Guidelines
For Research Higher Degree Candidates (PhD & MPhil)
in the Sustainable Minerals Institute
ATTAINMENT OF THESIS REVIEW MILESTONE (PhD & MPhil) – GUIDELINES
1.
Overview
One of the advantages of completing your RHD at UQ is knowing that you will be supported every step
of the way. The University’s milestone process ensures that you keep on track and have access to
feedback and guidance throughout your degree. The Milestone Policy is a three stage process designed
to enable you to articulate your research to your colleagues and peers and successfully complete your
studies within 3 and ½ years (PhD) or 2 years (MPhil). Each milestone is scheduled at equal points
throughout your program.
Milestone
Thesis Review
MPhil
18 months
PhD
36 months
Do you have a Thesis? This milestone will give you the opportunity to answer this question. By this stage
you should have the majority of your thesis written. Your peers will be available to provide you with
direction and guidance in the final stages of your project. Comment will be made on the content and
structure of your thesis. You will receive suggestions on how to make it ready for submission.
The thesis review milestone occurs 12 months after the attainment of the Mid-Candidature review for
PhD, and 6 months after the attainment of the Mid-Candidature review for MPhil candidates, and no
later than three months full-time equivalent (FTE) for both PhD and MPhil candidates before the
expected submission date of the thesis. Success at this milestone demonstrates the completion of their
research project and their readiness to finish their thesis writing and to submit their thesis for
assessment.
The thesis review:






enables the school/institute to determine collectively that the work should be ready for
assessment by the expected date;
allows any differences of opinion among the candidate and the advisory team about the
readiness of the thesis for assessment to be aired and settled collegially;
assures the candidate and advisory team of the scope, originality and quality of the thesis;
identifies any major concerns that need attention before submission;
provides a forum for discussing the mix of disciplinary knowledge required among the thesis
assessors to review the breadth of work contained within the thesis; and
enables the candidate and the advisors to express any reservations or concerns about having
any particular individual act as an assessor.
In addition to matters normally covered by feedback and recommendation documents, the thesis review
feedback attests to the quality and scope of the research, details decisions reached about the mix of
thesis assessors, records reservations about particular individuals, and states the expected thesis
submission date.
Thesis Review Guidelines November 2012
Page 1 of 7
Assessment of attainment of this milestone is made on the basis of evidence including:
1. Written component completed by the candidate,
This includes summary information about the thesis, including the thesis title, the thesis preliminary
pages; and a full draft of the thesis. The quantity of final draft material required for this assessment is
determined by the school/institute so that it is appropriate to the candidate's thesis format and field of
research.
2. Seminar completed by the candidate,
This demonstrates that the candidate is developing their ability to communicate their research to a
wider audience. It provides them with the opportunity to receive constructive feedback on their
research project and their verbal presentation skills from outside the advisory team.
3. Interview/dialogue with the candidate.
This provides an opportunity to:







practice interviewing, verbal briefings and team skills,
assess the candidate's expert knowledge of their research area,
assess the clarity and progression of the structure of the thesis,
assess the quality of the academic writing contained in the thesis,
assess the appropriateness of the draft abstract in describing the content of the thesis to
potential thesis examiners,
discuss the mix of disciplinary knowledge required among the thesis assessors to review the
breadth of work contained within the thesis, and
see if the candidate or the advisors have any reservations or concerns about any particular
individual acting as a thesis assessor.
Each recommendation that a milestone has or has not been achieved is a collective decision reached by
a group of Institute representatives on the basis of evidence provided by the candidate and advice
provided by the advisory team.
Extension of Milestone: If the candidate is not yet ready to undergo the Thesis Review within 1 month
of the due date, the candidate may request an extension of a milestone due date of 3 months FTE on
the reasons stated on the Attainment of milestone or extension for attainment of milestone form.
Under normal circumstances, only one such extension is possible.
Further information on milestones is available on the UQ Graduate School website:
http://www.uq.edu.au/grad-school/milestones and in the University’s Policies and Procedures Library:
https://ppl.app.uq.edu.au/content/4.60.05-research-higher-degree-candidature-progression-anddevelopment.
2.
Responsibilities & Administration
2.1. Postgraduate Coordinator
As the Institute Director’s delegate, the SMI Postgraduate Coordinator has the formal responsibility for
making recommendations to the Dean, UQ Graduate School, about the candidate’s progress towards
Thesis Review Guidelines November 2012
Page 2 of 7
and/or achievement of milestones. Therefore, at a minimum the Postgraduate Coordinator and the
advisory team must be involved in the decision-making around each milestone.
It is a common practice for the Postgraduate Coordinator to delegate to another staff member the
responsibility of participating with the advisory team in reviewing the candidate’s progress towards
achieving each milestone, particularly in those cases where the Postgraduate Coordinator’s disciplinary
background is not closely aligned to the candidate’s project. In such cases, the Postgraduate
Coordinator continues to carry out their role as the Institute decision-maker who acts on the
recommendation of those who participate in the components. It is therefore important that the
Postgraduate Coordinator receives appropriately detailed feedback that guides them in making their
recommendation to the Dean, UQ Graduate School.
2.2. Postgraduate Research Administration Officer
The postgraduate research administration officer, at approximately six to eight weeks prior to the
candidate’s Thesis Review due date will notify the candidate and advisory team via email of the
milestone due date and provide a link to the necessary guidelines and forms.
 The postgraduate administration officer will send out the seminar notice.
 On completion of the milestone, the postgraduate administration officer will email a copy of the
Feedback Form to the student and principal advisor.
2.3. Candidate
To assist the review committee, candidates are requested to provide their draft thesis to the review
committee at least four weeks prior to the review.
The candidate should complete the candidate form and health & safety form and bring these, together
with a printed copy of the Feedback & advice form and Milestone attainment form, to the review.
The candidate should email an abstract at least four weeks prior to the review to the Postgraduate
Administration Officer for a seminar notice to be circulated to all SMI staff and candidates.
2.4. Principal Advisor
The Principal Advisor, in consultation with the candidate, is responsible for nominating/organising the:
 composition of review committee
 date/time/venue for review and seminar at a time suitable for both the review committee and the
candidate
 The advisory team, in consultation with the candidate, should nominate 3 to 4 examiners for the
examination of the thesis. These names should be included in the thesis review form before the
milestone. Please ensure that there are no potential conflict of interest issues that would prevent
one of the nominated persons from examining the thesis. For more information, refer to the UQ
Graduate School website http://www.uq.edu.au/grad-school/conflict-of-interest and the
University’s Guidelines on Conflict of Interest.
 When the seminar and review dates/times/venues have been organised (the candidate may be
asked to assist) and particulars of the review committee are known, the Principal Advisor or
Candidate is requested to email [email protected] with these arrangements.
Thesis Review Guidelines November 2012
Page 3 of 7
2.5. Committee Chair
The chair of the committee manages the milestone review and leads the interview/dialogue. They
facilitate discussion between the members of the review committee and the candidate. On completion
of the review, the chair returns the forms to the Postgraduate Office.
3.
General Guidelines
3.1. Written component
The rationale for the written component is to demonstrate to the committee that the candidate is clear
about the objective of the project, that he/she has read, understood and critically reviewed previous work
on this topic. It is intended that the work prepared will form part of his/her final thesis and so this should
not be regarded as an additional task, rather an opportunity to raise concerns on the finalisation of the
thesis for submission.
The following aspects should be covered in the written component of the milestone review:
 All drafted chapters
 Abstract of the thesis
 Updated statement of originality including contributions to knowledge
 Updated draft statement of sustainability outcomes/contribution
 Plan to completion
3.2. Seminar presentation
The candidate will be expected to give a public presentation to an appropriate group of disciplinary
peers for the purpose of receiving expert and constructive advice about the project, its scope and
feasibility and the appropriateness of the theoretical approach, methodology and/or experimental
design. This will put the research topic in context, outline progress to-date and indicate a plan for
completion.
Where presenting to an open audience is not possible because of confidentiality or intellectual property
restrictions, the candidate should still present to as broad an audience as possible. If there are
significant IP issues, then the use of Confidentiality Agreements for the participants may be appropriate.
This presentation is described as the “thesis presentation” seminar.
3.3. Interview/dialogue
It is expected that a number of issues that may affect the candidate’s studies will be raised by the
committee for discussion. This is also an opportunity for the candidate to raise any concerns and issues
with regard to his/her studies. Following discussions, the review committee will make
recommendations about the candidature. The following will be discussed:
 the human, financial and physical resources needed to bring the project to a timely and satisfactory
completion
 the appropriateness of using a particular thesis format option
Thesis Review Guidelines November 2012
Page 4 of 7

discussion of examiners and chair of examiners for the examination of the thesis
It is expected that a number of issues that may affect the candidate’s submission by the due date will be
raised by the committee for discussion. This is also an opportunity for the candidate to raise any
concerns and issues with regard to his/her submission. Following discussions, the committee will make
recommendations on whether the thesis is ready/not ready for submission by the expected date.
3.4. Review Committee
The previous review committee should be reconvened if possible, and the review committee should
consist of:
 Chair: the Chair should be a suitably qualified person from an SMI Centre not associated with the
candidate and advisory team, and ideally from a different Centre to the candidate.
 Advisors
 Independent person: this is usually a suitably qualified representative from an appropriate external
(to the SMI Centre or UQ) organisation who is not a member of the advisory team and who has
expertise in the general area of the thesis project. If a suitable independent person from outside
the SMI Centre cannot be found, then a SMI staff member who is not a member of the advisory
team and who has expertise in the general area of the thesis project can act as the ‘independent
person’.
 Candidate representative: a representative candidate member is optional
4.
Agenda
The following agenda, which is led by the chair of the review, allows for an open and honest exchange
and the opportunity to review:
 Public Seminar (up to 45 minutes)
 Questions from peers and colleagues (15 minutes)
 Discussions with the whole review committee – Feedback and comments from the candidate,
advisor(s) and chair
 Discussions between the candidate and chair in the absence of the advisory team
 Discussion of the review committee in absence of the candidate
 Feedback to the candidate by the chair
 Feedback forms completed and signed
5.
Forms

Attainment/Extension of Milestone form (To be completed by the Committee Chair)
This form is completed at the review seminar and notes that the candidate has either
attained their milestone, or that an extension is requested.

Confirmation of Candidature Feedback and Advice form (To be completed by the
Committee Chair)
As part of the feedback given to the candidate about their performance and progress,
the UQ Graduate School requires a written account of each candidate’s Confirmation
Thesis Review Guidelines November 2012
Page 5 of 7
of Candidature review. This form capture the responses that will enable all concerned
to demonstrate whether progress is being/not being met and an action plan has been
developed to ensure progress to be reviewed at the mid-candidature milestone.
6.

Candidate form (To be completed by the Candidate)
This form is completed by the candidate prior to the milestone review and provides
information from the candidate on their progress. It will assist advisors in making
recommendations to the candidate.

Health and Safety Form (To be completed by the Candidate)
This form is completed by the candidate prior to the milestone review and provides
information on health and safety training and risk assessments completed by the
candidate. At the review, the committee will advise whether any further training
should be completed.
Closing
On conclusion of the review process the review chair, together with the advisor(s), should summarise
the strengths, achievements and developmental needs of the candidate, decisions made about
resources, scope and overall direction of the project and offer suggestions towards the successful
completion of candidature. This summary is noted on the following forms:
 SMI Thesis Review Feedback and Advice form
 To formalise the milestone, the principal advisor, candidate and Postgraduate Coordinator sign the
UQ Grad School Attainment/Extension of Milestone form.
All forms are to be submitted to the Postgraduate Administration Officer immediately following the
review.
In the event that the candidate does not agree with the committee’s assessment, if there are major
differences remaining regarding any aspect of the project, and/or major resource questions need to be
addressed, then these matters should be addressed to the Postgraduate Coordinator (Dr Suzanne
Morris: [email protected]) for resolution as soon as possible.
The Candidate, Advisors, Postgraduate Coordinator and the Postgraduate Office will be contacted by
email by the UQ Graduate School on the approval of the Thesis Review.
Thesis Review Guidelines November 2012
Page 6 of 7
Plagiarism*
ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR CONFIRMATION (PROPOSAL AND PAPERS) ARE CONSIDERED AS
“ASSESSMENT ITEMS.”ANY EVIDENCE OF PLAGIARISM WILL BE HANDLED ACCORDING TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND’S PLAGIARISM POLICY.
All students are required to include a declaration of originality on the title page of the confirmation
proposal and research papers.
Any suspected cases of plagiarism in assessment items for this course will be dealt with in accordance to
University Policy as described at:
http://ppl.app.uq.edu.au/content/3.60.04-student-integrity-and-misconduct
The following are relevant excerpts from the policy:
“Plagiarism is the action or practice of taking and using as one’s own the thoughts or writings of
another, without acknowledgment. The following practices constitute acts of plagiarism and are a major
infringement of the University’s academic values:



Where paragraphs, sentences, a single sentence or significant parts of a sentence are copied
directly, and are not enclosed in quotation marks and appropriately footnoted;
Where direct quotations are not used, but are paraphrased or summarised, and the source of the
material is not acknowledged either by footnoting or other simple reference within the text of the
paper; and
Where an idea which appears elsewhere in printed, electronic or audio-visual material is used or
developed without reference being made to the author or the source of that material."
Students should be aware that the University will not hesitate to use the procedures available under the
University of Queensland Statute No. 4 (Student Discipline and Misconduct) 1999 to investigate
suspected misconduct involving plagiarism. The Statute and the University policy "Procedures for
Dealing with Student Discipline and Misconduct Matters" (HUPP 3.60.1) provide the necessary
framework for taking action.
*Source: The University of Queensland, School of Geography, Planning & Environmental Management –
PhD & MPhil Confirmation Process – February 2009
Thesis Review Guidelines November 2012
Page 7 of 7