Progress and reviews

The length of your programme has been communicated to you in programme your offer letter. 

The standard lengths of programmes are as follows:

Programme	Full-time	Part-time
PhD	3 years	6 years
PhD	3.5 years	7 years
PhD	4 years	8 years
MPhil	1 year	2 years

It is expected that you will complete your PhD within the standard length of the programme. However, the university recognises that it may sometimes not be possible for PGR students to submit their thesis by the programme’s official end date. You may therefore be eligible to apply to extend your programme’s official end date (and pay fees pro-rata) or enter a period of 'submission pending' (which incurs a submission pending fee) for the sole purpose of writing up the thesis. Please refer to the Faculty Guiding Principles for the Submission Pending Period.

The mid-year review is an interim review to discuss any issues, to prepare for the Annual Review, and can in cases of poor progress be used to determine progress.

It will be held by the end of month four of each academic session.

Requirements

Details of the requirements of the review are contained within the mid-year review milestone in eProg.

• eProg

You need to complete the mid-year review form with your supervisory team by the deadline given in the system.  You will meet with both your supervisors to discuss the comments made and to discuss plans for onward progression to ensure timely completion of the thesis.

Find out more

Please note that the format and organisation of the meeting may vary between divisions and departments.  Your Doctoral Programmes Administrator will provide specific details if special arrangements are to be made for your mid-year review.

• Contact us

Introduction to the Annual Review

Towards the end of each academic year, all postgraduate researchers (PGR) are required to undergo an annual progress review.  PGRs must undertake these reviews to determine whether registration onto the next year of study should be permitted. 

Timing

Annual reviews should take place no later than the end of month 9 from the start of the programme and annually thereafter. For PGRs who commence their studies in September, annual reviews will take place in June. Annual review milestone due dates are displayed in eProg Progression record.  Maintaining this timescale enables you to receive feedback that supports their forward planning for the next year and/or allows them time to revise and re-submit their work for a re-assessment if this is deemed necessary and register for the next academic session when progression is approved.

Format

Annual reviews may take place in-person on campus or remotely via online video call.

You are required to submit written work in advance of the review. The details of this will depend on your programme, year of study, and department/division/discipline area.  Please refer to the locally-issued guidance on the requirements of this written element. 

You are expected to submit work for discussion as well as a plan for the coming year that indicates the relationship of the work plan to the overall research strategy.

For certain department/division/discipline area, a formal presentation of the research project to the review panel may also be required.

Structure and Responsibility of the Review Panel 

The review will be conducted by a review panel which normally consists of the supervisory team and an independent reviewer (also referred to as internal assessor in eProg).  In some disciplines, other academics from your research group or discipline may also be present.

It is the responsibility of the review panel to review your progress to date and to make a decision as to whether you should progress to register for the next year of study. 

PGRs’ to-do

You should prepare your written work, thesis work plan and submit them via the annual review form in eProg no later than 7 days before the scheduled date of your review. Your review panel (supervisory team and independent reviewer) will access this from your eProg record. 

Ensure that you complete the Student Section (Part A) of the ‘Annual Review Form’ in eProg no later than 7 days before the date of your review.  When you are satisfied with your responses, click the ‘Save and Notify Supervisor’ button and this will alert your supervisory team that the form is ready for their input.

Depending on the requirements of your department/division or programme, you may be asked to prepare a presentation for your annual review based on the work that you have agreed to present. 

Supervisors’ to-do

The supervisory team should:

1. Appoint the Independent Reviewer (known as Internal Assessor in eProg) in liaison with the Departmental/Division director where relevant. Where a member of staff is appointed as an independent reviewer to review the same PGR more than once, they can no longer act as the Internal Examiner or Independent Chair of the thesis examination for that PGR.
2. Agree a date and time for the review to take place. The Humanities Doctoral Academy team will monitor the scheduling of reviews, so please inform your Doctoral Academy administrator as soon as the date and time are agreed with all parties including the PGR.
3. Schedule the review meeting – this may be conducted in-person on campus or via online video call (following appropriate security guidelines).
4. After your PGR has completed part A of the form and alerted you, the Supervisory Team must complete Part B of the Annual Review form no later than 5 days before the date of the PGR’s Review. When you are satisfied with your responses, click on the ‘Save and Notify Supervisor’ button only.  Please note: This action is for the purposes of notifying the Independent Reviewer (Internal Assessor) that the form (Part C) is ready for their input prior to the review meeting taking place and whose comments should be based on the PGR’s submitted written work and any comments made in Parts A & B of the form.

Review Panels: What do you have to do

Before the review

The Independent Reviewer (Internal Assessor) should complete part C of the Annual Review form ahead of the Review Meeting.

At the review

The Panel should have access to the PGR’s completed form (parts A-C) via eProg during the session.

Following the review

The Panel (Supervisors and Independent Reviewer) should discuss as soon as possible to finalise their decision on the progression of the student (if this is not made immediately after their presentation).  The decision should be agreed by all members of the Panel (see below if the Panel cannot reach agreement).  The Panel must then complete parts D and E of the Annual Review form and be satisfied with the completed content of these sections, culminating in one of the following actions:

• If the PGR passes the Review without need for re-submission: The Main Supervisor must click the ‘Submit’
• If the student is required to re-submit with additional work with/without a further Review Meeting:

The form must be fully completed and either ‘Submitted’ or ‘Saved’ in eProg as per the above within 3 days of the review taking place.

Where the formal review panel cannot reach agreement, a recommendation should be presented to the PGR Director for final approval. The PGR Director can approve or overrule the formal review panel decision.

Review panel’s assessment criteria

When assessing work, review panels usually consider a number of the following aspects:

• Evidence of an ability to plan and undertake a project intended to lead to a thesis for your respective programme (including resource allocation).
• Satisfactory discussion of the purpose of the investigation, originality and contribution to knowledge.
• An adequate critical discussion demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the relevant literature.
• Evidence of the specific research skills required in the area concerned and in research management and related skills.
• A clearly written and satisfactorily presented document and demonstration of an adequate ability in thesis-writing and in the use of academic English.
• Demonstration of an adequate ability to use computing and other facilities in the research area.
• An adequate outline of your intentions for the remaining years of study and progress against the plan.

The annual review is a supportive occasion to allow you to both reflect on what you have been achieved as well as make plans for the future year(s).

Re-submissions

PGRs whose progress is unsatisfactory will have the opportunity to do additional work to demonstrate that they can reach the required standard for their registered degree.  

The exact nature of the re-submission should be defined by the Review Panel. However, the work requested should aim to re-assure the panel that any deficiencies identified have been addressed. Examples include:

• Make corrections/amendments to the Written Report submitted by the PGR;
• Prepare additional work as specified;
• Make another presentation. 

If the Panel requires the student to complete additional work, details should be specified in a separate report to be uploaded to the Annual Review Form in eProg (part F). 

If a student is required to make a further presentation to the Panel in addition to re-submission of the written work, this must take place as soon as possible. The timeline for the re-submission and an additional panel review meeting (where required) is no later than 10 weeks from the first recommendation date. This is to ensure that the reviews can be concluded in time for the PGR’s re-registration to the subsequent year (or submission pending, where applicable and approved) of their programme.

The form must only be submitted once all that work (including any re-submitted work) has been considered and an overall recommendation has been agreed.  Therefore, each time changes are made to the form, the form must be saved.

Main Supervisors are responsible for submitting the fully completed form after a final decision is made on the Annual Review.

Authorising the Annual Review Form

PGR Directors (School or Discipline/Department/Division levels) are responsible for authorising annual review forms under their remit and address any concerns raised in the review.

Guidance for the Review Panels – Principles of Reviews

The University and Faculty of Humanities require that the progress of all Postgraduate Researchers is assessed annually. PGRs must satisfy the Annual Review Panel that appropriate progress has been made relevant to the stage of their studies. 

Completion of the formal Review process each year is a condition of registration for the following year. Annual Reviews should be treated as examinations in as much as if a meeting is cancelled, it will be re-scheduled at the nearest possible date. Should the PGR fail to attend or fail to submit a piece of work to be reviewed without presenting any mitigating circumstances, then the panel will record this on their file and call for a re-scheduled meeting. Where a PGR submits a piece of work that fails at the Annual Review, or does not submit the work requested, this will be recorded as a first submission.

Repeated non-attendance of scheduled formal progress review meetings, failure of a piece of work on second submission or repeated non-submission of review material without the presentation of mitigating circumstances will lead to the case being referred to the Postgraduate Research Committee for consideration and possible registration termination.

Key Features of the Annual Review

The key features of the Annual Review process are:

• Reviews take place annually for all PGRs registered on full or part-time programme
• Reviews will take place no later than the end of the first week of July.  This timing allows PGRs the appropriate time to re-submit if required and allows Panels time to conduct the re-submission review and make appropriate judgements prior to the date at which PGR are required to register for the next year of programme
• The PGR prepares a piece of written work (following local Department/Discipline requirements) and summarises their year’s progress in the Annual Review Form prior to the review and makes a formal Presentation to a Review Panel
• A Report is made on the Annual Review Form by the Review Panel, outlining the judgement and giving details of any further action required by the PGR
• The PGR may be asked to re-submit (with or without a further presentation) or undertake further work no later than up to 10 weeks after the first Annual Review attempt
• Failure of the review means that the PGR will not be allowed to continue on the programme

First year review

The first year review possesses certain characteristics which the panel should consider:

1. Written Report (and presentation where relevant) by the PGR
2. Completion of any prescribed taught assessment that is a formal condition of progression. Results will be ratified by an Exam Board and passed to the Chair of the Review Panel in advance of the Review taking place
3. Any additional academic matters (for example, evidence of academic malpractice, attendance of workshops and taught course units, attendance and participation at Research Seminars/PGR Conference in your School, late submission of assessments, unauthorised absence etc).

By considering the full range of work undertaken by PGRs during the first year (or part-time equivalent), the Review Panel should come to the conclusion whether the PGR has made progress in their research which is consistent to a standard expected after 9 months (or part-time equivalent) on the Programme.

The panel is required to make an academic judgement about a PGR’s progress.  If the Review Panel has concerns about their progress, they should use their experience to assess whether:

• Poor performance in a particular area will, for example, have a significant impact on the PGR’s ability to pursue their research in year 2.
• The PGR has failed to demonstrate the fundamental skills and knowledge which provide the platform for advanced research.

Recommendations of the Review Panel (all years)

The possible recommendations of the Review Panel (1st attempt) are:

• Review Passed:  Continue to next year of study
• Review Referred:  Further work required (a further Review Panel meeting may or may not be required)
• Review Failed: No option to submit further work.

Note on PhD Economics, PhD Accounting and Finance, PhD Business and Management and PhD Science, Technology and Innovation Policy:  For first year PhDs (and part-time equivalent), continuation to the next year of study is also subject to the ratification of course unit grades by the Exam Board.  The Board may require re-submission/re-examination of a particular piece of assessment or, in the event of a Re-Sit Board, may recommend an early exit award.

The Review Panel’s Report (all years)

The report should:

• Be a written report which is agreed by the Review Panel and is completed within 3 working days of the review.
• Be accurate, detailed and unambiguous.
• Clearly state the outcome of the review.
• Include detailed feedback to the PGR on their progress for the year to date, Review Report, Review Presentation and any other academic matters which are of specific note or concern.
• If further action is required by the PGR in order to progress to the next year, the nature of this work (e.g. re-submission of the Annual Review work, or other additional work) should be clearly stated. The report should state clearly the basis upon which any re-submission will be judged.
• Clearly state if the review panel has any concerns about the PGR’s progress and future research plan, even if the panel is recommending continuation to the next year of study.

Progression into Submission Pending

When reviewing PGRs in the final year of the programme, the review panel should also give consideration to whether a PGR has reached the point where registration for the Submission Pending period is appropriate. 

In reaching a recommendation, the review panel should consider the following:

• Does the panel expect that the thesis will be submitted by the end of the prescribed period of the Programme?
• Have the fieldwork, data collection and analysis been completed?
• Has a significant amount of high-quality writing been received by the supervisory team?
• Has the PGR provided a realistic timetable for completion of final drafting of the thesis, including details of what remains to be done?
• Is there a suitable, agreed schedule for supervision for the submission pending period?

If the panel determine that the PGR has met the criteria to progress to the submission pending period, please refer them to the Submission Pending section of the handbook to make an application.

Unsatisfactory Progress

It is the responsibility of the supervisors to indicate to a PGR at any stage if their progress is unsatisfactory and help the PGR to identify any problem areas or issues affecting their progress.  The supervisors should provide support and guidance wherever possible.  Where a PGR’s progress has been identified as unsatisfactory, supervisors should monitor and re-assess their progress at regular intervals, at least every 6 months. If progress continues to be unsatisfactory, the matter should be discussed with the supervisory team and referred to the Postgraduate Research Committee and the PGR should be informed in writing.

Support and queries

If you have any queries about the progress review process and want to speak to someone, please see our contact details in the Contact us section of the handbook.

Initial recommendations

The review panel will write a report on the review using the annual review form in eProg.  They will outline their judgement and give details of any further action required by you – for instance, you may be asked to re-submit a written report or undertake further work, with or without a further presentation. 

They will record one of the following initial recommendations regarding your future study:

• Continuation - The student has met the required doctoral standards and the recommendation is made for the student to continue registration on the doctoral degree.
• Resubmit - (remedial work) The student has almost met the required doctoral standards but further work must be done to continue registration.  Following the first attempt at a formal review, students will normally be given one opportunity to resubmit work for a formal review and will normally be given up to ten weeks after the first panel meeting to complete the remedial work and submit it to the panel for consideration.  The resubmission and review of the submitted work should, where possible, take place before the end of the student's current year of study.  
• Transfer - The student has not met the required doctoral standards and a recommendation is made for the student to be transferred from the doctoral degree to MPhil.
• Withdrawal - The student has not met the required standard for doctoral degrees or MPhil and the recommendation is made for the student’s registration to be terminated.

Final recommendations (following resubmission)

Once the Annual Review is complete, including any assessment of resubmitted work, the panel will make a formal recommendation which will determine your progression on the programme. The panel will make one of the following final recommendations: 

• Continuation - The student has met the required doctoral standards and the recommendation is made for the student to continue registration on the doctoral degree.
• Transfer - The student has not met the required doctoral standards and a recommendation is made for the student to be transferred from the doctoral degree to MPhil.
• Withdrawal - The student has not met the required standard for doctoral degrees or MPhil and the recommendation is made for the student’s registration to be terminated.

For further details of these outcomes, please refer to the Policy on the Progress and review of Postgraduate Research Students:

• Policy on the Progress and Review of Postgraduate Research Students

Appealing the outcome of an annual review

If you are not satisfied that the reviews were undertaken and recommendations were made in accordance with University regulations, you may submit a formal appeal.

• Academic Appeals (Regulation XIX)

We advise that you discuss this in the first instance with your supervisor, PGR director and / or graduate office.

Some PGR programmes or department may have specific progression requirements. Please see below for more information. 

Alliance Manchester Business School

	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3
Division of Accounting and Finance	Pilot Project/ Extended literature review/ Methodology chapter (25-35 pages)  Work plan	Chapter/ paper  Work plan in relation to research strategy	Chapter/ paper  Submission work plan in relation to research strategy
Division of Innovation, Management and Policy	Research Proposal (5,000 words)  Work plan	Research Fieldwork report (7,000 words)   Work plan in relation to research strategy	Substantial piece of written work (chapter/paper)  Submission work plan in relation to research strategy
Division of Management Science and Marketing	Research Proposal (5,000 words)  Work Plan	Substantial piece of written work (7,000 words)  Work Plan in relation to research strategy	Substantial piece of written work (chapter/paper)  Submission work plan in relation to research strategy
Division of People, Management and Organisations	Research Proposal (5,000 words)  Work plan	Substantial piece of written work (7,000 words)  Work Plan in relation to research strategy	Substantial piece of written work (chapter/paper)  Submission work plan in relation to research strategy

Doctor of Business Administration (DBA)

Year 1	1-page paper, setting out the research question, the theories that will guide the research, and the steps taken towards Literature Project and Pilot Project.
Year 2	A literature review that clearly identifies gaps in our knowledge as well as an indication of how your subsequent research will help to fill those gaps. The review should cover how topics of interest within the relevant literature have changed over time as well as provide an overview of the typical research methods that previous research has employed. The review can either be a systematic review or a more traditional review.  AND  Research Proposal, which should contain a research problem, a literature review, research methods, and an indication of the contribution to practice and the academic literature.   Please note: Your progression is subject to satisfactory completion of all assessed work from the Research Training course units, your Research Proposal report and your subsequent performance at this Annual Review.
Year 3	An academic journal-quality paper. This should have a clear research question, a justification for asking the research question, a theoretical framework for guiding the research, a justified methodology section, some results, and a discussion section.  OR   Draft chapters of your literature review and research methods.
Year 4	An academic journal-quality paper. This should have a clear research question, a justification for asking the research question, a theoretical framework for guiding the research, a justified methodology section, some results, and a discussion section.  OR  A chapter contents report, including synopsis of each chapter and stage of completion AND a draft chapter of data analysis of results/findings.
Year 5  (Applicable only for DBAs on the 5-year programme)	An introductory chapter that draws together the three papers as well as a concluding chapter that sets out the implications for management practice as well as the academic literature.  OR  A chapter contents report, including synopsis of each chapter and stage of completion, and a schedule for completing the remaining work AND one of the chapters of your thesis selected by you.   This Review will also consider if you are eligible to register for Submission Pending for the sole purpose of writing up the thesis, or if you will be required to seek an extension for purposes of concluding data collection/analysis.  Please note: a Review in year 5 may not be necessary if 1) the student will submit the thesis before the submission deadline, 2) the supervisory team thinks that a review would not benefit the student and 3) the DBA Director grants an exemption based on 1) and 2).
Submission Pending (optional)	An Annual Review in the submission pending period is only required if the supervisory team think that it will be beneficial to the student.   An introductory chapter that draws together the three papers as well as a concluding chapter that sets out the implications for management practice as well as the academic literature.  OR  A chapter contents report, including synopsis of each chapter and stage of completion, and a schedule for completing the remaining work.  This review will assess whether you are on target to submit by your deadline or if you will be required to seek an extension for purposes of finalising the thesis.

School of Environment, Education and Development

Manchester Institute of Education Professional Doctorates

• The Doctorate in Counselling Psychology handbooks
• The Doctorate in Educational and Child Psychology handbooks

PhD programmes

• SEED Progress Review guidance

Global Development Institute

• Written work should be no longer than 10,000 words. 

School of Social Sciences

Sociology

• PhD Sociology annual review guidelines

Progression milestones help you keep track of your progress. They represent each activity that you must complete to meet the programme requirements, presented with deadlines in order to help you plan your activities. They are presented in an electronic system called eProg.

What is eProg?

eProg is a University wide system that is specifically designed to help to structure and breakdown the PGR programme and monitor progress, both for supervisors and for postgraduate research students. 

It is useful to think of eProg as being split into three main functions:

1. Progression

Monitoring and recording your progression from the point of registration to the point at which you submit the Notice of Submission form.

2. Thesis submission and examination

Monitoring and recording the submission to examination process from the point at which you submit the Notice of Submission form to the point at which your final award is ratified.

Your thesis examination will be recorded in eProg.  My Examination Summary area can be found in your individual student profile and displays the status of your thesis examination stages.

3.  Researcher development training courses

You can keep a record of all training you have attended (this is also visible to your supervisors) which is useful when writing CVs or job applications.

Benefits

• It helps you to stay on track to submit your thesis on time.
• You can use eProg to track your progression and plan targets.
• You can your supervisor can view your progression history and meeting logs at any time and remotely.
• All completed milestones and forms remain in eProg and can be referred back to.
• eProg is an interactive tool for you and your supervisor and offers an online platform for you to record and track key progression milestones throughout the programme from the point of registration to examination.

Accessing eProg

You will be expected to use eProg regularly throughout your studies, and it is particularly crucial for thesis submission and recording meetings with your supervisor.

You can access eProg via My Manchester:

• eProg login

If you have completed your IT Account Activation and been given a central account, you use the username and password given to you to log into eProg.  You will have access to your eProg record whilst you are an active student.

Using eProg

Guidance to help with using eProg can be found on the Faculty of Humanities eProg Student Guide.

For guidance on how to book training courses via eProg, please see our video guide Booking onto Training Courses via eProg.

Help and support

For queries related to specific milestones on your programme, please contact the Doctoral Academy.