Throughout your degree your supervisors will monitor your progress to ensure you remain on course to achieve your project plan. If, however, your supervisors identify any concerns, they will inform you in writing and invite you to a meeting to discuss this. At this meeting your supervisors may request that you complete some additional work by an agreed date.  If your progress is still considered to be unsatisfactory, then you will be informed in writing that a referral will be made to the APR Panel.

Annual Review and Evaluation Procedures

• Graduate Programs
• Programs Guide

Annual Review

The progress of Ph.D. students is reviewed early in the program of study and on a regular annual basis thereafter. Each year near the beginning of Semester II, the Graduate Committee of Brown Engineering meets and reviews the academic progress of each of the Division's graduate students. Prior to this Annual Review, the group graduate representatives will solicit input from individual advisors on the status of each continuing student. The result of the Graduate Committee's review will be communicated to each student in writing. The individual research groups may supplement the Annual Review with their own internal procedures (progress seminars, reports, etc.) and students should consult the graduate representative in their group for details. For students with poor performance in coursework or research, the advisor or group graduate representative can at any time request a decision from the graduate committee on whether the student will be allowed to continue. The graduate committee will make a recommendation based on the students transcripts and advisor's report on research progress, if any.  

Evaluation Procedures

Each year during the first weeks of Semester II, the Graduate Committee of Brown Engineering will meet and review the academic progress of each of the School's graduate students. Particular attention will be paid to Sc.M. candidates for May graduation and to students at all levels experiencing academic difficulties. Prior to the Annual Review, the group graduate representatives will solicit input from individual advisors on the status of each continuing student. The result of the Graduate Committee's review will be communicated to each student in writing. For students with poor performance in coursework, teaching assignments, or research, the advisor or group graduate representative can request a decision from the graduate committee on whether the student will be allowed to continue. The graduate committee will reach a decision based on the students transcripts and advisor's report on research progress, if any. For students who have completed the Preliminary Examination, dismissal will require evidence of chronic poor performance as an R.A., or a prolonged period of insufficient progress toward the thesis. Poor R.A. performance or lack of progress toward the thesis should be documented by a memo written by the advisor and given to the student and Graduate Committee as soon as the situation arises. If the student continues to make poor progress for one semester, a decision on continuation may then be requested from the Graduate Committee. The individual research groups may supplement the Annual Review with their own internal procedures (progress seminars, reports, etc.) and students should consult the graduate representative in their group for details.

Search suggestions update instantly to match the search query.

Annual review for PGR students

Your annual review

All you need to know

Annual Review assessment for MPhil, PhD and MD Postgraduate Research Students

The purpose of the Annual Review is to provide an opportunity for independent formal monitoring and to review your progress.

Jump to the forms

All postgraduate research students must have a review in every year that they are registered. The only students who are exempt from completing a review are those that have already submitted their thesis for examination or are on an approved period of interruption. If you are on an approved period of interruption, you will be expected to complete an Annual Review on your return to study. The date of this will be confirmed by the Research Section.

You and your supervisory team will be sent a formal notification from the generic email [email protected] around 3 months before the documentation/evidence submission deadline.

• Postgraduate research students registered in October must submit documentation by 30 September
• Postgraduate research students registered in February must submit documentation by 31 January
• Postgraduate research students registered in April must submit documentation by 31 March

If, exceptionally, a non-standard start date has been approved by the Academic Registrar, an alternative deadline for submission may be applicable and will be confirmed by the Research Section.

Please see the Flowchart for Annual Review  for an overview of the process.

Annual Review Meeting

Annual Reviews will be undertaken by a panel of at least two members of academic staff, one of whom will be independent of the supervisory team. Once the documentation/evidence has been submitted to [email protected] it will be sent to the approved panel before the Annual Review Meeting takes place.

At the review meeting, the panel can decide that:

• you can progress;
• you can progress with recommendations;
• or the panel may decide that at this time there is insufficient evidence and a Final Review Meeting is required.

Annual Review Documentation/Evidence

The minimum evidence expected to be submitted to [email protected] by each postgraduate research student is the completed UPR8A form , a copy of your Development Summary printout from Skills Forge (or details provided within the presentation slides) and either your presentation slides or an electronic copy of your poster (depending on your Faculty/department).

Alongside this the First Supervisor will liaise with the supervisory team to complete and submit to [email protected] a completed UPR8B form .

Both these are completed independently by you (UPR8A) and your First Supervisor/Supervisory team (UPR8B).

Depending on your Faculty/Department, other evidence may be required for consideration such as:

• a presentation;
• draft sections of the thesis;
• a thesis outline or publications.

Arrangements for the Annual Review are agreed by the relevant Faculty Research Degrees Committee (FRDC). Please see the Faculty/Department Annual Review Arrangements below for further details regarding the evidence required.

If you are unsure about the arrangements required please speak to your First Supervisor, a member of your supervisory team or your Departmental Research Degree Coordinator. Alternatively, please email [email protected] .

The UPR11 Decision Form

The UPR11 - Annual Review Decision Form will be sent to the reviewers from [email protected] along with a complete set of documents once the student and supervisory team have submitted. The UPR11 should be signed by all reviewers and returned to [email protected] shortly after the review.

Documents and forms

• Annual Review Arrangements confirmed by Faculty Research Degrees Committees  (Docstore)
• Flowchart for Annual Review (understanding the process) (Docstore)
• Understanding Major and Annual Review - Supervisor Workshop Presentation Slides  (Docstore)
• Annual Review Guidance for Students and Supervisors  (Docstore)
• Guidance for Reviewers  (Docstore)
• Sample Presentation  (PDF)
• Sample Presentation (PowerPoint)
• UPR8A - Annual Progress Review - Student Form  (.docx)
• UPR8B - Annual Progress Review - Supervisor Form  (.docx)
• UPR8B - Guidance for completion  (PDF)
• UPR11 - Annual Review Decision Form  (.docx)

PhDLife Blog

Sharing PhD experiences across the University of Warwick and beyond

So here comes the annual review

The annual review happens usually at the end of 2nd year of our PhD study or in some cases, at the end of the 3rd year. This review serves for two purposes: to ensure you are progressing as planned, and as an opportunity to gather feedback and guidance on your work. In this week’s blog, Ivy shares her experiences and tips.

By Ivy Zhuo.

Generally, at the time of the annual review, the PhD candidate is finishing data collection planning to start writing the thesis. This is particularly the case with PhD students of social sciences. Usually, the upgrade panel at the end of the first year is focused on approving the proposed research; with the second annual review being around reviewing data collected in preparation of writing the thesis.

What does an annual review look like?

Unlike the uniformed upgrade panel, which consists of two reviewers and one PhD candidate, the annual review could be of more diverse forms to serve the specific needs of the PhD candidate. The most common form of an annual review is nevertheless in the same format as the upgrade panel. An innovative form could be for two PhD candidates to share their annual review sessions. For example, two PhD friends of mine, one at the end of 2nd year, with the data ready for thesis writing and the other at the end of 3rd year, in the middle of thesis writing, were suggested to have a joint annual review, since they share the similar research topics and could benefit from the discussion on each other’s project.

What happens in the annual review?

During the annual review, the candidate will first give a presentation about the project, the data collected, the methods for analysing, and the tentative structure for writing up the thesis. The presentation usually ends with the candidate’s concerns, or concrete questions for the reviewers to address. In some cases, the candidate might also turn in some writings before the review, then the review would probably start directly with the discussion.

Usually, the reviewers would give some comments when the presentation is over, particularly if there are something in the presentation that the reviewers fail to understand. Then the discussion is centres on the candidate’s concerns.

How can I prepare for the annual review?

It is common that we usually get so nervous before the big event and the annual review is kind of that, another milestone in our PhD. However, the first tip, just like what I mentioned in my blog about the upgrade panel , is to have a positive and calm mindset. The annual review is there mainly to support us rather than challenge us, although it could be interpreted as a challenge in some way. But this challenge is well-intended, and we need to be clear about what kind of help we might need to proceed with our thesis. Our reviewers and supervisors only want what’s best for us, and for us to succeed in our research.

The second tip is to follow the instructions for preparation, either as described in the departmental handbook or advised by the supervisor. Both are for us to have clear guidelines about what is supposed to happen, what we should prepare for, how we are supposed to behave and what benefits we may get from it. To make sure we are doing the right thing, it would also be helpful to check with our PhD friends, who have recently finished this review.

Hope the above tips help. Good luck with your annual review!

What’s your way of preparing for presentations of your research? Do you think the above tips (would) help? Tweet us  @researchex , message us on Instagram  @warwicklibrary , or email us at libraryblogs @warwick.ac.uk

If you’d like to find out more, why not take a look at our blogs on five top tips for upgrade success or how to ace your viva.

Want the latest PhD Life blogs direct to your inbox? Subscribe below.

Type your email…

Share this:

Comments are closed.

Want the latest PhD Life posts direct to your inbox? Subscribe below.

Blog at WordPress.com.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar