Mid-term evaluation

Organization and procedure of the mid-term evaluation

The framework governing the timing and procedure of conducting the mid-term evaluation in a doctoral school is defined in Article 202(2–5) and Article 203(1)(1) of the Act of 20 July 2018 – Law on Higher Education and Science (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Pursuant to Article 205(1)(3) of the Act, the procedure for conducting the mid-term evaluation in areas not regulated by the Act is specified in the Regulations of the doctoral school.

In the case of the Doctoral School of Social Sciences at Nicolaus Copernicus University, this is Resolution No. 30 of the Senate of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń of 23 April 2024 – Regulations of the Doctoral School of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”).

This document is intended to summarize and clearly communicate the applicable organizational framework, timelines, and rules for conducting the mid-term evaluation at the Doctoral School of Social Sciences of Nicolaus Copernicus University.

1. Obligation and procedure for conducting the mid-term evaluation

The Individual Research Plan (hereinafter: IRP) is the primary document on which doctoral training is based. The IRP is prepared in consultation with the supervisor or supervisors and includes, in particular, a schedule for the preparation of the doctoral dissertation (Article 202(1) of the Act), as well as the research problem, a description of the methodological foundations, and the planned submission date of the doctoral dissertation.

The IRP must be submitted for approval to the doctoral school within 12 months from the start of doctoral training.

The implementation of the IRP is subject to mid-term evaluation conducted halfway through the training period specified in the curriculum, and in the case of a 6-semester program – during the fourth semester.

The mid-term evaluation consists of two elements:

• analysis of the submitted documentation (see section 4: Documents),
• an interview between the committee and the doctoral student.

Due to pandemic restrictions or other force majeure circumstances, or ongoing research commitments of the doctoral student (e.g. an ongoing research stay abroad), the interview may be conducted using electronic communication tools ensuring high-quality audio and video transmission (e.g. Zoom, MS Teams, Skype), as well as confidentiality of the information shared.

Mid-term evaluation dates at the Doctoral School of Social Sciences (ARS UMK) in the academic year 2025/2026

The mid-term evaluation will be conducted in September 2026.
Detailed dates will be announced later.

3. Committee

The mid-term evaluation is conducted by committees appointed by the Director of the Doctoral School in consultation with the Chairs of the relevant Discipline Councils.

Each committee consists of three members, including at least one person employed outside the institution running the doctoral school and holding a habilitated doctoral degree or the title of professor in the field and discipline in which the doctoral dissertation is being prepared. This person serves as the chair of the committee – leads its work, sets dates and procedures for interviews, and prepares the evaluation report and the committee’s decision.

The other two members of the committee may be employed at the institution running the doctoral school and are specialists in the field and discipline represented by the doctoral student under evaluation.

A committee member must not have any conflict of interest with the doctoral school, the supervisor(s), assistant supervisor, or the doctoral student undergoing evaluation. A supervisor, assistant supervisor, or co-supervisor cannot be a member of the evaluation committee.

For the purpose of conducting the mid-term evaluation in 2026, three-member committees will be appointed, one for each discipline represented by the doctoral students.

The committee has full independence in determining detailed criteria for evaluating both the interview and the documentation submitted by doctoral students. These criteria, tailored to the specifics of each discipline, will be developed during the document review process by each committee and communicated to doctoral students before the interviews begin.

4. Documents

In accordance with §31(1–9) of the Regulations of the doctoral schools at Nicolaus Copernicus University, the evaluation is based on documentation submitted by doctoral students of the Doctoral School of Social Sciences.

The following materials must be submitted:

• the Individual Research Plan approved by the supervisor(s) (approval must be clearly visible – signature and/or comment and/or statement); the IRP must include a schedule for preparing the doctoral dissertation and its submission date;
• a report on the implementation of the Individual Research Plan (signed by the supervisor);
• a list of published, accepted, and submitted scientific papers, indicating those prepared in international collaboration;
• information and documentation confirming artistic works and events, indicating those created in international collaboration;
• a list of research internships at external institutions, particularly abroad, in which the doctoral student actively participated (conducting research or presenting results);
• a list of applications submitted by the doctoral student to university or external funding competitions for research or international mobility;
• a list of courses or workshops completed outside the mandatory curriculum that contributed to the development of soft skills;
• a list of research work conducted by the doctoral student for external entities (e.g. patents, spin-offs);
• a signed opinion of the supervisor(s) on the doctoral student’s progress in preparing the dissertation;
• additional opinions (maximum two) prepared by researchers from other institutions, particularly foreign ones, involved in the doctoral student’s research.

Additional documents may also be submitted if, in the opinion of the doctoral student, they demonstrate competencies or achievements identified as important for their research development in the Individual Research Plan, such as (but not limited to):

• information on the evaluation/impact of submitted publications;
• a list of prestigious scientific conferences in which the doctoral student actively participated;
• a list of research work conducted for external entities (patents, spin-offs);
• a list of completed academic or professional internships;
• a list of projects and grants in which the doctoral student participates;
• a list of scholarships and awards obtained from external institutions;
• additional opinions (maximum two) from researchers from other institutions, particularly international ones.

Proof of the listed activities (e.g. certificates, confirmations, project abstracts, grant or scholarship award decisions, etc.) should be attached as appendices to the above-mentioned lists.