LEGAL BASIS

Mid-term Evaluation of Doctoral Students – this is a formal assessment of a doctoral student’s progress, usually conducted halfway through the course of study in a doctoral school. Its purpose is to evaluate the advancement of research work, the implementation of the individual research plan, and the doctoral student’s academic engagement. The evaluation results determine whether the student may continue their education at the doctoral school.

The legal basis includes:

• The Act of 20 July 2018 – Law on Higher Education and Science (Journal of Laws of 2024, item 1571),
• The Regulations of the Doctoral School of Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce.

The Act of 20 July 2018 – Law on Higher Education and Science

(consolidated text, Journal of Laws of 2024, item 1571)

Article 202

1. The doctoral student, in consultation with the supervisor(s), develops an individual research plan, which includes, in particular, a schedule for preparing the doctoral dissertation, and submits it to the institution running the doctoral school within 12 months from the date of commencement of education. In the case of an appointed auxiliary supervisor, the plan is submitted after it has been reviewed by the auxiliary supervisor.

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

3. The mid-term evaluation results in either a positive or negative outcome. The result, along with justification, is public.

4. The mid-term evaluation is carried out by a committee composed of 3 members, including at least 1 person holding a postdoctoral degree (doktor habilitowany) or the title of professor in the discipline of the doctoral dissertation, employed outside the institution running the doctoral school, or a person referred to in Article 190(5). The supervisor and auxiliary supervisor may not be members of the committee.

5. A committee member employed outside the institution running the doctoral school is entitled to remuneration amounting to 20% of a professor’s salary.

Article 203

1. A doctoral student is removed from the list of doctoral students in the case of:

1) a negative result of the mid-term evaluation;

2) failure to submit the doctoral dissertation within the timeframe specified in the individual research plan;

3) resignation from education;

4) failure to commence education;

5) violation of the prohibition referred to in Article 200(7);

6) disciplinary expulsion from the doctoral school.

1a. In the procedure for removal due to violation of the prohibition referred to in Article 200(7), the doctoral student shall be called upon to submit, within no less than 30 days from the date of delivery of the notice, a resignation from education at the other doctoral school.

2. A doctoral student may also be removed from the list in the case of:

1) unsatisfactory progress in preparing the doctoral dissertation;

2) failure to fulfill obligations referred to in Article 207.

3. Removal from the list of doctoral students takes place by administrative decision. The student has the right to request reconsideration of the case.

Resolution No. 31/2023

of the Senate of Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce of 27 April 2023
on the adoption of the Regulations of the Doctoral School
of Jan Kochanowski University in Kielce

§7 Mid-term Evaluation

1. In the middle of the education period at the Doctoral School, the implementation of the individual research plan is subject to a mid-term evaluation.

2. The evaluation referred to in para. 1 is carried out by a committee approved by the School Council at the request of the Director.

3. The supervisor(s) and auxiliary supervisor may not be members of the committee evaluating the doctoral student under their supervision.

4. The committee consists of three persons:

1) a person holding a postdoctoral degree or the title of professor in the discipline of the doctoral dissertation, employed at the University, as chairperson;

2) a person holding a postdoctoral degree or the title of professor in the same discipline, employed at the University;

3) a person holding a postdoctoral degree or the title of professor in the same discipline, employed outside the University, subject to exceptions provided in the Act (Article 190(5)).

5. A doctoral student delegated by the University Doctoral Student Council may participate in the committee’s proceedings as an observer, without voting rights.

6. In the case of evaluating an interdisciplinary research plan, the committee shall include:

1) a person with a postdoctoral degree or professorial title in the field encompassing the discipline of the doctoral dissertation, employed at the University, as chairperson;

2) a person with a postdoctoral degree or professorial title in one of the disciplines of the dissertation, employed at the University;

3) a person with a postdoctoral degree or professorial title in one of the dissertation disciplines, employed outside the University, subject to exceptions under the Act (Article 190(5)).

7. A committee member employed outside the University shall receive remuneration in the amount specified in the Act.

8. The Director nominates the committee members referred to in para. 2, and the School Council approves them. The same procedure applies to changes in committee composition.

9. The committee makes decisions by simple majority vote, in the presence of all members.

10. The doctoral student submits a mid-term report to the Director on the implementation of the individual research plan, covering the first and second years of study, and documents referred to in §5 para. 8 point 9, in both paper and electronic form. The electronic medium is returned to the doctoral student, and its copies are permanently deleted after a positive evaluation or after the decision to remove the student becomes final in the case of a negative outcome.

11. The deadline for submitting the report referred to in para. 10 is determined by the Director’s order, no later than two months before the planned date of the mid-term evaluation.

12. The Doctoral Students’ Section informs the student about the date and location of the evaluation committee meeting.

13. The committee conducts the evaluation based on:

1) the individual research plan;

2) the mid-term report on the implementation of the plan;

3) an interview with the doctoral student.

14. During the interview, the doctoral student presents a multimedia presentation that includes the dissertation plan, a discussion of the research issues, research methods, and answers the committee’s questions.

15. The committee evaluates:

1) the timeliness of the plan’s implementation;

2) the progress of the dissertation work;

3) completed research or artistic tasks;

4) the student’s academic, artistic, and organizational activity.

16. The committee assesses each of the criteria listed in para. 15 individually, assigning a positive or negative result to each.

17. The mid-term evaluation – based on the assessment of the criteria in para. 15 – concludes with either a positive or negative result. The evaluation must be justified.

18. The committee documents the evaluation in a protocol of the mid-term evaluation of the individual research plan. The protocol template is attached as Appendix No. 6 to these Regulations.

19. After the committee meeting, the protocol referred to in para. 18 is submitted to the Director.

20. The committee’s evaluation is final.

21. The results of the mid-term evaluation, along with the justification, are public.