School of Psychology progress review guidelines

Before reading the guidelines outlined on this page, ensure you have reviewed all the information about Progress Reviews, including the criteria for each review, and the Higher Degree by Research Candidature Progression Procedure.

How to organise a Progress Review

The following guidelines outline the management and conduct of HDR Progress Reviews in the School of Psychology. These guidelines should be used in combination with the Higher Degree by Research Candidature Policy and the Higher Degree by Research Candidature Procedure. Further instructions to help you to arrange your upcoming review are available here.

Progress reviews snapshot

Progress review requirements
	Confirmation of Candidature (R1)	Review 2 (R2)	Review 3 (R3)
Candidature Documents	Candidate Statement Individual Development Plan Portfolio of Activity	Candidate Statement Individual Development Plan Portfolio of Activity	Candidate Statement Individual Development Plan Portfolio of Activity
Project Documents	Progress Review 1 document with the literature review and research outline, ethics approvals etc. Plans for disseminating your work iThenticate report	Progress Review 2 document with a summary of completed work/ draft chapter/paper HDR completion plan and outline for the proportion of the thesis to be completed by R3 Plans for disseminating your work iThenticate report	Progress Review 3 document with thesis preliminary pages, with expanded outline of thesis, and thesis draft (with the proportion completed as agreed at R2) Detailed plan for completing the thesis iThenticate report
Oral Presentation	25-minute presentation, 10- to15-minutes question time	Oral presentation (e.g. oral or poster at conference; seminar; 3MT) to be completed after R1 and before R2	Oral presentation (e.g. oral or poster at conference; seminar; 3MT) to be completed after R2 and before R3
Interview	Approximately 30- to 45-minutes	Approximately 30-minutes	Approximately 30- to 45- minutes

Note: Documents should be submitted two weeks before the date your review is scheduled. If documents are not received by this timeline, then the review will need to be re-scheduled if there is sufficient time in terms of your candidature progression. If there is not sufficient time for it to be rescheduled then you should proceed to the review to obtain feedback (i.e., in which instance the most appropriate outcome may then be ‘Repeat Review’ depending on the circumstances).

Panel Composition

Your Progress Review Panel (PRP) in the School of Psychology will consist of a Chair¹ (who also serves as a Reviewer) and up to two additional Reviewers (“Readers”) for the Confirmation of Candidature Review (Progress Review 1; R1). The Chair should not have a major conflict of interest (COI)² with your advisory team. At least one (non-Chair) Reader for R1 is needed and needs to be independent with no major COIs with you or the advisory team; a further reader is optional but encouraged for R1 (for example, if more focused expert review is desired), who also needs to be independent without major COIs. For Progress Review 2 and 3 (R2 and R3) your PRP will consist of a Chair and one independent reviewer with no major COIs (Reader) – ideally the same Chair and reviewer as R1.

It is important that Readers are recognised as being independent and can give un-conflicted advice to both you and your advisory team. Readers can be external to the School of Psychology and UQ.

The advisory team is not part of the panel for any progress reviews but is present during the progress reviews for certain elements (see below for details, within the Progress Review sections). The advisory team is also not permitted to answer questions on your behalf but is permitted to provide additional context/information in follow-up to your responses where appropriate.

¹ The Chair should be a UQ staff member included on the Principal Advisor Registry

² COI definition: See Australian Council of Graduate Research (ACGR) COI Guidelines. In brief, the Chair and Reviewer(s) should have a good knowledge of the area of research and/or methods, but should not (1) be working on the same project, (2) be a member of your advisory team, or (3) have a track record of recent publications/grants (last five years) with the student or advisory team.

Progress Review Chair

The Psychology DHDR appoints the Chairs for all progress reviews. The Chair oversees and facilitates all progress reviews; sample run sheets specific to the School of Psychology for Chairs are available for R1 , and for R2/R3. As part of this role, the Chair also serves as a Reader. Before the start of the Research Quarter in which your Confirmation of Candidature (R1) is due, you and your Principal Advisor will be notified of your Progress Review Chair. The Principal Advisor then enters the same Chair for R1, R2 and R3 into Unitask. It is important to notify the DHDR if a Chair is appointed with whom a major COI¹ exists with you or the advisory team, either at the time of R1 or R2/R3 so the Chair can be re-assigned. It is important that no major COI exists between the Chair and the committee as the Chair acts as a Reader during each Progress Review. If a Chair is no longer available at R2 or R3, contact the DHDR for a reassignment.

¹COI definition: See Australian Council of Graduate Research (ACGR) COI Guidelines. In brief, the Chair and Reviewer(s) should have a good knowledge of the area of research and/or methods, but should not (1) be working on the same project, (2) be a member of your advisory team, or (3) have a track record of recent publications/grants (last five years) with the student or advisory team.

Progress Review Reader(s)

It is the responsibility of the HDR candidate and advisory team to find and confirm 1 or 2 nominated independent Readers for Confirmation of Candidature (R1), and one independent Reader for R2 and R3. As described in the Panel Composition section above: At least one Reader for R1 needs to be independent with no major COIs¹ with you or the advisory team; a second reader is optional but encouraged for R1 (for example, if more focused expert review is desired), who also needs to be independent without major COIs. For R2 and R3, only one independent reviewer with no major COIs (Reader) – ideally the same reviewer as R1 – is on the panel.

To ensure the nominated Reader/s are available, the candidate or advisor should contact each reader and confirm their availability prior to nominating them. As described above, it is important that Readers are recognised as being independent and can give un-conflicted advice to both you and your advisory team. Readers can be external to the School of Psychology and UQ.

The Chair of the committee additionally takes the role of Reader at each Progress Review, described in more detail below.

Confirmation of candidature review (R1)

The intent of the R1 is to assess whether your project is viable and well-planned, and that you have the required resources and capacity to complete it within the required timeframe. Your confirmation of candidature review will include:

The submission of your review documents (described below) at least two weeks prior to the review (to allow sufficient time for your Reader(s) to examine the documents and have the option to provide you with feedback);
A 25-minute oral presentation;
A 10- to 15-minute question time; and,
A 30- to 45-minute interview with the review panel (typically of 1-hour duration).

Your principal advisor should circulate the invitation to attend the oral presentation to all School academics and postgraduate students at least 3 business days prior to the review.

Written feedback on your documents may be provided by your reviewers in advance (optional), and/or orally provided at the Confirmation.

The content and format for your 25-minute oral presentation will, in general, mirror that of the Progress Review document, with an emphasis on the literature review, research proposal, and completed pilot/experimental work.

During the Confirmation, your advisory team is present for the 25-minute oral presentation and the 10- to 15-minute question time. During the interview with the panel (Chair and Reader(s)), your advisory team is present during the Q&A session, however, the advisory team is not permitted to answer questions on your behalf but is permitted to provide additional context/information in follow-up to your responses where appropriate.

Following the interview, you and your advisory team leave the room, and the Chair and Reader(s) convene to decide the recommended outcome of the review. This decision is based on the criteria outlined in clause 11 and 12 of the HDR Candidature Progression Procedure. The potential outcomes are outlined here. You and your advisory team are then invited back into the room, and the recommended outcome is then communicated, with that recommendation to then require Dean of the UQ Graduate Research School approval for finalisation. This then concludes the Reader’s role, and they exit the room.

As an opportunity to then provide/gain any additional feedback from the Chair, the advisory team then meets with the Chair while you leave the room. When you are invited back into the room, the advisory team then exits the confirmation meeting, and you have the opportunity to discuss your progress and any concerns with the Chair.

Following the review, your Chair will prepare a detailed written report (i.e., Chair’s Report, completed in the Progress Review Unitask request) to provide the recommendation to the Dean, UQ Graduate Research School about attainment of the review.

The Chair also has the recourse to discuss the Review outcome with the DHDR and School of Psychology HDR committee before they submit their final written report and recommendation. Any private/sensitive matters raised after the Reader(s) leave(s) that may affect the progress of the milestone should be captured by this DHDR and HDR committee recourse option. In which case, the additional information may or may not affect the outcome. In such circumstances, the submitted report and recommendation represent the endorsed DHDR and HDR committee’s decision. However, in extenuating circumstances, the advisory team also has the right to communicate concerns about the process and/or outcome with the DHDR for consideration.

Review documents:

The Progress Review 1 document (maximum of: 40 pages for PhD; 20 pages for MPhil, excluding references and appendices, using 1.5 line spacing) should review prior work in the area under study, including a full citation of the directly relevant literature. It should establish the research objectives and pose the formal hypotheses if these are relevant. The proposal will also concisely and clearly describe the proposed research methodology and scheme of analysis, and briefly describe work already completed.

As a guide the following elements are usually included in this document:

Title page (name of candidate, title of project, names of advisors and their signatures to indicate that they have read the document).
Brief summary/introduction to define the key concepts of the project and the rationale for the project (i.e. why are you doing this study?).
Literature review. Critical up-to-date review, which should demonstrate a good knowledge of the field and identify knowledge gaps.
Hypothesis development and Aims of the project. This should be related to issues identified in the literature review.
Research methodology, including a clear statement of the methods to be used, resource requirements (are all pieces of equipment and funds to complete the study available to you, or do you need to look for collaborators who can provide these?), data analysis methodology to be used, ethics requirements and approvals etc.
Preliminary data (if any; max. 5 pages).
Timeline for undertaking the proposed work and completing your thesis.
A brief indication of how you have used practices that facilitate open, reproducible science (e.g., power analysis, pre-registration, shared data and/or analysis scripts on public platform) and how you are planning to use practices towards these aims in the remainder of the candidature.
A tentative costing/budget for the project, which includes necessary expenditure and how it will be funded.
Copies of any ethics (animal or human) clearance, required for the project.
Reference List (using APA style).
Appendices (only if applicable; these should not contain critical information, such as descriptions of procedures, etc.).
iThenticate report.

The other documents required are:

Progress review 2 (R2)

The intent of the R2 is to assess whether your project is on track for completion within candidature duration and that your research and other professional skills are developing appropriately. Your second progress review will include the submission of your review documents (described below) at least two weeks prior to the review, and an interview with the review panel (typically of 30-minutes duration) consisting of the Chair and one independent Reader with no major COIs. The Reader may provide written feedback on your documents in advance (optional), and/or orally provided at the interview. The advisory team is also present for certain elements but are not part of the review panel. Specifically, during the interview with the panel (Chair and Reader), your advisory team is present during the Q&A session, however, the advisory team is not permitted to answer questions on your behalf but is permitted to provide additional context/information in follow-up to your responses where appropriate.

Following the interview, you and your advisory team leave the room, and the Chair and Reader convene to decide the recommended outcome of the review. This decision is based on the criteria outlined in clause 13 of the HDR Candidature Progression Procedure. The potential outcomes are outlined here. You and your advisory team are then invited back into the room, and that recommended outcome is then communicated, with that recommendation to then require Dean of the UQ Graduate Research School approval for finalisation. This then concludes the Reader’s role, and they exit the room.

As an opportunity to then provide/gain any additional feedback from the Chair, the advisory team then meets with the Chair while you leave the room. When you are invited back into the room, the advisory team then exits, and you have the opportunity to discuss your progress and any concerns with the Chair.

The Chair also has the recourse to discuss the Review outcome with the DHDR and School of Psychology HDR committee before they submit their final written report and recommendation. Any private/sensitive matters raised after the Reader leaves that may affect the progress of the milestone should be captured by this DHDR and HDR committee recourse option. In which case, the additional information may or may not affect the outcome. In such circumstances, the submitted report and recommendation represent the endorsed DHDR and HDR committee’s decision. However, in extenuating circumstances, the advisory team also has the right to communicate concerns about the process and/or outcome with the DHDR for consideration.

Oral presentation requirements and review documents:

A conference presentation (poster or oral), 3MT or similar (i.e., not simply a presentation to your lab group/centre) fulfils the oral presentation requirements.

The Progress Review 2 document (maximum of 25 pages, excluding draft chapter/journal article, using 1.5 line spacing) should include:

Summary of completed work – this can be in the format of a draft chapter or a journal article to which you have contributed substantially – and should include a statement of progress made since Review 1.
The report should also include a tentative budget (e.g., for the annual allocation of HDR Research Support Funds); and
For the benefit of the Chair of the Progress Review, if you are the recipient of a scholarship, the report should also note scholarship expiration date/s and a plan of progress to ensure that the scholarship/s (in particular tuition fee scholarships) do not expire prior to the anticipated thesis submission. If the tuition scholarship is due to expire before the anticipated thesis submission due date, strategies for managing financial liability should be discussed at the Progress Review interview; and
Detailed plan/outline for completing the thesis, including a timeline
- The HDR Completion Plan document should be used.
- This report summarises progress against the timeline agreed to at R1, and the progress on the set of goals and plan of work for the period leading up to thesis review.
- If substantial changes to the body of work have been made since R1, a significant reason should be provided.¹ The panel will determine whether the planned work remains within scope of meeting requirements for an original, high quality, substantial body of work that makes a significant and original contribution to knowledge (PhD) or shows originality in the application of knowledge (MPhil/Professional Doctorates).
- This document should also include what you and your supervisor set as the expectation for what portion of the thesis will be completed by PR3 (e.g., two chapters, 80% drafted etc.), with reasoning provided for discussion during the interview.
Plans for disseminating your work, e.g. plans for conference attendance, papers to be written etc.
iThenticate report.

The other documents required are:

¹ Note: if there is a total change of project, see clause 24-25 of this Graduate School procedure on Change of Project Title and Scope for required steps to take for approval.

Progress review 3 (R3)

The intent of the R3 is to assess whether the work should be ready for assessment by the expected date, and to identify any major concerns that need attention before submission. Your third progress review will include the submission of your review documents (described below) at least two weeks prior to the review, and an interview with the review panel (typically of 30- to 45-minutes duration) consisting of the Chair and one independent Reader with no major COIs. The Reader may provide written feedback on your documents in advance (optional), and/or orally provided at the interview. The advisory team is also present for certain elements but are not part of the review panel. Specifically, during the interview with the panel (Chair and Reader), your advisory team is present during the Q&A session, however, the advisory team is not permitted to answer questions on your behalf but is permitted to provide additional context/information in follow-up to your responses where appropriate.

Following the interview, you and your advisory team leave the room, and the Chair and Reader convene to decide the recommended outcome of the review. This decision is based on the criteria outlined in clause 14 of the HDR Candidature Progression Procedure. The potential outcomes are outlined here. You and your advisory team are then invited back into the room, and that recommended outcome is then communicated, with that recommendation to then require Dean of the UQ Graduate Research School approval for finalisation. This then concludes the Reader’s role, and they exit the room.

As an opportunity to then provide/gain any additional feedback from the Chair, the advisory team then meets with the Chair while you leave the room. When you are invited back into the room, the advisory team then exits, and you have the opportunity to discuss your progress and any concerns with the Chair.

The Chair also has the recourse to discuss the Review outcome with the DHDR and School of Psychology HDR committee before they submit their final written report and recommendation. Any private/sensitive matters raised after the Reader leaves that may affect the progress of the milestone should be captured by this DHDR and HDR committee recourse option. In which case, the additional information may or may not affect the outcome. In such circumstances, the submitted report and recommendation represent the endorsed DHDR and HDR committee’s decision. However, in extenuating circumstances, the advisory team also has the right to communicate concerns about the process and/or outcome with the DHDR for consideration.

Once R3 has been successfully completed the student and Principal Advisor will be notified of the Chair for the final examination, which they then enter into UQRDM when initiating the submission/final examination process.

Oral presentation requirements and review documents:

A conference presentation (poster or oral), 3MT or similar (i.e., not simply a presentation to your lab group/centre) fulfils the oral presentation requirements.

The Progress Review 3 document should include:

Thesis preliminary pages (using the UQ template downloadable from point 6 of this webpage) with expanded contents/outline of thesis
Draft of the thesis (with at least the amount of work completed as agreed upon in PR2, e.g., two chapters, 80% drafted, etc.)
Outline of any publications that will arise from the HDR research
The report should also include a tentative budget (e.g., for the annual allocation of HDR Research Support Funds).
For the benefit of the Chair of the Progress Review, if you are the recipient of a scholarship, the report should also note scholarship expiration date/s and a plan of progress to ensure that the scholarship/s (in particular tuition fee scholarships) do not expire prior to the anticipated thesis submission. If the tuition scholarship is due to expire before the anticipated thesis submission due date, strategies for managing financial liability should be discussed at the Progress Review interview.
Discussion of thesis examiners and timeline for inviting them, taking into consideration a review of the University’s conflict of interest policy. The Higher Degree by Research Examination - Guidelines and Nominating thesis examiners webpages will be of use.
Detailed plan/outline for completing the thesis, including a timeline
- The HDR Completion Plan document should be used.
- This report summarises progress against the timeline agreed to at R1/R2, and the progress on the set of goals and plan of work for the period leading up to thesis review.
- If substantial changes to the body of work have been made since R1/R2, a significant reason should be provided. The panel will determine whether the planned work remains within scope of meeting requirements for an original, high quality, substantial body of work that makes a significant and original contribution to knowledge (PhD) or shows originality in the application of knowledge (MPhil/Professional Doctorates).
iThenticate report.

The other documents required are:

School of Psychology progress review guidelines

Progress reviews snapshot

Panel Composition

Progress Review Chair

Progress Review Reader(s)

Confirmation of candidature review (R1)

Progress review 2 (R2)

Progress review 3 (R3)

Information for panel members and advisory team

More information