General information on the mid-term evaluation in CUT DS

  1. The mid-term evaluation is carried out before the end of the 4th semester of education
  2. The Director of CUT DS announces the schedule of the mid-term evaluation by May 31 of the academic year, in which it is carried out, on the website of CUT DS.
  3. The mid-term evaluation is carried out by a three-person committee, including at least one person who holds the degree of a habilitated doctor or the title of professor in the discipline in which the doctoral dissertation is being prepared, and is employed outside the entity running the doctoral school. The supervisor and auxiliary supervisor may not be members of the committee.
  4. The Director of CUT DS shall appoint the mid-term evaluation committees by May 31 before the planned mid-term evaluation date, from among the candidates nominated by the Chairpersons of the Scientific Councils, and shall inform on the composition of the committees. The chairman of the committee is a representative of the discipline in the Council of CUT DS or a person designated by the chairman of the scientific council.
  5. Mid-term evaluation committees are appointed for individual doctoral students, and the composition of the committee may be repeated.
  6. The mid-term evaluation ends with a positive or negative result. The result of the evaluation, together with the justification, is public.
  7. Failure to submit the materials necessary to carry out the mid-term evaluation within the applicable deadline or failure to present a multimedia presentation makes it impossible to carry out the evaluation and means a negative evaluation.
  8. Minutes of the committee meeting shall be drawn up, which shall record the outcome of the mid-term evaluation together with the justification. Within seven days of the announcement of the results, the doctoral student confirms that they have read the content of the report.
  9. The assessment of progress in the implementation of an individual research plan shall be subject to:
    • degree of advancement of the doctoral dissertation;
    • the correctness of the adopted goal;
    • adopted methodology;
    • compliance with the schedule (including acceptance of discrepancies with the assumptions resulting from the implementation of the work).
  1. The mid-term evaluation of the doctoral student includes the assessment of the implementation of the individual research plan and, as a complementary element, scientific and professional achievements, related to the topic of the dissertation.
  2. The doctoral student, in accordance with the deadline specified in the mid-term evaluation schedule, submits, at the CUT DS office, a folder described according to the template (available in Teams) containing:
    • individual research plan - IRP (provided by the CUT DS office);
    • a report on scientific activity for the evaluation of the annual doctoral student of the Doctoral School – for year 1 (provided by the CUT DS Office);
    • a report on scientific activity for the evaluation of the annual doctoral student of the Doctoral School – for year 2
    • a summary paper prepared by the doctoral student containing:
      • information on the current state of preparation of the doctoral dissertation signed by the supervisor(s). The information should be an extended description of the individual research plan and should take into account the justification for taking up a given topic based on the literature on the subject, the schedule of work along with the degree of implementation, the results achieved and the expected results of the work;
      • list of doctoral student's achievements (scientific, design, artistic, organizational) signed by the doctoral student and confirmed by the supervisor(s);
    • the supervisor's/supervisors' opinion;
    • assessment of supervisory care.
  1. Documents referred to in Point 10 points 1-6, will be uploaded by the doctoral student to the assigned OneDrive folder, in accordance with the deadline and according to the rules set out in the schedule of the mid-term evaluation. A link to the individual drive was made available via MS Teams messenger, in private messages.

Files (pdfs) should be named according to the following formula:

  1. individual research plan – IRP – surname_IRP
  2. a report on scientific activity for the annual evaluation of the doctoral student of the CUT Doctoral School - for year 1 - surname_spr1
  3. a report on scientific activity for the annual evaluation of the doctoral student of the CUT Doctoral School - for year 2 - surname_spr2
  4. summary paper - surname_autoreferat
  5. the supervisor's/supervisors' opinion - surname_opinion
  6. assessment of supervisory care – surname_evaluation

Attachments to documents should be merged into one file with the main document.
The folder is to contain six files.

  1. The doctoral student is obliged to present to the committee a multimedia presentation concerning implementation of the individual research plan.
  2. A representative of the CUT's Doctoral Students' Union may participate as an observer during the presentation of the summary paper and its discussion.
  3. The mid-term evaluation of the doctoral student is determined on the basis of the materials in question in points 10 and 11 and the multimedia presentation presented by the doctoral student. The result of the mid-term evaluation is determined at the secret part of the meeting, without the participation of the doctoral student. A member of the evaluation committee may not abstain from voting.
  4. The assessment of the supervisory care is made on the basis of the assessment of the implementation of the supervisor's tasks listed in § 6 sec. 10 points 2-6 of the Regulations of the CUT Doctoral School (of 27 April 2022) and the evaluation of supervisory care (document template available in Teams). In case of doubts related to the supervisory care, the committee may ask the supervisor to provide explanations.
  5. The assessment of supervisory care ends with a positive or negative result. The following are informed about the negative assessment of the supervisory care: the doctoral student, the supervisor and the chairman of the Scientific Council for the relevant discipline.