Joint supervision and monitoring

The IT4BI-DC doctoral process implements a continuous candidate monitoring. To ensure a uniform evaluation, based on the chosen research topic, each candidate will be assigned a Candidate Progress Committee (CPC) composed as follows:

  1. Advisor from home institution;
  2. Co-advisor from host institution;
  3. External rapporteur from the industrial sector or associated partner, responsible for promoting innovation and industrial applicability;
  4. Committee chair, who is the Local Programme Coordinator of an institution distinct from the home and host.
Further members may be added according to the specificities of the topic. The chair of the CPC is responsible of guarding the candidate's portfolio (see below) and ensuring that the process, milestones and intermediate evaluations are met, as well as acting as referee.

The candidate's monitoring will be based on deliverables collected in a portfolio that contains, at least:

  1. Doctoral Candidate Agreement,
  2. Doctoral Project Plan (DPP),
  3. Transcripts of the courses followed by the candidate,
  4. Minutes of the working meetings and of the six periodic monitoring meetings,
  5. Thesis Proposal Report (TPR, evolution of the DPP),
  6. Research Progress Report,
  7. Conference participations and other publications,
  8. Reports of internships and stays.
The portfolio will be at the disposal of the candidate and his/her Candidate Progress Committee (CPC).

The candidate and co-advisor should meet (face to face if possible) at least once every month. Each of these working meetings should produce minutes drafted by the candidate stating: (1) what was done since last meeting, (2) what will be done before next meeting, (3) what is slowing down or blocking the project, and (4) what was discovered that would be of interest, or needs to be discussed.

Periodic monitoring meetings are planned before moving between the universities of the co-tutelle. These teleconference (e.g., Skype) meetings involving the candidate and both co-advisors allow doctoral candidates to present their results, ask questions, prepare the next stay, etc. Minutes of these meetings are drafted by the candidate, reviewed by the local advisor, and added to the candidate's portfolio.

The intermediate reports will be presented to the CPC. A common evaluation of these documents was designed by the consortium, which includes the assessment of the potential contribution to innovation (further ensured by the fact that the CPC includes at least one member involved in the industrial sector). If the result of an intermediate report is not considered satisfactory, the candidate will be required to resubmit a new version within the next three months. This second version will be prepared taking into account the feedback provided by the CPC. Candidates who did not reach minimum criteria in the new version of the report will be denied admission to the subsequent year.

The Doctorate Thesis will be evaluated with a common form. Further, parts of its contents must have been published as full papers in at least 2 international conferences and 1 peer reviewed indexed journal. After a unanimous recommendation by the CPC, it is submitted for evaluation by a jury from at least four different institutions, containing:

  1. At least one member external to the consortium,
  2. At least one member from each of the home and host HEIs, and
  3. The chair of the CPC.
The jury will first state whether the document is satisfactory or not. If it is, an oral defense of the thesis will be held at the home university in front of the jury. If the jury considers it is not satisfactory, it shall state whether the thesis may be resubmitted in a revised version within a deadline of six months. Candidates who did not reach minimum criteria in the new version of the thesis will not be awarded the doctorate degree.