Research Degrees Handbook 2019-20 Final

Research Degrees Handbook
for ResM, MD, MPhil/PhD and PhD programmes
December 2019
2019 Edition
UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESEARCH DEGREES HANDBOOK
LIST OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION TO THIS HANDBOOK ............................................................... 5

THE DOCTORAL COLLEGE................................................................................. 6
1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 6
2. Doctoral College Governance & Reporting Structure ................................ 7
3. Doctoral College Scope & Responsibilities ................................................ 7
Related to the business of the Doctoral College Board: ............................ 7
Related to the business of the Doctoral College Quality Sub-Committee .. 8
4. Communication with the Doctoral College ................................................. 9
YOUR PROGRAMME OF STUDY AS A RESEARCH DEGREE CANDIDATE .. 10
1. Key Staff Members and Support Structures ............................................ 10
2. Research Degree Terms ......................................................................... 12
3. Enrolment ................................................................................................ 15
4. Induction .................................................................................................. 16
5. Your Responsibilities ............................................................................... 18
6. Registration Period .................................................................................. 19
Extension to registration .......................................................................... 20
Interruption to registration ........................................................................ 21
Amendments to registration (mode of study) ........................................... 22
Withdrawal from registration .................................................................... 22
Termination of registration ....................................................................... 23
7. Fee Paying Structure ............................................................................... 23
8. Project Approval ...................................................................................... 24
9. Confirmation of Route .............................................................................. 26
10. Research Training ................................................................................... 28
11. Monitoring of Progress............................................................................. 30
Failure to progress ................................................................................... 30
12. Amendments, Changes and Transfers .................................................... 30
13. Your Thesis ............................................................................................. 31
14. Submission of Your Thesis ...................................................................... 33
15. The Examination of Your Thesis .............................................................. 34
The viva voce (oral) examination ............................................................. 35
Examination outcomes and award of your degree ................................... 36
16. Teaching as a Postgraduate Researcher ................................................ 41
17. Problems and Questions ......................................................................... 42
18. Complaints Procedure ............................................................................. 44
-2-
List of contents 2019 Edition
19. Appeals Against Academic Decisions...................................................... 45

20. Alumni Research Fellow Scheme ............................................................ 46
NOTES FOR SUPERVISORS.............................................................................. 47
1. Appointment of Supervisors and Responsibilities .................................... 47
2. The Programme of Study......................................................................... 49
Overview, concerns and questions .......................................................... 49
The start of the programme ..................................................................... 49
The registration period ............................................................................. 51
Monitoring your student’s progress .......................................................... 52
Lack of academic progress ...................................................................... 53
Loss of contact with a candidate .............................................................. 54
Project approval ....................................................................................... 54
Confirmation of route ............................................................................... 56
Submission of the thesis .......................................................................... 57
Academic Offences/Research Misconduct .............................................. 58
3. Nomination and Appointment of the Examination Team .......................... 58
4. The Examination Process ........................................................................ 62
Documentation issued prior to the viva voce examination ....................... 62
The viva voce (oral) examination ............................................................. 64
Following the viva voce examination ....................................................... 65
5. Alumni Research Fellowship Scheme ..................................................... 66
GUIDANCE NOTES FOR ‘EXPERT COMMENTATORS’
(PROJECT APPROVAL & CONFIRMATION OF ROUTE) ................................. 67
1. General .................................................................................................... 67
2. Project Approval (RDC.1) ........................................................................ 68
Guidance for reviewing the Data Management Plan................................ 68
3. Confirmation of Route (RDC.2) ................................................................ 70
MINIMUM RESOURCES FOR POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDENTS ..... 71
1. Purpose of Minimum Benchmarking ........................................................ 71
2. Provision of all PGR Students ................................................................. 71
3. Distance Students.................................................................................... 72
SCHOOL AND FACULTY ACTIVITIES AND EXPECTATIONS FOR
POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH DEGREES ........................................................ 73
1. Faculty-level ............................................................................................ 73
2. School-level ............................................................................................. 75
NOTES OF GUIDANCE FOR EXAMINERS ........................................................ 77
1. Appointment of Examiners....................................................................... 77
2. The Role of the Examiners Prior to Oral Examination ............................. 78
3. Submission of the Thesis ......................................................................... 78
4. Preparation for the Oral (Viva Voce) Examination ................................... 80
5. The Oral Examination .............................................................................. 81
6. Examination Outcomes............................................................................ 82
7. Examination of Thesis: Procedure & Outcome Recommendations ......... 83
8. Award of a ‘Pass’ Degree: Procedure ...................................................... 86
9. Corrections to the Thesis: Procedure ...................................................... 87
-3-
List of contents 2019 Edition
10. Resubmission following Deferral: Procedure ........................................... 88

11. Compensatory/lower award: Procedure................................................... 90
12. PhDs on the basis of Prior Published Works ........................................... 91
13. Appeals Against Academic Decisions...................................................... 91
14. Questions and Concerns ......................................................................... 91
15. Flowchart of PGR Examination Outcomes .............................................. 91
THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF INDEPENDENT CHAIRS AT
VIVA VOCE EXAMINATIONS OF RESEARCH DEGREES ................................ 93
POSTHUMOUS RESEARCH DEGREES AND AEGROTAT AWARDS ............. 98
FEE AMENDMENTS ............................................................................................ 99
Interruptions ............................................................................................. 99
Withdrawal ............................................................................................... 99
Extensions ............................................................................................. 100
Early submissions of thesis: .................................................................. 100
DESCRIPTORS OF HIGHER EDUCATION QUALIFICATIONS ....................... 101
1. Master’s level ......................................................................................... 101
2. Doctoral level ......................................................................................... 102
STUDENT REPRESENTATION ON DOCTORAL COLLEGE BOARD (DCB) . 104
THESIS PRESENTATION ................................................................................. 106
-4-
2019 Edition
INTRODUCTION TO THIS HANDBOOK
This Handbook should be read in conjunction with the University-wide Academic

Regulations (standard regulations for research degrees are combined with those for
taught programmes) and the University Student Handbook. Main changes since last
edition have been highlighted throughout this handbook.
It has been prepared to help explain the obligatory and operational aspects of
research degree programmes. While the main section (‘Your Programme of
Study’) is written directly for PGR (Postgraduate Research) students, other
sections aim to provide guidance, clarity and assistance to their Supervisors,
Examiners, and key staff across the University working to support you.
School supplements (sometimes combining one or more School), outlining local
resources and expectations, can be found on the Doctoral College Moodle pages.
As a research degree student, you are also required to read and adhere to the
following policies and procedures (all available via the Research Ethics
webpages):
• Intellectual Property Policy
• University of Plymouth Research Ethics Policy, Code of Good Research
Practice and the University Research Data Policy
Please note that separate and/or additional regulations apply to students

registered for the following Professional Doctorates: Doctor of Education (EdD),
Doctorate of Engineering (EngD), Doctorate of Business Administration (DBA),
Doctor of Public Administration (DPA) and Doctorate of Clinical Psychology
(DClinPsy). All of the above programmes have their own Handbooks. There are
also separate regulations and guidelines for PhDs on the Basis of Prior Published
Works.
IMPORTANT: New regulations related to Examination Outcomes came into effect

on 1 September 2018 for PGR students who submit their thesis for the first time on
or after this date. This Handbook reflects these new regulations. If you submitted
your thesis before this date (or are examining one), please refer to the University’s
2017-18 Regulations and the 2017 Research Degrees Handbook (including the
Notes of Guidance for Examiners included within). Please note that resubmitted
theses that were submitted for their first examination before 1 September 2018 will
also be examined according to the ‘old regulations’ (2017-18).
If you have any comments, questions or suggestions related to this Handbook,

please contact the Doctoral College: doctoralcollege@plymouth.ac.uk.
-5-
2019 Edition
THE DOCTORAL COLLEGE
1. Introduction
The University of Plymouth’s Doctoral College works with staff and students in all
areas of the University’s world-leading research to ensure that our diverse
community of postgraduate and postdoctoral early career researchers is offered
the best possible experience. Part of the Academic Registry, it acts as the locus of
responsibility and expertise for postgraduate research degrees at the University.
Its primary purpose is to support excellence and employability across all stages of
the researcher journey by facilitating and providing first class training and excellent
supervision, networking and development opportunities and mentoring.
Established in September 2017 and building on the successes of the University’s
Graduate School, which it replaced, the Doctoral College aims to stimulate and
facilitate a vibrant intellectual environment across and between disciplines for
ResM, MD, MPhil/PhD and Professional Doctorate candidates, as well as
postdoctoral early career researchers on fixed term contracts, allowing each
individual to reach their full potential.
The Doctoral College runs training sessions for supervisors & examiners,
University-level inductions for new students, as well as a well-established and
successful Researcher Development Programme that includes a wide range of
courses and sessions to help postgraduate and postdoctoral early career
researchers develop and broaden their research and transferable skills. These are
all free for all research students and staff at the University. For further information
about this programme, please email researchskills@plymouth.ac.uk.
Key staff:
Professor Roberta Mock Director of the Doctoral College

Professor Anthony Caleshu (until Deputy Director of the Doctoral College
February 2020) / (Faculty of Arts & Humanities)
Dr Sana Murrani (after February
2020
Professor Steven Furnell Deputy Director of the Doctoral College
(Faculty of Science & Engineering)
Professor Bridie Kent Deputy Director of the Doctoral College
(Faculty of Health: for Schools of
Psychology, Nursing & Midwifery, and
Health Professions)
Dr Claudia Barros Deputy Director of the Doctoral College
(Faculty of Health: for Schools of Medicine,
Dentistry, and Biomedical Sciences)
Dr Cristina Rivas Doctoral College Manager
Sarah Kearns Researcher Development Manager
-6-
UoP Doctoral College 2019 Edition
2. Doctoral College Governance & Reporting Structure

2.1. Doctoral College Board reports to Senate and is responsible for the
governance and strategic enhancement of postgraduate research
degrees (PGR) and postdoctoral ECR research within the University. It
meets three times in each academic year. There are PGR and
postdoctoral ECR representatives on Doctoral College Board, which
always includes student-led business. Please see ‘Student
Representation on Doctoral College Board’ section of this Handbook.
2.2. The Doctoral College Quality Sub-committee, which also meets
three times each academic year, reports directly to Doctoral College
Board. It is responsible for PGR Quality, Management and
Enhancement issues, including those related to regulations, student
progression, examination and monitoring. It also has oversight of
training and professional development (including that of doctoral and
research masters candidates, supervisors and examiners).
3. Doctoral College Scope & Responsibilities

Related to the business of the Doctoral College Board:
3.1. To support PGR cohort development by creating & maintaining an
effective network that links doctoral researcher representatives and
academic and professional staff from different discipline areas,
Faculties and directorates;
3.2. To work with Faculties, Schools and Institutes to support all
postgraduate research students by providing a stimulating research
environment with relevant career development, research dissemination
and funding opportunities and postgraduate-specific facilities;
-7-
3.3. To act as a central point of information for prospective doctoral

researchers;
3.4. To co-ordinate the communication and promotion of doctoral research
opportunities, studentships, events, and information for internal and
external stakeholders (including potential applicants, existing doctoral
researchers, supervisors, research councils, etc.);
3.5. To create and maintain an excellent website that is both outward facing
(for recruitment) and inward facing (student experience);
3.6. To provide strategic direction for the distribution of doctoral funding
initiatives, particularly University Studentships, in consultation with
Faculties;
3.7. To identify postgraduate research requirements and develop cross-
disciplinary and cross-faculty collaboration to enrich the student
experience;
3.8. To facilitate and develop national and international partnerships and
consortia for PGR activity;
3.9. To celebrate the success of our postgraduate research students and
promote the postgraduate and early career research community and its
achievements across and beyond the institution;
3.10. To work alongside the Student Union to organise social and networking
events and activities which generate a sense of community among
PGR students, as well as providing opportunities for student feedback
and listening to the student voice;
3.11. To ensure that there is an appropriate representation of the Doctoral
College at relevant external events and communicate, on behalf of the
University, with relevant government and other bodies engaged in
consultation related to issues of relevance to PGR and early career
research staff on fixed term contracts;
3.12. To work with the University’s Marketing and Communication and
Alumni Engagement teams to enhance PGR recruitment, visibility,
student development and student experience.
Related to the business of the Doctoral College Quality Sub-Committee
3.13. To lead and direct the development and delivery of doctoral research
provision across the University and maintain operational oversight of
the quality, management and enhancement of research degree
provision;
3.14. To maintain primary institutional-level responsibility for governance of
PGR activity, including the design, development and ongoing
evaluation of PGR procedures and regulations;
3.15. To set standards and expectations for postgraduate research students
and supervisors, ensuring that the University is compliant with the QAA
UK Quality Code for Higher Education;
-8-
3.16. To ensure that innovative and accessible training is provided for

postgraduate and postdoctoral early career researchers, supervisors
and examiners;
3.17. To maintain primary responsibility for operational areas of PGR activity
including administration of application, enrolment, extenuating
circumstances, examination and award processes; maintaining student
records; raising fees and invoices as appropriate; running the
Assessment Board for taught elements of research degrees;
monitoring student progress via GradBook; and liaising with UKVI
compliance team;
3.18. To manage and disseminate results of the Postgraduate Research
Experience Survey (PRES) and other initiatives to measure and
respond to indicators of student satisfaction;
3.19. To manage and disseminate results of the Careers in Research Online
Survey (CROS) and other initiatives to measure and respond to
indicators of research staff satisfaction.
4. Communication with the Doctoral College
4.1. The Doctoral College email address is:
doctoralcollege@plymouth.ac.uk. Your message will always be
forwarded to the most appropriate recipient to handle your query).
4.2. You may also visit the Doctoral College office in person. The address
is 8-9 Kirkby Place, University of Plymouth, Drake Circus, Plymouth
PL4 8AA. The opening hours are 9:00–16:30 Monday to Thursday, and
9:00–16:00 on Fridays. If you need to see somebody in particular, it is
best to make an appointment first by email or telephone: +44 1752
587640. There are private spaces available if you wish to speak to
somebody confidentially.
4.3. The Doctoral College will always communicate to you via your
University of Plymouth email account. Please ensure you check this
regularly and/or set up a forward to your preferred email account.
4.4. A Doctoral College newsletter is sent to all PGR students, normally
every 6-8 weeks. This includes opportunities, notices and reminders of
important tasks.
-9-
2019 Edition
YOUR PROGRAMME OF STUDY

AS A RESEARCH DEGREE CANDIDATE
1. Key Staff Members and Support Structures

1.1. In this Handbook, the group of people responsible for the
administration and quality assurance of your research degree is called
the Research Degree Management Unit.
1.2. As a research degree candidate, you will have at least two supervisors
and not normally more than three supervisors. One of your supervisors
will be your Director of Studies (DoS).
1.2.1. All of your supervisors are required to complete mandatory
training, which is refreshed every two years.
1.2.2. For more information about the appointment of supervisors,
please see ‘Appointment and Responsibilities of Supervisors’
in the ‘Guidelines for Supervisors’ section of this Handbook.
1.3. The responsibilities of your Director of Studies are as follows:
1.3.1. to provide the leadership of the supervisory team and to
provide support to you on an agreed, regular and frequent
basis,
1.3.2. to impart knowledge in the area of your research programme
and/or your theoretical or methodological approach,
1.3.3. to develop an effective working relationship with you and to
provide an encouraging and supportive environment,
1.3.4. to maintain regular contact through meetings and to co-
ordinate meetings with the other supervisors as well as being
responsive to your needs outside of agreed meeting times,
1.3.5. to keep a record of supervisory meetings,
1.3.6. to introduce you to external publications, professional bodies,
contacts and sources in your field of study,
1.3.7. to involve you in the activities of a research group and its
workshops and conferences,
1.3.8. to assist with the planning of the research programme, advise
on literature sources, investigative and analytical techniques
and arrange a programme of advanced training in generic and
specific aspects of your research programme,
1.3.9. to provide assistance with a project structure, work plan and
milestones, in conjunction with you and other supervisors,
1.3.10. to advise you on timing for the various stages of work and
help to ensure that your thesis is submitted within the required
time period,
- 10 -
UoP PGR programme of study information 2019 Edition
1.3.11. to assist you in the self-assessment of personal and

professional skills,
1.3.12. to request written or creative work regularly and arrange for
presentations of work and provide constructive criticism and
feedback normally within 20 working days of receipt (unless
previously negotiated with you),
1.3.13. to ensure that you are aware of what is expected of you as a
student and to ensure that you are informed as to whether you
are attaining the standard expected, and where progress is
not of the required standard to provide support and assistance
to improve performance,
1.3.14. to assist in ensuring that the intellectual property rights and
copyright of written works are protected and that any period of
confidentiality of the thesis is requested as required,
1.3.15. to advise on University regulations and deadlines,
1.3.16. where links with a collaborating organisation exist, to
encourage the development of a mutually beneficial
relationship between you and the organisation,
1.3.17. to provide close and regular monitoring and to ensure that
annual monitoring reports are completed,
1.3.18. to propose an appropriate examination team 4 months in
advance of you submitting your thesis for examination, and
1.3.19. to organise and arrange your oral (viva voce) examination,
liaising with you, the examiners, the Doctoral College, and the
chair where appointed.
1.4. The responsibilities of your second supervisor and any other
supervisors are as follows:
1.4.1. to maintain active involvement with your project and keep in
regular communication with you and your Director of Studies,
1.4.2. to provide primary support on a temporary basis, in the
absence of your Director of Studies.
1.4.3. to become acting Director of Studies if the Director of Studies
ceases employment as an academic staff of the University or
as an approved member of staff at a Node until a replacement
supervisory team is formally approved,
1.4.4. to provide you with additional, often specialist, guidance,
support and feedback (as agreed and negotiated), and to
assist in your progression where possible,
1.4.5. to maintain an awareness of the status of your progress and
to ‘sign off’ progression milestones (e.g. Project Approval and
Confirmation of Route) in a timely fashion on GradBook,
1.4.6. to attend the minimum number of regular meetings with you
and your Director of Studies (4 for full time and 3 for part time
- 11 -
students), and to ‘sign off’ these interactions on GradBook,

and
1.4.7. to act as a mentor for Directors of Studies who have not
previously supervised a research degree to completion at this
level.
1.5. There is a Deputy Director of the Doctoral College for each of the three
Faculties of the University. They are responsible for leading the
development and implementation of the strategy for postgraduate
research (PGR) in their Faculty in accordance with the University’s
overall strategy, and for providing leadership to academic and
administrative colleagues in the furtherance of the strategy (see also
‘Faculty Activities and Expectations’ section in this Handbook).
They work closely with relevant School PGR Co-ordinators, the
Faculty’s Associate Dean Research, the Director of the University’s
Doctoral College and with external partners (for instance, in the
development and management of UKRI Doctoral Training Partnerships
[DTPs] and PGR Nodes) to deliver the Faculty’s goals.
As a core member of the University’s Doctoral College Board, they also
play a significant role in the development of doctoral education (and
associated research masters provision and support for ECRs on fixed
term contracts) across the University.
For further details, see ‘Faculty and School-level Responsibilities for
Postgraduate Research Degrees’ document in this Handbook.
1.6. School PGR Coordinators are responsible for individual research
student matters and ensure that Minimum Resources for research
students are met and that all research students are offered a high-
quality research environment, appropriate discipline-specific skills
training, cohort development opportunities and access to appropriate
facilities and resources (see also ‘School-level Activities and
Expectations’ in this Handbook).
They are responsible in the first instance for admission and selection
procedures, supervision team nomination, quality assurance, annual
monitoring, Project Approval, Confirmation of Route (if appropriate)
and examinations.
If you have any concerns about your programme of study that
your DoS is unable to deal with, or you have a concern about your
relationship with your supervisors, please contact your School
PGR Coordinator in the first instance.
For further details, see ‘Faculty and School-level Responsibilities for
Postgraduate Research Degrees’ section of this Handbook.
2. Research Degree Terms
2.1. This Handbook is for students registered on one of the following
research degree programmes:
- 12 -
2.1.1. ResM – Research Masters

An 18 month full-time (including 6 months writing up period) or
3 year part-time (including a 1 year writing up period)
programme that also includes the compulsory completion of
40 credits of taught modules at Level 7. The latter must
include a research methods module, appropriate to the
discipline, and taught credits applicable to the subject area.
There are progression possibilities for ResM candidates, who
can exceptionally apply to continue directly into the PhD
programme upon the successful completion of the
Confirmation of Route process and transfer to PhD. If this is
the case, the maximum period of registration for a PhD will
apply. However, if you transfer and continue to PhD then the
ResM degree will not be awarded.
2.1.2. MPhil – Master of Philosophy
A 3 year full-time or 4 year part-time research degree
(including a 1 year writing up period).
2.1.3. MPhil/PhD – Master of Philosophy with transfer opportunity to
Doctor of Philosophy
A 4 year full-time (including an 1 year writing up period) or 6
year part-time (including 2 years writing up period) research
degree if you successfully transfer to PhD status. If you
transfer and continue to PhD then the MPhil degree will not be
awarded.
2.1.4. PhD – Doctor of Philosophy
A 4 year full-time (including a 1 year writing up period) or 6
degree once successfully transferred to PhD.
2.1.5. Integrated PhD
degree if you successfully transfer to PhD status, including an
integrated set of taught level 7 modules.
2.1.6. MD – Doctor of Medicine
year part-time (including a 1 year writing up period) research
degree at doctoral level available in the Faculty of Health for
qualified doctors registered with the GMC and working in a
clinical setting within the UK.
There are progression possibilities for MD candidates, who
can exceptionally apply to continue directly into a PhD
programme upon the successful completion of the
Confirmation of Route process and transfer to PhD status. If
this is the case, the maximum period of registration for a PhD
- 13 -
will apply. However, if you transfer and continue to PhD then

the MD degree will not be awarded.
2.1.7. PhD on the Basis of Prior Published Works.
A 12 month programme. Separate regulations and guidelines
exist for this degree.
2.2. If your research forms part of a wider group project working under a
Principal Investigator (PI), you may each register for a research degree
to be submitted individually for examination; these theses must be
distinguishable for the purposes of assessment.
2.3. All research degrees are assessed by means of a thesis and an oral
defence (viva voce examination) at minimum.
2.4. If you are not awarded a research degree or withdraw prior to
submitting a thesis for examination, then you may be awarded either a
PgCert or PgDip if you have satisfactorily completed either 60 or 120
Level 7 credits respectively.
2.5. You may undertake a programme of research in which creative and/or
professional work forms a significant part of the intellectual enquiry. In
such cases, the thesis may comprise both written and practice
elements which are examined together as a whole. The form of the
latter and its documentation/inclusion within the final version of the
thesis must be approved in advance by your approved thesis
examiners.
2.6. You may undertake a programme of research of which the principal
focus is the preparation of a scholarly edition of a text or texts, musical
or choreographic work or other original artefacts. In such cases,
examination may include a presentation in addition to the other
elements of assessment (that is, in addition to the written element of
the thesis, submitted supplementary materials and viva voce
examination).
2.7. For collaboratively produced co-authored theses, both candidates will
be examined together and must, separately and together, meet the
criteria of the relevant degree qualification. In such cases, you are
additionally expected to submit Project Approval (RDC.1) and, if
relevant, Confirmation of Route (RDC.2) materials separately but at the
same time for consideration.
2.8. You must undertake a programme of related studies as deemed
necessary by your DoS and/or Research Degree Management Unit, in
order to gain competence in appropriate research methods and related
knowledge of the subject of the thesis. In some cases, this includes
passing credit-rated modules. If these modules, or other training
requirements, are identified in your Offer Letter, then you will be
required to withdraw from your programme of study if they are not
achieved, regardless of your progress in other areas.
2.9. You are required to engage with, record your progress, and submit for
assessed milestones such as Project Approval and Confirmation of
- 14 -
Route on GradBook, which is the University’s online platform for PGR

monitoring and progression.
2.10. Full time research degree students are entitled to 8 weeks leave per
year, including public holidays. Part-time students are entitled to pro-
rata number of days based on 0.5 FTE. Students in the writing up
phase of their research degrees are entitled to pro-rata number of days
based on 0.1 FTE. You need to agree periods of annual leave with
your supervisory team and record this on GradBook.
2.11. Full-time students are expected to devote at least 37 hours per week to
their studies. Part-time students are expected to devote at least 18.5
hours per week on average to their studies. We do not identify a
minimum number of engagement hours for ‘writing up’ periods; you are
expected to submit your thesis prior to the end of your ‘writing up’
period, which is the final deadline for your thesis, and to negotiate your
commitment accordingly.
2.12. If you are an overseas student on a Tier 4 General Student visa, you
must fulfil and adhere to the regulations given by the UK Visa and
Immigration (UKVI) office and document regular (monthly) interactions
with your supervisors on GradBook.
You are also obliged to comply with your responsibilities with the
University as a Tier 4 General Student visa-holder, as outlined in the
relevant web pages of the International Students Advice (ISA).
The University has produced leaflets for PGR students on Tier 4 visas
and their supervisors which are available from the Doctoral College,
the International Students Advice and the UKVI Compliance Team.
2.13. The University’s Equality & Diversity and related policies are available
from the main Student regulations, policies and procedures webpage.
3. Enrolment
3.1. All research degree candidates are referred to as postgraduate
research (PGR) students and are recorded in the University student
records system (UNIT-e).
3.2. You are required to enrol on your first day of study for a research
degree. You should contact the Doctoral College for details of when
and where enrolment will take place if you have not received
information by email. Online enrolment is possible for most research
students.
3.3. At enrolment you will normally be required to:
3.3.1. produce confirmation of award or sponsorship arrangements
or confirmation that payment for fees has been made (the
Finance department or the Doctoral College should be
contacted if you or your sponsors have any questions
concerning the payment of tuition fees),
3.3.2. for international students based at Plymouth (i.e. those not
registered for research carried out mainly overseas or in a
- 15 -
partnership ‘node’), you must have your relevant documents

scanned by the International Students Advice (ISA),
3.3.3. for international students not based at Plymouth (i.e., those
registered for research carried out mainly overseas or in a
partnership ‘node’), you must have your relevant documents
scanned by the International Students Advice (ISA) each time
your visit the University of Plymouth,
3.3.4. for students assessed as Home or EU for fee paying purposes
with a non-EU nationality, you must have your relevant
documents scanned, and
3.3.5. complete and sign an enrolment form or complete online
enrolment process.
3.4. You will normally receive an ID/student card at initial enrolment only -
this card enables you to access the library, Students’ Union, and
certain buildings and offices and sports facilities (after payment of a
joining fee where appropriate).
3.5. If you have been appointed to work on a project conceived by the
University which forms all or part of your research degree programme,
and you have been funded by the University (e.g. through a
studentship), you may be required to assign any IP (Intellectual
Property) Rights to the University or to an external partner.
In such cases, you will need to sign an IP Agreement with the
University (and/or the partner organisation) prior to enrolling on your
programme of study (or as soon as possible thereafter).
Please see the University’s Intellectual Property Policy for further
details and contact your Director of Studies and/or School PGR
Coordinator at the earliest opportunity to discuss.
3.6. You must re-enrol at the beginning of each academic year for the
duration of your programme of study.
You are not entitled to re-enrol unless the prescribed fees for the
previous academic year or any other outstanding academic debt with
the University have been paid.
3.7. If you have not enrolled for the current academic year, and have not
applied for a formal interruption, approved by the Doctoral College
Quality Sub-Committee, you will have your registration automatically
terminated and your status will be recorded as withdrawn.
The University will always try to contact you before terminating your
registration. It is your responsibility to notify the University, via the
Doctoral College, of any change to your contact details.
4. Induction
4.1. University-wide Induction events will be run at least twice a year by the
Doctoral College for all research degree candidates, and additionally at
least twice online if you are unable to attend in person.
- 16 -
4.2. Attending a University Induction Event is mandatory for PGR students.

You will be unable to complete Project Approval until you have either
attended an Induction event, an online induction webinar or viewed the
recorded online induction and passed a short quiz.
4.3. Your Research Degree Management Unit (normally at School or
Faculty level) will also provide you with essential and useful
information. This will vary according to local procedures but will
normally be provided through an induction workshop, event or
programme, as well as a supplement to this handbook.
4.4. Induction events aim to ensure that you are:
4.4.1. informed of the local research degree management structure,
staff and procedures, the formal and informal channels of
communication at local and University level,
4.4.2. introduced to the library, computing, facilities, resources and
services available to you,
4.4.3. made aware of your responsibilities as a research degree
candidate and the responsibilities of their supervisors to you,
4.4.4. informed of the purposes, roles and responsibilities of the
Doctoral College,
4.4.5. introduced to the extent of research training available and/or
required,
4.4.6. informed of University health and safety procedures (where
appropriate, specific local guidelines will be provided and you
may be required to sign a statement to confirm that you have
read and agree to these procedures),
4.4.7. informed of the University research ethics and integrity policy,
particularly in those areas where research involves human
and/or animal participants,
4.4.8. informed of the University policy on ownership of copyright of
theses and intellectual property rights arising from your work,
4.4.9. made fully aware of the timescale for completion of your
research degree including the normal minimum and maximum
periods for registration, the liability of payment of fees and the
structure of amount of fees to be paid,
4.4.10. informed of normal expectations for progress, probationary
periods and the annual monitoring process,
4.4.11. informed of the systems and procedures in place to monitor
the use of the electronic system for research degree students
(GradBook), how to view and record your progress, and of
your responsibilities,
4.4.12. informed of pastoral support, health & wellbeing and
counselling services available and encouraged to make use of
the support network for personal and work-related matters
when needed, and
- 17 -
4.4.13. made aware of opportunities to voice views and input into

local and university-level decision-making.
5. Your Responsibilities
5.1. As a research student, you are expected to:
5.1.1. contribute positively to the development and maintenance of
an effective working relationship with your Director of Studies
and other supervisors,
5.1.2. pursue your research project with a commitment, taking full
advantage of the resources and facilities offered,
5.1.3. maintain a record of the minimum number of formal
supervisory sessions each year on, and upload documents as
required to, GradBook,
5.1.4. submit written or creative research work to your supervisory
team regularly and provide oral presentations of work in
seminars, as required,
5.1.5. agree a schedule of regular meetings with your supervisors,
meeting the minimum number required for your programme of
study,
5.1.6. take initiative in raising problems and difficulties,
5.1.7. maintain progress in accordance with the schedule agreed
your supervisors,
5.1.8. engage in self-assessment of personal and professional skills
development and appropriate skills training, ensuring that your
supervisors are aware of areas where training may be
necessary,
5.1.9. provide an annual report of progress via GradBook,
5.1.10. negotiate with your Director of Studies the amount of time
devoted to your research and the timing of vacations and
leave of absence,
5.1.11. make the ultimate decision to submit your thesis (while your
Director of Studies' advice should be taken as to when the
thesis is ready for submission, this cannot be taken as a
guarantee that the examiners will find the thesis acceptable
for the award of a degree),
5.1.12. be responsible for the preparation of your thesis and its
submission and any corrections required post-examination
and to ensure that the content is complete, accurate and your
own work (except where clearly indicated),
5.1.13. attend a mandatory Doctoral College Induction event, either in
person or online, and complete the University’s mandatory
online Health & Safety training,
- 18 -
5.1.14. ensure that the University, via the Doctoral College, has up-to-
date contact details for you and that you regularly check your
University email account for communications,
5.1.15. follow the University’s ethical guidelines and codes of good
practice, as well as complying with the General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR),
5.1.16. enrol every year and to ensure that all tuition fees are paid, as
appropriate, and
5.1.17. adhere to the commitments outlined in the University’s
Student Charter as appropriate.
5.2. All University researchers are expected to embrace the principles of
open research. By practicing open research, you can demonstrate the
value, rigour and integrity of your work. You are encouraged to make
your research data openly available for reuse at the end of your
project, within legal and ethical constraints and dependent on its
context (e.g. as part of a funded ongoing project).
Additional information can be found via the University’s Research
Support website, the Library’s guide on Open Research or by
contacting the Open Research Team.
The University has produced Open Access and Research Data
Guidelines for PGR Students which aim to clarify its expectations with
regards to open access research and RDM.
The University’s Open Research Team also runs sessions for PGRs as
part of the Researcher Development Programme.
5.3. You are responsible for exercising good practice in research data
management. All PGR students commencing on or after 1st August
2019 are required to submit a Data Management Plan as part of the
Project Approval (RDC.1) process. PGRs who began their
programmes prior to this date, but who are submitting applications for
ethical approval, will also require Data Management Plans.
5.4. All postgraduate researchers are required to adhere to the University’s
Code of Good Research Practice.
You can read more about the University’s ethical approval processes
as well as information about each Faculty Research Ethics & Integrity
Committee on the Research Ethics Policy webpages.
You are expected to work with your supervisory team to apply for
ethical approval for your project at the earliest opportunity. Your
application must be approved by your Director of Studies prior to
submission.
6. Registration Period
6.1. The first six months of registration for full-time students and 12 months
for part-time students are considered a probationary period and
registration may be terminated by the University if you do not make
- 19 -
sufficient progress during this time (normally indicated by not

successfully completing the Project Approval RDC.1 milestone).
6.2. The normal maximum and minimum periods of supervised study and
registration prior to submission of a thesis for examination are:
Registration type Mode of Minimum Maximum

attendance
full-time 12 months 18 months
ResM
part-time 24 months 36 months
MPhil
PhD
(from first enrolment full-time 24 months 48 months
as MPhil/PhD or
ResM if relevant)
Integrated PhD add part-time 36 months 72 months
12/24 months
(FT/PT)
MD
6.3. Your thesis (or its written element if your thesis also includes creative
or professional practice) must be submitted for examination before the
end of the maximum periods of registration outlined above.
6.4. If you wish to submit your thesis earlier than the minimum registration
period indicated above, you will need to obtain prior approval for an
exemption to the minimum period from the Doctoral College Quality
Sub-committee. Additionally, you will have to pay fees up to the
minimum registration period.
6.5. The Doctoral College Quality Sub-Committee may permit a candidate
who has started a programme of study and research at another
university to complete it as a registered candidate of the University of
Plymouth. In such cases, the Doctoral College shall determine the
minimum and maximum periods of registration on a case by case basis
in consultation with your previous institution.
Extension to registration
6.6. In exceptional cases, and on the recommendation of your Director of
Studies (or other nominated supervisor), your registration may be
extended by the Doctoral College Quality Sub-Committee. Applications
must be made via GradBook.
6.7. If you submit your thesis after your deadline, you will be responsible for
paying extension fees at the appropriate level (See Item 7 below, as
well as the section entitled ‘Fee Amendments for Withdrawing,
Extending and Suspending Registration, and for Deregistration’ in this
Handbook).
- 20 -
6.8. Extensions may be granted for a maximum of 12 months at any one

time. Thereafter, you may apply to extend your registration for a
maximum period of 24 months.
6.9. The period by which the total registration of a student may be extended
(including all extensions and interruptions granted) will not normally
exceed a total of 24 months.
6.10. If your maximum period of registration has ended, and you have not
been granted a further extension, your registration may be deemed by
the Doctoral College Quality Sub-Committee to have lapsed and, as a
result, you will be withdrawn from your programme of study.
Interruption to registration
6.11. Where you can show good reason for not making progress with your
research programme, you may apply via GradBook to have your
registration interrupted for a period of not normally less than one month
and not more than 12 months. In exceptional circumstances, you may
renew the interruption of registration once, for a further period of 12
months maximum.
6.12. The period by which the total registration of a student may be extended
(including all extensions and interruptions granted) will not normally
exceed a total of 24 months.
6.13. Interruptions of registration are usually requested as a result of illness,
maternity/paternity leave, severe personal problems or commitments
unrelated to the research project, but not for trivial matters.
6.14. Approval by the local Research Degree Management Unit and by
Doctoral College Quality Sub-Committee is required.
6.15. Periods of interruption shall not count towards the maximum period of
registration.
6.16. Please see the section entitled ‘Fee Amendments for Withdrawing,
Extending and Interrupting Registration, and for Deregistration’ in this
Handbook. You should then pay any remaining amount owed as soon
as possible. The Student Accounts team will contact you if you have
not done so.
If you have overpaid your fees the surplus funds can either be retained
and applied to your fees on resumption of your studies or refunded to
you at your request. Please note that students will not be reimbursed
for fees paid prior to the current year of registration. Please email
studentaccountsteam@plymouth.ac.uk if you require a refund.
6.17. The University is obliged to follow the guidelines issued by UK Visas
and Immigration (UKVI) when dealing with requests for interruptions
from overseas students under a Tier 4 General Student visa.
6.18. During the period of interruption, the University has the right to
suspend access to laboratories, Student Services, office or other
workspace and to the library since you may no longer be covered by
the University’s insurance. However, the University will normally
- 21 -
attempt to keep access to the library and on-line accounts live during
the period of interruption.
6.19. During a period of interruption, your supervisory team is not able to
engage with you about the progress of your project, although it is
recommended that ‘keeping in touch’ meetings are held every 3
months during a period of interruption, either in person or by video
conference. Please note that this is not intended to discuss or further
the content of your research project.
6.20. Retrospective interruptions with a start date more than 2 months from
date of request are not normally allowed; you and/or your Director of
Studies are encouraged to raise these requests at the time of the
events happening whenever possible.
6.21. Immediately following an interruption of 6 months or longer, you should
have a ‘re-integration’ meeting with your Director of Studies to
recalibrate your project, schedule of work and your support needs.
Amendments to registration (mode of study)
6.22. If you wish to change your mode of study (that is, from full time to part
time or vice versa), this request must be made via GradBook.
6.23. As the maximum period of study varies according to mode of study and
your award aim, you total remaining registration period and tuition fee
status will therefore be affected by any such changes. These will be
recalculated by the Doctoral College.
6.24. Requests for changes must be approved by the local Research Degree
Management Unit and then Doctoral College Quality Sub-Committee.
6.25. You are not allowed to change your mode of study once you have
entered your ‘writing up’ period.
Withdrawal from registration
6.26. If you decide to withdraw from your programme of study, then you
should notify the University of the reason for withdrawal and date of
departure, preferably via GradBook. Your withdrawal will be reported to
the Doctoral College Quality Sub-committee.
6.27. If you do not do this via GradBook, then written confirmation must be
sent to the Doctoral College as soon as possible to ensure that your
enrolment and registration are cancelled and you are no longer liable
for fees.
6.28. Please see the section entitled ‘Fee Amendments for Withdrawing,
Extending and Suspending Registration, and for Deregistration’ in this
Handbook.
and Immigration (UKVI) when dealing with withdrawals of overseas
students under a Tier 4 General Student visa.
- 22 -
Termination of registration
6.30. The University reserves the right to terminate your registration if:
6.30.1. it is determined that it has discharged all its responsibilities
towards you, and
6.30.2. you have received adequate and formal warning of
inadequate progress, have not improved and show no
likelihood of improvement, or
6.30.3. you have not achieved mandatory milestones, requirements or
taught modules within specified timeframes or numbers of
attempts, or
6.30.4. it is demonstrated that you have committed an academic
offence or research misconduct, or
6.30.5. you have not kept in contact with the University, or
6.30.6. you fail to enrol for the current academic year without a formal
agreed interruption.
6.31. Please also see ‘Failure to Progress’ (Item 11 below) as well as ‘Lack
of academic progress’ in the Guidelines for Supervisors section of this
Handbook.
7. Fee Paying Structure
7.1. The fee you are responsible for paying depends on your year of
registration and mode of attendance (full-time or part-time), according
to the table below.
Mode of PhD MPhil ResM MD

attendance
3 years FT 2 years FT 1 year FT fees 2 years FT
fees fees fees
Full-time Plus 1 year of Plus 1 year of Plus 0.5 years Plus 1 year of
writing up writing up of writing up writing up
(reduced fee) (reduced fee) (reduced fee) (reduced fee)
4 years PT 3 years PT 2 years PT 3 years PT
fees fees fees fees
Part-time Plus 2 years of Plus 1 year of Plus 1 year of Plus 1 year of
writing up writing up writing up writing up
(reduced fee) (reduced fee) (reduced fee) (reduced fee)
7.2. If you are sponsored and your sponsorship covers periods of full time
longer than those in the table above, these will be adjusted to coincide
with your sponsorship details.
7.3. Further information on standard tuition fees is available at the Fees
and Funding webpage.
- 23 -
7.4. If you began your programme of study after 1 September 2018 and
need to resubmit your thesis for a second examination following your
viva voce examination, you will need to pay a Resubmission Fee
whether or not a second oral examination is waived.
7.5. If you are in receipt of a University Research Studentship (URS),
information about payments during Maternity, Adoption, Ordinary
Paternity, Shared Parental Leave and other interruptions to study
(including illness), can be found in the ‘University Research
Studentship Guidelines’ on this page.
8. Project Approval
8.1. Project Approval stage is compulsory if you are registered for the
degrees of MPhil, MPhil/PhD, ResM or MD.
8.2. As part of this process, you must do the following via GradBook:
8.2.1. complete the Project approval (RDC.1) form; this includes an
abstract of your project and details of training completed and
forthcoming,
8.2.2. submit a schedule of work leading to the submission of your
thesis,
8.2.3. submit a Data Management Plan, and
8.2.4. evidence that you have attended a mandatory Induction
Event, and
8.2.5. submit any other materials specified by your local Research
Degree Management Units (in School supplements to the
Research Degrees Handbook).
8.3. Your project is reviewed by an ‘expert commentator’ from outside of
your supervisory team. The assessment of your project for approval
includes:
8.3.1. consideration of the academic content and quality of your
proposed programme of work to ensure that it is set at the
appropriate level and achievable within the limits of the
research programme and according to the submitted schedule
of work,
8.3.2. consideration of whether your Data Management Plan is
realistic and appropriate to your project and adheres to ethical
and legal guidelines,
8.3.3. consideration of the appropriate level of study and programme
and thus the route of study and qualification aim,
8.3.4. consideration of the availability of project resources, research
training, supervision for the duration of your programme,
8.3.5. consideration of the extent of the relationship with any
collaborating establishment and the protection of intellectual
property rights and copyright of the final thesis,
- 24 -
8.3.6. consideration of your qualifications/experience and potential to

fulfil your proposed project,
8.3.7. assurance that you and your proposed research degree
project meet University Regulations,
8.3.8. approval of any request for collaborative or jointly-authored
submission of final thesis materials (including practice), and
8.3.9. ethical considerations and/or approval if appropriate and not
considered before.
8.4. You must submit the materials listed under 8.2 above for Project
Approval via GradBook by not earlier than 3 months and not later than
5 months from your official start date if you are a full time student. If
you are a part time student, this must occur not earlier than 6 months
and not later than 10 months from your official start date. These
periods will be extended by approved periods of interruption.
8.5. If you are not able to submit your Project Approval materials by the
dates above, for personal reasons beyond your control, then you
should follow the Extenuating Circumstances process to request an
extension to your deadline. Extensions following an approved request
via the Extenuating Circumstances will be granted for a maximum of 1
month for full time students and 2 months for part time students.
8.6. Your Director of Studies can submit a request for an extension to the
above deadlines for methodological reasons.
8.6.1. This request must be made prior to the original deadline.
8.6.2. It must be approved at either School or Faculty level
(depending on local processes and procedures as per their
supplementary handbook) with all requests and decisions
uploaded to your GradBook page.
8.6.3. Extensions to the submission for the Project Approval for
methodological reasons will be granted by not more than 1
month for full time students and 2 months for part time
students.
8.7. If your Data Management Plan (DMP) does not meet the requirements
to pass but the rest of your Project Approval application is satisfactory,
then your project may be still approved with a note from your
supervisor or expert commentator on GradBook stating that it requires
further development and/or amendments which will be monitored.
8.8. If your project is not approved at first attempt (including non-
submission by the deadline without an approved extension), you are
allowed a second attempt.
8.8.1. The deadline for submission for the second attempt will be 3
months from the official notification, via GradBook, of not
having succeeded in the first attempt.
8.8.2. If you have not completed a mandatory induction, then you will
not be able to submit your Project Approval materials on
- 25 -
GradBook. If this is the case and your deadline passes, it will

be considered an ‘attempt’ and you will be deemed to have
failed this milestone.
8.9. If you do not successfully complete Project Approval within a) two
attempts, or else b) within 9 months full time or 15 months part time
(whichever is longest), you will be required to withdraw from your
programme unless there are valid extenuating circumstances or your
submission is under consideration for approval.
9. Confirmation of Route
9.1. If you are registered as an MPhil/PhD student, the Confirmation of
Route process is compulsory. If you do not successfully complete this
process, or do not wish to transfer to a PhD route, you will be
confirmed on an MPhil award route.
9.2. Transfer to PhD status is also possible from the following research
degree registrations: ResM, MD and MPhil.
9.3. The transfer to PhD is retrospective to your date of initial registration.
9.4. The Confirmation of Route process is:
9.4.1. a significant milestone toward your final doctoral level award,
9.4.2. a gauge of your current level of progress and a check that you
are on target for successful completion, and
9.4.3. an important stage in the written development of your final
thesis.
9.5. As part of this process, you must complete the Confirmation of Route
(RDC.2) form and additionally submit the following via GradBook:
9.5.1. if you are intending to stay registered on an MPhil route, a
report that confirms this intention and includes your plan for
the same level of study,
9.5.2. if you are intending to transfer to PhD, a transfer report that
includes your plan for a higher level of study differentiating
between masters level and doctoral level of work, including
the originality and contribution to knowledge that the project
will make (normally up to 3000 words),
9.5.3. if you are intending to pursue a jointly-authored submission, a
statement outlining the nature and extent of the collaboration
and how this will be represented in the final thesis submission,
9.5.4. a statement of progress against the schedule of work at
Project Approval stage,
9.5.5. an updated Data Management Plan, if appropriate,
9.5.6. the equivalent of at least one thesis chapter, normally up to
8000 words (e.g. literature review and description of methods;
draft research paper), and
9.5.7. any other materials or processes (e.g. presentation or viva
voce examination) specified by your local Research Degrees
- 26 -
Management Units (please see your Faculty/School

supplements to this Research Degrees Handbook).
9.6. In assessing the outcome of the Confirmation of Route process, the
following is taken into consideration:
9.6.1. confirmation from your Director of Studies and other
supervisors that you are making satisfactory progress,
9.6.2. the research training you have undertaken to date and details
of planned training and skills development,
9.6.3. issues related to data management, collaboration, ethical
protocol, copyright and intellectual property rights (as
relevant),
9.6.4. the recommendation by your supervisory team that you should
either remain on a masters level programme or transfer to
PhD/doctoral level status,
9.6.5. a review of your project by an expert commentator from
outside your supervisory team, confirming that you have
evidenced satisfactory progress in your research programme
to date; that there is evidence that the research provides the
basis for a PhD (in the case of transfers to PhD); and
recommending that you should either remain on a masters
level programme or transfer to PhD status, and
9.6.6. the recommendations of your supervisory team and expert
commentator by the local Research Degree Management
Unit.
9.7. You are required to submit the materials listed under 9.5 above by not
earlier than 12 months and not later than 15 if you are a full time
student, and not earlier than 18 months and not later than 21 months if
you are a part time student. If you are on an Integrated PhD
programme, you may add 12 months if full-time or 24 months if part-
time to these time periods.
9.8. If, for personal reasons beyond your control, you are not able to submit
for Confirmation of Route via GradBook by the dates above, you
should follow the Extenuating Circumstances process to request an
extension to your deadline. Extensions following an approved request
via the Extenuating Circumstances will be granted for a maximum of 3
months for both full time and part time students.
9.9. Your Director of Studies can submit a request for an extension to the
above deadlines for methodological reasons.
9.9.1. This request must be made prior to your deadline.
9.9.2. It must be approved at either School or Faculty level
(depending on local processes and procedures as per their
supplementary handbook) with all requests and decisions
uploaded to the student’s GradBook page.
- 27 -
9.9.3. Extensions to the submission of the Confirmation of Route for

months for full time and part time students.
9.10. If you do not succeed at your first attempt, you are allowed a second
attempt. The deadline for submission for your second attempt will be 3
months from the official notification, via GradBook, of the outcome in
the first attempt. If you do not submit by your deadline, this will be
considered an ‘attempt’ unless extenuating circumstances have been
granted.
9.11. If you do not successfully transfer to PhD within 18 months of effective
full time registration, or 24 months of effective part time registration
(that is, taking into account any approved periods of interruption), you
will be deemed to stay registered on the masters level degree
programme, unless you have valid extenuating circumstances or have
a submission under consideration.
9.12. You may choose to submit your thesis for a lower award than that for
which you are registered (for example, a PhD candidate may submit
their thesis for a MPhil); this decision does not have to be made until
submission of the Nomination of Examiners (RDC.3) form by your
Director of Studies. Examiners may also choose to award a degree at
a higher level than that for which you have submitted, although this is a
rare occurrence.
10. Research Training
10.1. The University aims:
10.1.1. to provide high quality and professional training in research
and other skills that lead to career development, tailored to the
individual needs and aspirations of each research candidate,
10.1.2. to supply this training partly through the individual attention of
a well-trained, professional Director of Studies and
supervisory team, who will meet regularly with the candidate
at agreed times and for set periods in an atmosphere of
support, encouragement, constructive criticism and debate,
10.1.3. to provide access to a selection of short training workshops
and courses, comprising both specialist and non-specialist
topics,
10.1.4. to support students and supervisor(s) through clear and
established processes and expectations for regular
monitoring, reporting, feedback and peer review of the
candidate’s progress,
10.1.5. to provide adequate opportunity for regular presentations by
research degree candidates to a range of audiences within the
University, and
10.1.6. to support attendance and delivery of research results by
candidates at appropriate external venues e.g. via conference
attendance.
- 28 -
10.2. The Doctoral College’s Researcher Development Programme offers

over 150 sessions each year to help you develop and broaden your
research and transferable skills. These include both classroom
sessions and webinars. They are listed on these pages (which are
updated regularly) and are categorised according to Vitae’s
Researcher Development Framework. The framework is structured in
four domains, which encompass what researchers need to know to do
research, how to be effective in their approach to research, when
working with others, and in contributing to the wider environment.
10.3. Many resources related to the University’s Researcher Development
Programme are available on our Moodle page. These include videos of
webinars and session handouts, Library and Induction information,
GradBook guides and more. To access these resources you can self-
enrol on Moodle using your University of Plymouth email address or
send an email to researchskills@plymouth.ac.uk.
10.4. Due to the diverse research training requirements of the University’s
PGR students, Faculties and Schools are expected to identify and
deliver appropriate discipline-specific training and career development
opportunities in addition to those offered by the Doctoral College
through its Researcher Development Programme.
10.5. If you are required to complete any compulsory individual training, this
will be confirmed to you prior to enrolment or soon after at the
beginning of your programme of study.
If your offer letter indicates that you must pass a module or complete a
specific type of training (including those related to English language
skills), then this is a mandatory requirement of your programme of
study and you will not be allowed to progress or be awarded a degree
without its successful completion.
There is no ‘compensation’ available for compulsory modules.
Regulations related to Accreditation of Prior Learning (APL) are
available in ‘Section A – Admissions’ which can be downloaded from
this page.
10.6. You may complete further credits at the University, beyond any
specified compulsory requirement, up to a total maximum of 120 (these
can include up to 30 credits of level 6 modules).
10.7. These optional credits are determined by you and your supervisor
depending on your previous experience and the needs of your
proposed research project element. They may be chosen from a
variety of existing taught programmes and can span disciplines. In
some cases, it may also be possible to register on an ‘attendance only’
basis.
10.8. Please note that registration on optional modules is subject to the
approval of your DoS, the availability of these modules and at the
discretion of the module leader.
- 29 -
11. Monitoring of Progress

11.1. If you are a full time student, a minimum of 4 meetings must be held
with your supervisory team each year (3 times per year, if you are a
part time student), with documentation and outcomes of these
meetings recorded in GradBook. You are expected to work together
with your Director of Studies to maintain and complete these
mandatory interactions on GradBook.
11.2. Both you and your Director of Studies are required to complete annual
monitoring forms, via GradBook, up to the point of completion of your
degree.
11.3. The Research Degree Management Unit, normally at School level, is
responsible for monitoring and reviewing the progress of all research
students towards their award aim.
Failure to progress
11.4. If you fail to make satisfactory progress in your programme of study,
your School may recommend to the Doctoral College Quality Sub-
committee that your registration should be terminated. As part of this
process, the University is committed to:
11.4.1. ensuring that you are offered the opportunity to demonstrate
progression,
11.4.2. dealing with the matter in a sensitive manner,
11.4.3. providing the opportunity for both you and your supervisors to
report separately and in confidence, and
11.4.4. where necessary, assisting you and your supervision team to
bring the programme back on schedule at the earliest
opportunity.
11.5. The University reserves the right to terminate the registration of a
research student in the case of persistent unacceptable progress.
Please also see ‘Termination of Registration’ (Item 6 above). You will
not be required to withdraw from the University without having first
received a formal written warning.
For further information about this process, please see the ‘Lack of
academic progress’ section in the ‘Guidelines for Supervisors’ in this
Handbook.
11.6. Where appropriate, the University Study and Wellbeing Review Policy
and Procedure will be followed.
12. Amendments, Changes and Transfers
12.1. If there is a change to your source of funding, please report this by
email to the Doctoral College so your records can be updated.
12.2. If there is a need to change the members of your supervisory team (or
an individual’s role on your team), this must be done via GradBook by
a current supervisor and approved by your School PGR Coordinator on
behalf of your Head of School.
- 30 -
12.3. If, due to a change in circumstances, e.g. redeployment of your

supervisor, you wish to transfer registration to another institution, the
University has the right to refuse and, in such a case, an explanation
will be offered. This is likely to have to do with Intellectual Property
Rights.
12.4. If an external candidate wishes to transfer to University of Plymouth,
the institution from which they are transferring must provide written
confirmation that they are willing to accept the transfer of the
registration for the candidate.
and Immigration (UKVI) when dealing with transfers between
institutions for overseas students under a Tier 4 General Student visa.
13. Your Thesis
13.1. Your thesis as a whole must be framed as a single coherent research
project and meet the relevant QAA Framework for Higher Education
criteria for qualifications at Level 7 (Masters) or Level 8 (Doctoral) as
appropriate to the degree. Please see the section at the end of this
Handbook.
13.2. Your thesis may include non-written forms of research presentation
(e.g. creative or professional practice) or else research outputs,
including articles, published or made public during the course of the
degree registration. In such cases:
13.2.1. the nature and form of the thesis must be approved by your
examiners prior to submission,
13.2.2. the thesis should include an introduction (outlining research
aims, enquiry, methodology and defining key terms as well as
positioning within one or more fields of study) and conclusion
(including a clear statement of the contribution to knowledge,
in the case of a doctorate),
13.2.3. it may be necessary for examiners to engage in some
elements of the thesis (e.g. performance or exhibition) some
time prior to the submission of the written element or the viva
voce examination. Please note that examiners may not
discuss this work with you – except in general and non-critical
ways which do not represent formative feedback – prior to the
viva voce examination meeting,
13.2.4. where individual elements of the thesis are co-authored and/or
co-produced, your specific role as a researcher within these
elements must be clearly indicated within the thesis and it
must be explained how this contributes to the overarching
methodology of your research project as represented by the
thesis as a whole. Normally it would be expected that you are
the named first author (or disciplinary equivalent) of any
publication included as part of the thesis and that a statement
is provided by each co-author confirming your contribution,
and
- 31 -
13.2.5. it is only possible to include Open Access publications or

‘green’ final manuscript versions of articles or papers within
theses for copyright reasons. Please refer to the Open Access
and Research Data Guidelines for Postgraduate Research
(PGR) Students.
13.3. Your thesis must be written in English. Any exception to this condition
must be sought in writing to the Doctoral College Quality Sub-
Committee prior to submitting the thesis for examination.
13.4. The University accepts that some postgraduate research students may
wish to have their work proofread or edited by a third-party (that is,
neither the student nor a member of their supervisory team) prior to
submission and examination.
13.4.1. If this is the case, then such a process may not compromise
the authorship of the submitted work – for example, there may
be no factual changes or additions or amendments to the
argument.
13.4.2. The use of a proofreader must be acknowledged in the thesis.
A copy of the thesis prior to proofreading must also be
uploaded to GradBook and this may be made available to the
examiners upon request, so it is possible to ascertain what
changes were made.
13.4.3. In cases where changes to the thesis due to proofreading are
so extensive that it can no longer be fairly said that the work is
that of the student, or where the original version of the thesis
is not made available upon request, then either academic
offences procedures or PGR Student Research Misconduct
procedures should be followed (as appropriate).
13.5. Papers that you have published during your research registration
period, and that are not being included as examined elements of the
thesis itself, should be listed either in the Author’s Declaration or else
in an Appendix at the end of the thesis, including their DOI.
13.6. The requirements and guidelines for the presentation of your thesis are
detailed in the ‘Thesis Presentation’ section at the end of this
Handbook. Citation practice should be agreed with your Director of
Studies as appropriate for your discipline(s).
13.7. The main text of your thesis must normally be below the following limits
(excluding ancillary data, appendices, bibliography, etc.):
13.7.1. for ResM: 25,000 words
13.7.2. for MD: 60,000 words
13.7.3. for MPhil: 40,000 words
13.7.4. for PhD: 80,000 words
13.8. Where your thesis includes material other than that which is written or
the research involves creative writing or the preparation of a scholarly
- 32 -
edition, then the written contextual/critical element of thesis should

normally be shorter than the above limits.
13.9. All theses that include practical outcomes must also include a written
element which, in the case of a PhD, substantiates and contextualises
its contribution to knowledge.
13.10. In the instance of a collaboratively produced co-authored thesis, it is
expected that any written element will exceed the standard maximum
word count by no more than double. For example, if the maximum
length of a PhD thesis is 80,000 words, then a collaborative
submission should be no more than 160,000 words. In the case of a
collaboratively produced co-authored thesis that contains practice, it
would be expected that the written element is shorter, and submitted
alongside a significant piece of practice and substantive documentation
thereof.
13.11. In the case of practice-research degrees, the examiners must approve
the form and format of the thesis. Please see guidelines in the relevant
Faculty/School Supplement for details of this process.
13.12. The anticipated form of the final submission should have been outlined
at Project Approval and/or Confirmation of Route stages, and approved
by the Local Research Degree Management Unit.
13.13. In agreeing to such a request, the candidate, Director of Studies and
Local Research Degrees Management Unit shall ensure that the
proposed form and format of the thesis:
13.13.1. will be legible and accessible to the examiners and peer
community,
13.13.2. will include a satisfactory record of the ‘practice’ element,
13.13.3. is able to contextualise the practice intellectually,
13.13.4. is able to clearly demonstrate its contribution to knowledge (in
the case of a PhD),
13.13.5. will be of a scale and form which can be reasonably stored in
an electronic repository,
13.13.6. will be archive stable for a reasonable length of time, and
13.13.7. makes clear what is being examined.
13.14. You must include a statement at the front of your thesis with the word
count of your thesis. It will not be accepted by the Doctoral College
unless the word count is noted and is below the above limits. The only
exceptions to this rule are 1) if the greater word count has been agreed
in writing by all the examiners prior to submission, and 2) in the case of
a collaboratively produced co-authored thesis (see 13.10 above).
14. Submission of Your Thesis
14.1. You must submit copies of your thesis, by your deadline (i.e. the end of
your ‘writing up’ period or any approved extension) for examination to
the Doctoral College office. One copy must be submitted for each
examiner and (if appointed) the non-examining independent Chair.
- 33 -
14.2. Your thesis is your own work. Although it is always advisable to heed
the guidance of your supervisory team, it is up to you to decide when
you consider it is ready for submission. You will be required to submit a
signed copy of the declaration of submission form (RDC.3S) with your
thesis to certify that you are choosing to submit the thesis yourself.
14.3. Work submitted for a research degree at the University of Plymouth
may not form part of any other degree you have undertaken at the
University or at another establishment. Contravention of this condition
will mean that your degree will be revoked by the University.
Exceptions apply if you are studying as part of a collaborative
arrangement with another institution and a joint or dual degree has
been formally agreed between two higher education institutions.
14.4. Theses should be submitted for examination in a temporary bound
form such as ‘perfect binding’ or comb binding. A loose leaf copy in a
ring folder will not be accepted. A thesis submitted in a temporary
bound form must be in its final form in all respects save the final
binding. Please see the ‘Thesis Presentation’ section at the end of this
Handbook.
14.5. The final title of your thesis needs to be indicated on the RDC.3 form
that your Director of Studies submits to nominate your examination
team to the University.
14.6. If your examination team requests a change to your thesis title
following your viva voce examination, no further approval is required
and this will be part of your required corrections/amendments to your
thesis.
15. The Examination of Your Thesis
15.1. It is your Director of Studies’ responsibility to nominate your examiners
at least 4 months prior to the submission of your thesis (or the
examination of any part of it – for example, creative practice elements
such as a performance or exhibition).
This means that you must keep your DoS informed of your progress
and intentions, especially in the run up to submission. It sometimes
takes many months to approve an examination team and your
examination will be delayed if this has not occurred prior to the
submission of your thesis.
Your DoS should consult you about examiners but is not obliged to
take up your suggestions. Under no circumstances should you
approach examiners yourself.
For more information about the criteria for and appointment of
examiners, please see the ‘Guidelines for Supervisors’ section of this
Handbook.
15.2. If both of your examiners are of a different gender to your own, then
you will be asked whether you would like to have an independent non-
examining Chair of your own gender at your viva voce examination
(please see the section on ‘Roles and Responsibilities of Independent
Chairs’ in this Handbook). This is entirely up to you and is meant to
- 34 -
ensure that you feel comfortable during your examination. Please note
that the Doctoral College will try not to make assumptions about your
gender and apologise in advance if you are accidentally mis-identified.
15.3. You will receive an email from the Doctoral College:
15.3.1. confirming that copies of your thesis have been sent to the
examiners,
15.3.2. indicating any amendments required to the presentation of the
thesis which have been identified by the Doctoral College,
15.3.3. asking you to contact Disability Services (DS) if appropriate,
and
15.3.4. outlining the general procedures regarding your examination
and the possible outcomes.
15.4. Prior your viva voce examination, each of your examiners will complete
an independent report. A copy of these pre-viva reports will be held in
your student file; these remain confidential throughout the duration of
the examination. Should a copy be requested under the Data
Protection Act 2018, it will only be provided within the extended
timescales allowed under the Act.
The viva voce (oral) examination
15.5. Viva voce examinations are required for all candidates who submit
theses. The only exception is in the case of resubmitted theses where
both examiners agree in advance that the examination will result in
either a ‘pass’ or ‘corrections’ outcome.
15.6. The Doctoral College runs workshops on preparing for your viva voce
examination at least three times each year. Please see the Researcher
Development Programme or email researchskills@plymouth.ac.uk for
further details. You should also ask your examination team to run a
‘mock viva’ with you a few weeks before your real one.
15.7. Your viva voce (oral) examination will be organised by your Director of
Studies.
This should be scheduled no sooner than 6 weeks and no later than 3
months from the date your thesis is sent to your examination team by
the Doctoral College.
You will be consulted on the date of your viva voce examination but
please remember that it is often difficult to find a convenient date for
both you and your entire examination team; your flexibility is much
appreciated.
15.8. Your viva voce examination will normally be held at the University of
Plymouth, but it is recognised that sometimes it is necessary to meet
elsewhere. This must be approved in advance by the Director of the
Doctoral College (or delegate).
15.9. The Director of the Doctoral College (or delegate) must also approve in
advance any viva voce examination which takes place via video
- 35 -
conferencing or Skype. This option may only be considered as the last

resort when all other possibilities have been exhausted.
15.10. If you have a disability, please contact Disability Services to discuss
whether special procedures for or adjustments to the oral examination
of the thesis are appropriate.
Please notify the Doctoral College as soon as possible of any
requirements.
An independent non-examining Chair will be appointed to your
examination team if this is the case to ensure that these requirements
are adhered to and you are not disadvantaged.
15.11. Your examiners can request that you make a brief presentation at your
viva voce examination; if this is the case, they must give you at least
10 working days’ notice.
You can also request to make a presentation at your viva voce
examination, but this must be requested via your Director of Studies
and approved by all examiners at least 10 working days in advance of
the viva voce examination. Please note that examiners are not obliged
to approve this request.
15.12. You may invite one of your supervisors to attend your viva voce
examination. They should confirm your request with either the Internal
Examiner, Chair or Doctoral College in advance. Your supervisor may
only contribute to or participate in the discussion if explicitly requested
by one of the examiners. Please note that they might be asked
questions by the examiners without you present.
15.13. At the end of the viva voce examination, you should be asked whether
there is anything you would like to say or add that hasn’t been raised
already. This is your opportunity to tell your examiners of any
circumstances that you feel may have affected your thesis or
performance during your oral examination. If you are not explicitly
asked, but have something you want your examiners to know, do not
hesitate to offer this.
15.14. For more information about how a viva voce examination is run, the
responsibilities and roles of your examination team, and the
procedures and paperwork involved, please see the ‘Notes of
Guidance for Examiners’ and ‘Role and Responsibilities of
Independent Chairs’ (if relevant) in this Handbook.
Examination outcomes and award of your degree
15.15. Following your oral examination, your examiners must make one of the
following recommendations based on the QAA Framework for Higher
Education Qualifications (FHEQ) at the relevant level (please note that
the extract for masters and doctoral level are also available in this
Handbook):
15.15.1. pass: the degree be awarded. Your examining team may
provide advisory guidance on editorial corrections to the
thesis, such as minor typographical or grammatical errors, or
- 36 -
15.15.2. corrections: the thesis is satisfactory in substance, but the

examiners have identified shortcomings in the shaping or
articulation of the research. Corrections will need to be made
to the satisfaction of one or all of your examiners by six
months from the date of the formal notification of the outcome
of the examination, or
15.15.3. defer: resubmission allowed. The thesis is unsatisfactory in
substance, with shortcomings in the presentation and/or
content, and may require further research. You are permitted
to resubmit for the degree (with detailed advice) and be re-
examined on one further occasion by twelve months from the
date of the formal notification of the outcome of the
examination, or
15.15.4. compensatory award: the degree for which you have been
examined is not to be awarded but a lower level degree
(MPhil, ResM, PgCert or PgDip) may be awarded subject to
the presentation of the thesis being amended to the
satisfaction of the examiners by one month from the date of
the formal notification of the outcome of the examination, or
15.15.5. fail: the degree not to be awarded and you are not permitted
to be re-examined.
15.16. The recommendation of the examiners will be verbally confirmed to
you informally at the end of the viva voce examination, following
deliberations by the examination team.
Formal written confirmation of the outcome of the examination,
including the corrections or further research required (as relevant), will
be sent to you by the Doctoral College as soon as possible. Please
note that this cannot be issued until the examiners send their
paperwork to the Doctoral College and that they have two weeks from
the date of the viva voce examination to do so.
15.17. In the unlikely event that your examiners’ recommendations are not
unanimous, they are required to report separately to the Doctoral
College. The Director of the Doctoral College will then seek a
resolution. This may involve the appointment of another external
examiner who will read the thesis. You will be informed of progress and
be informed of the outcome at the earliest opportunity.
15.18. Please see the ‘PGR Examination Outcomes Flowchart’ at the end of
the ‘Notes of Guidance for Examiners’ section of this Handbook.
15.19. If the outcome of your examination is Pass, you must submit an
electronic copy of the thesis for the University’s electronic repository,
PEARL, within 60 days of the formal notification of your examination
outcome.
15.19.1. If you are awarded a pass degree and your examiners also
supply a list of minor editorial corrections, these are
considered advisory. While it is assumed that you will want to
do so, you are not required to respond to them prior to
- 37 -
supplying the final version of your thesis for the award of your
degree.
15.19.2. You should also supply your Director of Studies and any
collaborating establishments with a hardcopy of your thesis if
requested to do so.
15.19.3. Failure to submit the electronic copy of your thesis within 60
days of the official notification of the outcome may result in
your degree not being awarded. You cannot receive your
award until the electronic copy of your thesis has been
submitted and approved by the Doctoral College and any
outstanding academic debts to the University have been paid.
15.20. If the outcome of your examination is that Corrections are required, you
must address all of the corrections on the list you receive from the
Doctoral College.
15.20.1. These must be submitted to the Doctoral College within six
months of the formal notification of the outcome. Failure to
submit by the required date will normally result in failure of the
award.
15.20.2. If you are unable to meet this deadline, you must request an
extension in writing to the Doctoral College. This will need to
be supported by your DoS and the local Research
Management team, who will obtain the approval of the
examiners before deciding on the period of extension.
15.20.3. Corrections are not an iterative process between you and
your examiners and they are not expected to act as mentors
or advisors during this process. If you have any questions
about what is required of you, ask your Director of Studies or
other supervisor to liaise with the examiners on your behalf for
the purposes of clarification. If this isn't possible, please
contact either the Chair of your viva voce examination (if there
was one) or the Doctoral College.
15.20.4. If your corrections are approved, your degree will be awarded
when the electronic copy of the final corrected thesis has been
submitted to the University repository (PEARL), the
submission been approved by the Doctoral College and any
outstanding academic debts to the University have been paid.
15.20.4.1. You should also supply your Director of Studies
and any collaborating establishments with a
hardcopy of your thesis if requested to do so.
15.20.4.2. Failure to submit the electronic copy of your thesis
within 60 days of the official notification of the
outcome may result in your degree not being
awarded. Your award cannot be given until the
electronic copy of the thesis has been submitted
and approved by the Doctoral College and any
- 38 -
outstanding academic debts to the University have

been paid.
15.20.5. If your corrections are not approved, and these have been
submitted for the first time for a thesis that had not been
resubmitted as the result of a deferral, then you are entitled to
a ‘2nd attempt’ (please see the attached ‘Flowchart of PGR
Examination Outcomes’). It will be explained why your
corrections were deficient and you will receive a list the
corrections that are still required; in this case, the protocol
described in 15.20.1-15.20.4 above will be followed again.
15.20.6. In the event that your corrections are not approved, and
these have been submitted either for the second time or to a
thesis that had been resubmitted as the result of a deferral,
then your examiners will recommend either:
15.20.6.1. that you receive a compensatory lower award: that
is, the degree for which you have been examined
is not to be awarded but a lower level degree
(MPhil, ResM, PgCert or PgDip) be awarded
instead. In this case, you must make amendments
to references to the level of the degree and your
examiners may provide a list of recommended
typographical corrections which you may choose
to attend to, or
15.20.6.2. that you fail: the degree is not to be awarded and
you are not permitted to be re-examined.
15.21. If the outcome of your examination is a Deferral – that is, that you are
permitted to resubmit for re-examination for the award on one further
occasion – your examination team will provide you with details of
further research requirements following your viva voce examination.
15.21.1. You must submit sufficient copies of the revised thesis to the
Doctoral College office within 12 months of the formal
notification of the outcome of your examination. Failure to
resubmit by this date will normally be regarded as failure of
the examination.
15.21.2. If you are unable to meet this deadline, you must request an
extension in writing to the Doctoral College. This will need to
be supported by your DoS and the local Research Degree
Management team, who will obtain the approval of the
examiners before deciding on the period of extension.
15.21.3. The preparation of a resubmitted thesis is not an iterative
process between you and your examiners and they are not
expected to act as mentors or advisors during this process. If
you have any queries, ask your Director of Studies or other
supervisor to liaise with the examiners on your behalf.
15.21.4. A resubmitted thesis is normally examined by the same
examination team. Sometimes, however, your original
- 39 -
examiners are not available and a new examination team (in

whole or part) must be nominated and approved by the
Doctoral College Quality Sub-committee.
15.21.5. The examination for a resubmitted thesis is run as for the first
time, with the following exceptions:
15.21.5.1. the examination outcome ‘Deferral –
resubmission’ is not available for resubmitted
theses.
15.21.5.2. if, having read the resubmitted thesis, the
examiners agree that the outcome of the
examination will be either ‘pass’ or ‘corrections’,
they have the discretion to waive the requirement
to hold a second viva voce examination.
15.21.5.3. if the examination outcome is ‘Corrections’, and
these are not made to the satisfaction of your
examiner(s), then you are not entitled to a second
attempt (please see 15.20.6. above).
15.21.6. In the case of a waived second viva voce examination, your
examiners must inform the Doctoral College no later than 10
working days prior to the scheduled viva voce examination
and you will be informed as soon as possible thereafter.
Please see the ‘PGR Examination Outcomes Flowchart’ in this
Handbook.
15.21.7. Please note that if you began your programme of study after
1 September 2018, you will be required to pay a resubmission
fee to be re-examined, whether or not the viva voce
examination is waived.
15.22. If the outcome of your examination is that you should be offered a
Compensatory Award and your thesis does not require any corrections,
you need to submit an electronic copy of the thesis to the University’s
repository within 60 days of the formal notification of the outcome.
15.22.1. You must still amend the title of the degree on the cover page
as well as any references to the level of the degree throughout
the thesis. These are not considered ‘corrections’ and do not
need to be approved by a member of the examination team.
15.22.2. If your examiners require further corrections to your thesis in
order to meet the criteria for a lower award, these will be
outlined informally at the end of your oral examination and
formally in your outcome letter from the Doctoral College.
15.22.2.1. These corrections must be made and submitted to
the Doctoral College within one month of the
formal notification of the examination outcome.
15.22.2.2. Failure to submit by the due date will normally
result in failure of the award.
- 40 -
15.22.2.3. If you are unable to meet this deadline, you must

request an extension in writing to the Doctoral
College. This will need to be supported by your
DoS and the local Research Management team,
who will obtain the approval of the examiners
before deciding on the period of extension.
15.22.2.4. Corrections are not an iterative process between
you and your examiners and they are not
expected to act as mentors or advisors during this
process. If you have any questions about what is
required of you, ask your Director of Studies or
other supervisor to liaise with the examiners on
your behalf for the purposes of clarification. If this
isn't possible, please contact either the Chair of
your viva voce examination (if there was one) or
the Doctoral College.
15.22.2.5. If your corrections are approved, your degree will
be awarded when the electronic copy of the final
corrected thesis has been submitted to the
University repository (PEARL), the submission
been approved by the Doctoral College and any
outstanding academic debts to the University have
been paid.
15.22.2.6. If the corrections are not approved, then the
outcome of the examination is a fail; you will not
receive an award and no re-examination is
permitted. Please see the ‘Flowchart of PGR
Examination Outcomes’.
15.23. Following receipt and approval of your electronic thesis submission,
you will receive a congratulations letter from the Office of the Vice-
Chancellor and will be invited to the next award ceremony. Your
degree certificate and diploma supplement will normally be issued at
the ceremony, or in advance if requested. It normally takes 5-6 weeks
to receive your certificate following successful submission to PEARL.
16. Teaching as a Postgraduate Researcher
16.1. The University values the contribution of PGR students who teach.
This can be a very beneficial activity for both you and for the university,
enabling:
16.1.1. you to develop valuable experience for a future academic
career;
16.1.2. Undergraduate students to benefit from being taught by
someone who may be closer to their experience of being a
student;
16.1.3. Increased support for research-led teaching across the
institution.
- 41 -
There are a range of academic roles which PGR students may have in
the university, including core academic staff who are also undertaking
a PhD; staff in combined teaching and studentship roles; and PGR
students who undertake small amounts of teaching. The University’s
‘Policy for Postgraduate Research Students Who Teach’ is for the final
category only and is available on this page.
16.2. While the University is unable to guarantee any paid teaching practice,
it is usually possible to lead workshops or sessions to gain experience.
Discuss this with your Director of Studies or School PGR Coordinator,
so that you are clear about how to put yourself forward for teaching
opportunities.
16.3. SALT is a one-day workshop designed primarily for those who have
limited engagement in supporting assessment, learning and teaching.
This includes activities such as: developing interactive learning
activities that enhance student engagement; articulating clear Learning
Outcomes and design constructive alignment; engaging in marking and
providing effective feedback.
It is free for all University of Plymouth PGR students.
For more information, please visit this page.
16.4. The Introduction to Teaching and Learning (ITL) module is a
professional development module offering 20 credits at M level and
Associate Fellowship of Advance HE.
It aims to critically engage participants with the UK Professional
Standards Framework (UKPSF) and a range of approaches to teaching
and learning informed by underpinning pedagogic research.
This module is only available for those PGR students who have a
contractual obligation to complete it. Participants must have a minimum
of 15 hours engagement in teaching, learning and assessment related
activity between the start and assessment submission date for the
module.
For more information, please visit this page.
17. Problems and Questions
17.1. It is not uncommon to face practical, professional or personal
difficulties which may affect your work. If problems arise, whether
related to health, finances, academic progress, work or personal
matters please highlight them to staff as soon as possible, so that
delays or disruptions to work will be sympathetically received. In most
cases, your Director of Studies will be the most appropriate person to
approach. All requests for confidentiality will be respected.
17.2. If there is anything you would prefer not to share with your Director of
Studies (perhaps because it is about the nature or quality of your
supervision), then please contact your School PGR Coordinator, who
will treat your comments with confidence and will work with you to find
a solution. If you would prefer not to contact your School Coordinator,
then please email doctoralcollege@plymouth.ac.uk.
- 42 -
17.3. One of the following members of staff may also be available to provide
practical, confidential advice and support:
17.3.1. your other supervisors,
17.3.2. Deputy Director of the Doctoral College (for your Faculty),
17.3.3. Doctoral College administrators and professional staff,
17.3.4. if relevant, your ‘node’ director or academic liaison at a partner
institution, or
17.3.5. the University’s Pastoral and Spiritual Care Coordinator.
17.4. Please see Item 6 above on interrupting your studies if necessary.
17.5. The University’s Student Wellbeing Services are available to all
postgraduate research students. We understand that undertaking
research degrees can be stressful and worrying for many postgraduate
researchers and we encourage you to access the support available.
This is not a sign of weakness!
17.5.1. If you are based on the campus, you can make one-to-one
appointments and join group sessions.
17.5.2. If you are based away from the campus, an e-counselling
service is available.
17.5.3. You may also benefit from a wide range of online resources
including:
17.5.3.1. self-help guides for managing stress and worry;
understanding depression and panic attacks;
overcoming sleep problems and, how to be more
assertive,
17.5.3.2. audio downloads including a variety of relaxation
exercises, or
17.5.3.3. SHINE online resources and information about
mental health and well-being.
17.5.4. The Doctoral College has been working with the Student
Wellbeing Services and the School of Psychology to better
understand your needs and to develop peer support for PGR
student wellbeing. As a result, the Researcher Toolkit has
been developed. This is introduced at induction events and
sessions (which include webinars) are advertised throughout
the year. There is also the opportunity for PGR students to
become (paid) workshop leaders to facilitate the Toolkit.
17.6. You may also raise issues via your Annual Monitoring report. As this is
shared with your supervisors, there is a reminder that you can email
the Doctoral College at any time if there is something you would like to
discuss with somebody from outside your supervisory team.
17.7. If there is something that you believe impacts upon a wider cohort of
researchers, then you can raise this via your representatives at your
Faculty Doctoral Committee (if it is local to your Faculty) or else
- 43 -
Doctoral College Board (if it is relevant to PGR students from across

the University). If that seems like a long time to wait or you would like
more privacy, contact your School Postgraduate Research Coordinator
or the Doctoral College.
17.8. We understand that problems and ‘bugs’ often arise in the use of
GradBook. These, however, are usually solved quickly. Please contact
the Doctoral College as soon as possible if GradBook isn’t working for
you as expected or required, attaching a screenshot that demonstrates
the problem, and they will try to find a solution with the University IT
services.
18. Complaints Procedure
18.1. The University’s Student Complaints Procedure (and proforma to
complete) is available on the University webpages.
18.2. Issues that can be considered under the Complaints Procedure include
any aspect of your supervision and training as a research degrees
student, facilities and university-managed accommodation.
18.3. Issues that cannot be considered under the Complaints Procedure
include admissions, complaints about bullying or harassment and
academic decisions (for the latter, see the section below about
Appeals).
18.4. If your complaint relates to bullying and harassment by another
student, then the matter will be investigated using the Student Code of
Conduct and Disciplinary Procedure, which can be found here or by
emailing studentconduct@plymouth.ac.uk.
18.5. If your complaint relates to bullying and harassment in relation to a
member of staff then the matter will be investigated using the Anti-
Bullying and Anti-Harassment Policy. Further information on the
University’s approach to Bullying and Harassment can be found here
or by emailing equality@plymouth.ac.uk.
18.6. Complaints submitted more than 40 working days after the issue(s)
occurred will be considered only in exceptional circumstances.
Exceptional circumstances are those in which you are able to
demonstrate good reason for not submitting the complaint earlier. The
decision on whether or not to accept a late complaint is taken by the
Complaints and Appeals Office and is the final decision of the
University.
18.7. You should always try to informally resolve your problem or issue by
discussing it with the member of staff most directly concerned. This
might be your supervisor(s), School PGR Coordinator, or a person
responsible for a particular service. Many complaints can be dealt with
through discussion and explanation. If you are not sure to whom you
should make your complaint, you can ask UPSU Advice or the Doctoral
College for guidance.
18.8. Occasionally it is not possible to resolve a complaint to your
satisfaction; in this instance, you are able to ask the Office of the
Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) to review your
- 44 -
complaint and the way in which it has been handled by the University.
You can only refer your complaint to the OIA when you have
exhausted the University’s complaints procedure. At that point, you will
be sent a letter by the University confirming that the institution’s
procedure has concluded; this will contain information on how to
contact the OIA. Further information is available at www.oiahe.org.uk
18.9. For further information about making a complaint, please visit this
page.
19. Appeals Against Academic Decisions
19.1. You have the right to appeal against academic decisions affecting your
progression. Such academic decisions include, but are not restricted
to:
19.1.1. the decision to withdraw you from the research degree due to
lack of academic progress (including during your probationary
period),
19.1.2. the decision to withdraw you from the research degree due to
lack of contact with the University (including during your
probationary period),
19.1.3. decisions made by the Research Programmes Taught
Components Award Board related to taught modules,
19.1.4. the decision to withdraw you from the research degree
following the Project Approval process,
19.1.5. the decision to require you to remain on a masters path
following the Confirmation of Route process, or
19.1.6. the decision, as a result of a recommendation of the
examiners, not to award you the degree for which you were
registered, and not to permit you to submit a revised thesis for
the same degree.
19.2. You must make your appeal within ten working days of the formal
notification of the academic decision.
19.3. Please note that appeals cannot be made against the academic or
professional judgement of examiners, unless there is evidence of a
material irregularity related to assessment.
19.4. The regulations and procedure related to appeals against the decision
of an award assessment board or academic decision (taught and
research) are available from the Academic appeals webpage.
19.5. If you are not satisfied with the way the University has handled your
appeal, you are able to ask the Office of the Independent Adjudicator
for Higher Education (OIA) to review this. You can only refer your
appeal to the OIA when you have exhausted the University’s Academic
Appeals Procedure. At that point, you will be sent a letter by the
University confirming that the institution’s procedure has concluded;
this will contain information on how to contact the OIA. Further
information is available at www.oiahe.org.uk
- 45 -
19.6. If you have any questions about making an appeal, please email
appeals@plymouth.ac.uk
20. Alumni Research Fellow Scheme
20.1. As well as all of the other benefits of the alumni community, students
who graduate with a PhD, MD or professional doctorate are eligible to
apply to become an Alumni Research Fellow. As a successful
applicant, you will be granted assistance and continuity to support you
at the start of your academic or other research career.
20.2. As an Alumni Research Fellow you will be granted:
20.2.1. continued access to a University of Plymouth email address,
20.2.2. library borrowing rights,
20.2.3. institutional affiliation, and
20.2.4. up to 5 hours of mentoring support post-graduation to support
your development
20.3. Please note that this is an unpaid position and no remuneration or
other financial benefits will be provided for Alumni Research Fellows.
20.4. Each Alumni Research Fellow is expected to volunteer 10 hours during
their period of appointment. This could take the form of contributing to
career events, research seminars, peer support, mentorship, outreach
events, etc. Exact details of such volunteering must be negotiated and
agreed with the relevant school/faculty.
20.5. To find out more and to apply, download the Application Form and read
the Guidance Notes and Terms & Conditions from the Alumni
Research Fellows webpage.
- 46 -
2019 Edition
NOTES FOR SUPERVISORS
1. Appointment of Supervisors and Responsibilities

1.1. The Research Degree Management Unit (normally at School level) will
ensure that supervisors:
1.1.1. are appropriately experienced and qualified for supervision –
that is, are together able to provide supervision in the subject
area and at the appropriate level,
1.1.2. are not registered for a research degree themselves,
1.1.3. complete the University’s mandatory supervisory training
and/or refresher sessions,
1.1.4. normally supervise no more than 8 FTE students in total, and
are members of no greater than 15 supervisory teams, at any
one time. The role of Director of Studies is equivalent to 1.0
FTE, the role of second supervisor is normally equivalent to
0.5 FTE and the role of third (or further) supervisor is normally
equivalent to 0.3 FTE).
1.2. Students must always have at least two supervisors and usually no
more than three. One supervisor will be the Director of Studies (DoS).
1.2.1. The DoS will be either a member of the academic staff of the
University of Plymouth (that is, with a UoP contract of
employment), an approved member of the NHS who holds an
associated University of Plymouth contract, or an approved
member of staff at a partnership Node.
1.2.2. An Emeritus Professor can act as a member of a supervisory
team but not normally as Director of Studies.
1.2.3. Second or third supervisors may be external to the university
(that is, not UoP employees).
1.2.3.1. If this is the case, they will be provided with a
discretionary email account which will be used for
all communication about the student as well as to
log into GradBook.
1.2.3.2. External supervisors must fulfil all the minimum
responsibilities of any UoP supervisors (including
the use of GradBook) and must to confirm in
writing that they are willing to do so.
1.2.3.3. External supervisors must fulfil the University’s
training/refresher requirements; a ‘light touch’
option has been developed, which comprises
watching a video of no longer than 1 hour in
length.
1.2.4. Wherever possible, the Director of Studies should have
previous successful UK supervision experience (i.e. to
- 47 -
UoP notes for supervisors 2019 Edition
completion) of the degree for which the candidate is

registered.
1.2.4.1. Where this is not possible, then the 2nd supervisor
must have previously supervised to successful
completion at the level of the degree for which the
candidate is registered and will undertake to act
as Mentor to the Director of Studies.
1.2.4.2. Inexperienced Directors of Studies will have to
fulfil all other criteria as experienced staff.
1.3. If the Director of Studies ceases employment as an academic member
of staff of the University or as an approved member of the NHS who
holds an associated University of Plymouth contract or as an approved
member of staff at a Node, the 2nd supervisor will immediately move to
acting Director of Studies until a replacement supervisory team has
been formally approved. The student will remain registered in the same
programme during this period of time.
1.4. Requests for changes to a supervisory team must be made using the
candidate’s GradBook page, by a current supervisor. Please email the
Doctoral College if this is proving difficult.
1.4.1. Changes to supervision usually occur as a result of the
change in direction of the project or departure of a supervisor
from the University. A request for the removal/addition of a
supervisor may affect the total supervision experience of the
team, or the role of supervisors within the team.
1.4.2. Any changes of supervision will require approval by the local
Research Degree Management Unit and reporting to Doctoral
College Quality Sub-Committee.
1.4.3. The Research Degrees Management Unit may appoint a
replacement or additional supervisor at any time if it deems
this to be necessary and shall do so if there is a sole
University-based supervisor (e.g. for a student working with a
partner institution) who ceases to be a member of staff of the
University or is on extended leave of absence, study leave or
sabbatical.
1.5. Supervisors are responsible for guiding the design and progress of the
candidate’s research project and for providing academic advice to the
candidate.
1.6. For a full list of responsibilities of Directors of Studies and other
supervisors, please see Section 1 of the ‘Your Programme of Study’
section of this Research Degrees Handbook.
1.7. The responsibilities of research students are listed in Section 5 of the
‘Your Programme of Study’ section of this Research Degrees
Handbook.
1.8. Supervisors should provide constructive criticism and feedback of
materials/writing normally within 20 working days of receipt (unless
- 48 -
previously negotiated with the student). If the student did not tell you
that they would be submitting this writing to you and it is not possible to
respond within this timeframe, you must tell them when to expect your
feedback and what they should be doing in the meantime to progress
their project.
1.9. Directors of Studies are responsible for ensuring that all members of
the supervisory team are invited well in advance to mandatory tutorials
– that is, every three months for full time students and every four
months for part time students.
1.10. Unless explicitly negotiated to the contrary with their Head of School,
supervisors are expected to fulfil their responsibilities during
sabbaticals and periods of research leave. These may need to be
carried out at a distance.
2. The Programme of Study
Overview, concerns and questions
2.1. Please read the section entitled ‘Your Programme of Study’ in this
Handbook. Although this has been written for your students, most of
the information you require is available here. Where a process requires
specific actions by a supervisor, these are indicated below.
2.2. Please also consult any School, Faculty or ‘node’ supplements to this
Handbook, which will also include discipline-specific requirements.
Some have also produced local guidelines and help sheets for
supervisors and run supervisor training events that are designed to
complement the mandatory training provided by the Doctoral College.
2.3. Your School PGR Coordinator is normally responsible in the first
instance for monitoring and oversight for admission and selection
procedures, supervision team nomination, quality assurance, annual
monitoring, Project Approval, Confirmation of Route (if appropriate)
and examinations.
2.4. If you have any questions or concerns about any of your students or
the supervisory process, please contact your School PGR Coordinator
or Deputy Director of the Doctoral College for your Faculty.
2.5. The Deputy Director for your Faculty on Doctoral College Board is able
to take forward any issues or feedback you may have that are relevant
to this forum (Please see ‘The Doctoral College’ section of this
Handbook). It is likely, however, that it would be more appropriate to
raise issues via Faculty Doctoral Committees or school-level
committees first.
The start of the programme
2.6. Your students will attend a number of Induction events, including a
mandatory one at University level (run by the Doctoral College) and
also at Faculty/ School, node or departmental level, to cover discipline-
specific processes and procedures. However, Directors of Studies
need to ensure that their students are introduced to the local
environment, resources and other researchers.
- 49 -
2.7. If your student has been appointed to work on a project that you have
conceived and which forms all or part of their research degree
programme, and has been funded by the University from internal or
external funds or a mix of both (e.g. through a University Research
Studentship), they will need to sign an IP Agreement with the
University (and/or other partner organisation) prior to enrolling on your
programme of study (or as soon as possible thereafter). Discuss this
with your School PGR Coordinator at the earliest opportunity.
2.8. Supervisors are expected to assist their students in the self-
assessment of skills and career development – including discussion of
a research skills audit, training, and how/when to access.
2.8.1. Help your students to negotiate teaching opportunities if
possible – N.B.: do not sign forms confirming availability of
teaching for the Introduction to Teaching and Learning (ITL)
module if you are not positive this is available and confirmed
(as students will be unable to fulfil assessment).
2.8.2. Be aware of mandatory modules in their offer letters and fulfil
tasks related to these as required. Please note that a student
who does not successfully complete any compulsory training
may be required to withdraw from the programme.
2.8.3. Be aware of ‘bench fees’ attached to student, how they can be
used and your role in these processes.
2.8.4. Be aware of other funding (e.g. University, School, Faculty
levels) available to attend conferences, training and how/when
students may access it.
2.8.5. Upon completion, students are asked to identify training that
they undertook during their programme of study. This form
needs to be signed off by their Director of Studies and the
information is used on the supplement received along with
their graduation certificate.
2.9. The initial supervisory meeting is incredibly important and should be
attended by the entire supervisory team if possible. Use this meeting
to:
2.9.1. discuss mutual expectations of the supervision process,
2.9.2. agree the nature of your meetings including frequency, timing
and length, the type of preparation, guidance, comments and
feedback to be expected,
2.9.3. discuss the practical arrangements for meetings including
organising and cancelling them, setting the agenda, ad hoc vs
'formal' meetings, record keeping on GradBook, etc.,
2.9.4. agree normal mechanisms for contact and emergency
contacts, and
2.9.5. look ahead so your student knows when you are unlikely to be
available throughout the year.
- 50 -
2.10. You are expected to work with your student to help them to apply for
ethical approval for their project at the earliest opportunity. You must
approve their application to the Faculty Research Ethics and Integrity
Committee.
The registration period
2.11. In exceptional cases, a student’s registration may be extended by the
Doctoral College Quality Sub-Committee beyond the ‘writing up’
period. Applications must be made via GradBook and these must be
recommended by the student’s Director of Studies prior to approval.
Please note that extensions are subject to additional fees and this
should be discussed with your student prior to application.
2.12. Students may request periods of interruption if they are unable to make
progress with their research project for reasons beyond their control.
Applications must be made via GradBook and these must be
supported by the student’s Director of Studies prior to approval.
2.12.1. Retrospective interruptions with a start date more than 2
months from date of request are not normally allowed; you are
encouraged to work with your students to raise these requests
at the time of the events happening whenever possible.
2.12.2. While it is possible for supervisors to request interruptions on
behalf of the student on GradBook, Doctoral College Quality
Sub-committee will normally require an indication from the
student that they approve of this action (e.g. an uploaded
email).
2.12.3. Doctoral College Quality Sub-committee often requests
evidence that a workplan is in place for when the student
resumes studies; this is often the case if a milestone or thesis
deadline is close to the date of resumption.
2.12.4. If the interruption is a result of a Study and Wellbeing Review
process, it may be necessary to organise a Stage 4 meeting
prior to a student resuming studies.
2.13. During a period of interruption, supervisors should not engage with
students toward the progress of their project.
2.13.1. It is strongly recommended, however, that you organise
‘keeping in touch’ meetings every 3 months with students who
have interrupted their studies for periods of 4 months or more.
It has been demonstrated that when supervisors make an
effort to stay informed of circumstances, students are more
likely to resume and complete their studies. These meetings
can take place via phone or Skype.
2.13.2. For students who have interrupted for six months or more,
Directors of Studies should organise a ‘re-integration meeting’
to re-calibrate the project, negotiate timescales and any new
or different requirements or support mechanisms.
- 51 -
2.14. If your student confirms in writing to you that they are withdrawing from
the programme, please tell the Doctoral College immediately, attaching
their message.
2.15. If you are aware of a change to your student’s source of funding, and
the student has not done so, please report this by email to the Doctoral
College so their records can be updated.
Monitoring your student’s progress
2.16. As a supervisor, you are required to use GradBook. Its key feature is
that it provides a clear overall record of the candidate’s journey. It
records key supervision meetings, annual monitoring, RDC forms,
extension and interruption requests, and (for international students)
monitoring for UKVI purposes.
2.16.1. It also provides useful highlighting of Outstanding Actions, and
each student listed on your main dashboard is accompanied
by a traffic-light indicator to show whether their profile is up-to-
date (viewing the profile then shows indicators beside each
stage, so that you can easily identify items that are missing).
2.16.2. We know that GradBook isn’t perfect. For supervisors, there
are various things that can be frustrating with GradBook’s
workflows - for example, when a candidate submits
something, the supporting supervisors have to sign it off
before the Director of Studies is able to see it on the system.
And there is no way for the DoS to directly override things if
another supervisor is unavailable and has not signed
something off. If you are aware of things falling into limbo in
this manner, please contact the Doctoral College to let them
know. Most problems with GradBook can be solved quickly,
especially if you send a screenshot that demonstrates where
you’ve run into trouble. Your patience is much appreciated.
2.16.3. Please emphasise to your students that the use of GradBook
is a natural part of their projects. Their experience of it is likely
to be less fraught than supervisors’, not least because they
will not be dealing with multiple students.
2.17. If you are the DoS of an overseas student on a Tier 4 General
Student visa, you must fulfil and adhere to the regulations given by
the UK Visa and Immigration (UKVI) office and ensure that regular
(monthly) interactions proving academic progress are documented and
signed off on GradBook. The University has produced leaflets for PGR
students on Tier 4 visas and their supervisors which are available from
the Doctoral College and the International Students Advice (ISA) unit.
2.18. Directors of Studies are required to complete an Annual Monitoring
form on GradBook for each of their students each summer, up to the
completion of their degree. This report will be shared with the student
and scrutinised at School level.
- 52 -
Lack of academic progress

2.19. Supervisory teams should raise concerns about their students’
progress to their School PGR Co-ordinator at the earliest opportunity
(i.e. it is not necessary to wait until the annual monitoring report is
due). Whenever such concerns are raised, it is recommended that an
independent third party reviews the student’s progress and that this
process includes an interview with the student whenever possible.
2.20. Concerns about progress – which may include failure to meet
deadlines, failure to produce work or provide work of a suitable
standard or failure to attend supervisory meetings – should be
identified as early as possible in order that corrective measures can be
taken. A Director of Studies or supervisor who has concerns about the
progress of a research degree candidate should:
2.20.1. make those concerns known to the candidate,
2.20.2. if the concerns arise due to suspected health issues, students
need to be told that this meeting is part of the Study and
Wellbeing Review policy as Stage 1 (and as per the policy,
please contact the Doctoral College if this is the case),
2.20.3. give the candidate the opportunity to discuss any difficulties
they may have encountered in their research or outside the
project environment which may be affecting performance and
progress,
2.20.4. agree with the candidate a written plan for improvement of
progress with appropriate milestones, targets and review
dates, which should be uploaded to GradBook,
2.20.5. ensure that the second supervisor(s), the School PGR
Coordinator and Management Unit are kept informed and if
necessary become involved, and
2.20.6. formally review progress as identified in the plan. Annual
monitoring is one opportunity for consideration of progress;
however review is not limited to these occasions.
2.21. Supervisors may not be able to help with all the problems that a
candidate may encounter. The Local/School Research Degree
Coordinator, Doctoral College Deputy Director, Doctoral College staff
and other University staff members (e.g. with experience in matters
related to health and well-being) are also available to provide support
and advice for candidates and supervisors as required.
2.22. If, following review, academic performance has not improved to an
appropriate level:
2.22.1. the Director of Studies on behalf of the supervisory team
should inform the candidate in writing of their concerns, the
agreed course of action to address those concerns and the
period identified for improvement;
- 53 -
2.22.2. escalate the process where appropriate to a Stage 2 under

the Study and Wellbeing Review (contact the Doctoral College
if this is the case); and
2.22.3. the School/Local Research Degree Coordinator and
Management Unit should be kept informed and if necessary
become involved.
2.23. If, after the period identified, the Director of Studies, the rest of the
supervisory team and School/Local Research Degree Management
Unit remain concerned about the academic progress of the candidate,
they are advised to consult the Doctoral College, if not done so before.
2.23.1. The University Student and Wellbeing Review Policy will be
instigated in appropriate cases of lack of progress.
2.23.2. The University may terminate the registration of a research
student in the case of persistent unacceptable progress.
2.23.3. However, a student’s registration cannot be terminated
without them having first received a formal written warning
about their academic progress and without having had the
opportunity to improve their performance within a reasonable
period of time. The latter depends on individual circumstances
but normally will be a period of months rather than weeks.
Loss of contact with a candidate
2.24. The principles set out above will also apply if a candidate fails to keep
in contact with their supervisory team.
2.25. The supervisory team, School/Local Research Degree Coordinator,
and Doctoral College should work together to make every effort to:
2.25.1. contact the candidate,
2.25.2. identify any obstacles to progress,
2.25.3. agree a plan for improvement, and
2.25.4. continue to monitor and review the plan.
2.26. Following failure to re-establish contact, the candidate should be
issued with a formal written warning that registration will be terminated
unless the candidate re-establishes contact with their Director of
Studies or other supervisor within a set period of time. If the candidate
fails to respond, the termination procedure should follow.
Project approval
2.27. You are expected to support your student in their development of a
robust submission by the deadline indicated on GradBook.
2.28. Remind your student of the requirement to submit a Data Management
Plan (DMP) and encourage further development via the training
available and other free materials as required by the nature of the
project.
- 54 -
2.28.1. You should be open to discussions with your student around

data management strategies and solutions that are
appropriate to the discipline, research methods and project.
2.28.2. If the project details change in a way that will affect the data
management or data ethics considerations of the project
significantly, then you should encourage your student to revise
the DMP as appropriate.
2.28.3. You can find additional training and support for your student
via the Research Data Management library guide and should
refer to the Expert Commentator’s guidance below to
familiarise yourself with the criteria for the DMP.
2.29. Directors of Studies can submit a request for an extension to a
student’s deadline for methodological reasons by contacting the
Doctoral College (students who are unable to meet the deadline for
personal reasons must apply for extenuating circumstances).
2.29.1. The request must be made prior to the original due date,
according to GradBook.
2.29.2. It must approved at either School or Faculty level (depending
on local processes and procedures as per their supplementary
handbook) with all requests and decisions uploaded to the
student’s GradBook page.
2.29.3. Extensions to the Project Approval submission for
month for full time students and 2 months for part time
students.
2.30. Supervisors should note on GradBook whether they recommend
approval of the project in its current, commenting on any particular
strengths and weaknesses to be taken into account by the Expert
Commentator.
2.31. When all supervisors have commented upon the project approval on
GradBook, the Director of Studies must nominate an ‘Expert
Commentator’ to review the submission.
2.31.1. Please contact potential Expert Commentators prior to
identifying them on GradBook to ensure they are willing and
able to review the submission.
2.31.2. The Expert Commentator cannot be a member of the
supervisory team and must have the expertise and/or
experience to be able to confirm the appropriateness and
feasibility of the research project. Expert Commentators are
usually staff members of the University but do not need to be.
There is no remuneration for Expert Commentators.
2.31.3. It is the Expert Commentator’s academic decision whether or
not the submission passes the milestone. If you believe that it
should not, ensure that you have indicated this and evidenced
why in your comments on GradBook prior to passing it to the
- 55 -
Expert Commentator. Do not simply refuse to identify an

Expert Commentator or to ‘submit’ it for the next step.
2.31.4. Please refer the Expert Commentator to the Guidance Notes
in this Handbook, and to any relevant information in School
supplements.
2.31.5. In the case of a second attempt, the same Expert
Commentator may be used, but this is not a requirement.
2.32. Ideally, the assessment of a Project Approval should take place within
20 working days as for any other assignment. It is understood that this
may not be possible. In which case, Directors of Studies should keep
the student informed of progress and when they might expect an
outcome.
2.33. If a project is not approved by the Expert Commentator following a
second attempt, the student will be told that the University is obliged to
withdraw them from their programme of study. As DoS, you will be
copied into this message. Students are able to appeal this decision.
Confirmation of route
2.34. The DoS may request an extension to the deadline for methodological
reasons only (students who are unable to meet the deadline for
personal reasons must apply for extenuating circumstances).
2.34.1. If successful, students will be given an extension of 3 months
whether full time or part time.
2.34.2. The form is available via Doctoral College and must be
approved by the relevant School PGR Coordinator.
2.35. Following the student’s submission of materials and completion of the
RDC.2 form on GradBook, all supervisors need to confirm whether or
not the student is making satisfactory progress. All members of the
supervisory team must also recommend whether or not the student
should either remain on a masters level programme or transfer to
PhD/doctoral level status.
2.36. After all other supervisors have commented on and ‘signed off’ the
submission, the Director of Studies nominates an Expert Commentator
from outside the supervisory team to review the project on GradBook.
2.36.1. Please contact potential Expert Commentators prior to
identifying them on GradBook to ensure they are willing and
able to review the submission.
2.36.2. The Expert Commentator must have the expertise and/or
experience to be able to confirm the appropriateness and
feasibility of the research project. The same Expert
Commentator for the student’s Project Approval may be used;
however, it should be noted that students benefit from a range
of insights and perspectives at various stages of their project,
and also that Expert Commentating is useful career
development for colleagues.
- 56 -
2.36.3. Expert Commentators are usually staff members of the

University but do not need to be. There is no remuneration for
Expert Commentators.
2.36.4. It is the Expert Commentator’s academic decision whether or
not the submission passes the milestone. If you believe that it
should not, ensure that you have indicated this and evidenced
why in your comments on GradBook prior to passing it to the
Expert Commentator. Do not simply refuse to identify an
Expert Commentator or to ‘submit’ it for the next step.
2.36.5. The Expert Commentator should be asked to provide
feedback explaining their decision and to confirm their
recommendation on GradBook within 20 working days. If this
is not possible, Directors of Studies should keep the student
informed of progress and when they might expect an
outcome.
2.36.6. In the case of a second attempt, the same Expert
Commentator may be used, but this is not a requirement.
2.36.7. Please note that many Schools do not allow the RDC.2 Expert
Commentator to then be appointed as the student’s Internal
Examiner (this will be included in the relevant School
supplement).
2.37. Students who do not succeed at first attempt (including those who did
not submit without extenuating circumstances approval) are entitled to
a second attempt; the deadline for their second attempt is 3 months
from notification of the failure of the first attempt via GradBook.
2.38. Students who do not successfully transfer to PhD within 18 months of
effective full time registration, or 24 months of effective part time
registration, will be deemed to stay registered in the MPhil/ResM/MS
degree, unless they have valid extenuating circumstances or
assessment is in progress – the final due date of their masters level
thesis will stand.
2.39. ResM students who transfer to PhD must submit within same total time
period of registration (and will be eligible for same ‘writing up’ periods)
as for a student who initially registered as MPhil/PhD.
Submission of the thesis
2.40. It is always the student’s decision to submit their thesis. Although the
best case scenario is that you are able to advise that the thesis is
ready to submit, they do not require your approval to do so.
2.41. A research degree may be awarded posthumously or to candidates
whose ill health precludes them participating in an oral examination, if
the thesis is ready for submission for examination of if the research
was at its final stages. Please see the section on ‘Posthumous
Research Degrees and Aegrotat Awards’ in this Handbook.
- 57 -
Academic Offences/Research Misconduct

2.42. If you have reason to suspect plagiarism or any other form of academic
dishonesty, please contact the Doctoral College immediately.
2.43. In general, if an academic dishonesty allegation relates to a Project
Approval submission (RDC.1), Confirmation of Route submission
(RDC.2) or a thesis submitted for assessment, then it is treated as an
Academic Offence.
2.44. If an academic dishonesty allegation relates to any work (e.g. written
coursework to the supervisory team prior to submission, or a draft
journal paper, etc.) then it is treated as Research Misconduct. It may
be more appropriate to discuss this matter with your student, to
recommend training and to monitor the situation, than to make a formal
allegation in the first instance. Please discuss this with your School
PGR Coordinator or Deputy Director of the Doctoral College at the
earliest opportunity.
2.45. The University’s ‘Assessment Offences and Research Misconduct
Procedure’ can be found on this page.
3. Nomination and Appointment of the Examination Team
3.1. It is the Director of Studies’ responsibility to nominate the examination
team via GradBook. This should take place at least 4 months before
the student is due to submit their thesis for examination, and always at
least 4 months before their final deadline as indicated on GradBook.
3.2. The proposal of the examination team involves the following stages:
3.2.1. discussion between the supervisors, the student, and possibly
other members of the local Research Degree Management
Unit to consider the most appropriate examination team,
3.2.2. the Director of Studies contacts the proposed examiners to
determine whether they are able and willing to examine the
thesis; If the thesis is in non-traditional form (e.g. includes
creative practice), they should also confirm that the proposed
examiners are happy to approve this,
3.2.3. completion by the Director of Studies of the examination
arrangements form RDC.3 on GradBook together with the
submission of a brief CV for the proposed External
Examiner(s) as well as numbers of PGR examinations and
details of any past or current association with the University,
its staff or students,
3.2.4. following approval at School level, the Doctoral College
Quality Sub-Committee formally considers the submission,
followed by
3.2.5. confirmation via GradBook of the outcome. The Doctoral
College will communicate these matters to the examination
team.
- 58 -
3.3. The regulations relating to the examination of PGR theses require that:
3.3.1. two examiners are appointed for each research student,
3.3.2. one of these examiners will be external to the University (the
external examiner) and the other will be internal and
independent of the research student and their project (the
internal examiner),
3.3.3. if the candidate is a member of academic or research staff of
the University, then two external examiners and one chair are
required,
3.3.4. the research student must not have been formally advised or
supervised or had any close association with the examiners
although the internal examiner may have acted as the
independent assessor for the student for annual review,
project approval or confirmation of route processes, and
3.3.5. in the case of collaboratively produced joint theses,
candidates will be examined together by the same internal
and external examiner with a non-examining chair (except if
one or both candidates are academic or research staff – in
which case two externals will be appointed and supported by
a chair), normally at the same viva voce examination.
3.4. The examiners should normally have at least experience in a total of 3
UK examinations between them at the level of the examination.
3.4.1. At least one examiner must have experience of examining UK
Research Degree candidates. In an examination for PhD, at
least one examiner must have experience of PhD examining.
3.4.2. Where an external examiner is nominated with no previous
experience of examining a UK research degree, reasons for
this nomination need to be submitted by the Director of
Studies.
3.4.3. External examiners must be actively involved in research and
with substantial/significant research experience in the subject.
Recently retired distinguished researchers or Emeritus
Professors are acceptable as external examiners but must
commit to being available and contactable until the
examination is complete.
3.5. The Doctoral College will determine and pay fees and expenses to
external examiners, following receipt of all required paperwork. Where
examiners are based outside of the UK, the candidate’s school may be
required to pay for the examiner’s travel up to point of entry into the
UK. A list of the current levels of honoraria is available from the
Doctoral College if this is required.
3.6. It is a requirement that external examiners present their passports.
Directors of Studies should confirm that examiners have the right to
work in the United Kingdom prior to formally proposing them.
- 59 -
3.7. The following criteria are used in selecting the examination team for
research degree examinations:
3.7.1. The internal examiner:
3.7.1.1. should not be registered for a research degree,
3.7.1.2. should not have supervised the candidate or had
any formal advisory or supervisory relationship
with the candidate (other than having acted as the
independent assessor for the student for annual
review, Project Approval or Confirmation of
Route 1),
3.7.1.3. should have appropriate knowledge in the field
and/or examining experience,
3.7.1.4. must have a current University of Plymouth
contract of employment that extends at least
beyond a candidate’s potential ‘Corrections’
period (i.e. 8 months following proposed viva voce
examination),
3.7.1.5. must complete mandatory Internal Examiners
training and/or ‘refreshing’ prior to the viva voce
examination (according to their experience and
expertise), and
3.7.1.6. must be present at the viva voce examination.
3.7.2. The external examiner(s):
3.7.2.1. must not be registered for a research degree,
3.7.2.2. should have experience of examining UK research
degree candidates at the same level or higher,
3.7.2.3. should not normally have held any appointment
with the University during the period in which the
candidate has been registered for the degree,
3.7.2.4. must be eligible to work in the UK and at the
University of Plymouth,
with the candidate and should be independent of
the supervision team and/or any collaborating
establishment, and should not be an imminent
employer of the research student, and
1Subject to local guidelines; in some Faculties, internal examiners are not

permitted to have acted as expert commentator for the Confirmation of Route
process.
- 60 -
3.7.3. The Chair (if appointed, see Item 3.8 below):

3.7.3.1. should not be registered for a research degree,
3.7.3.2. must be University of Plymouth staff member,
3.7.3.3. must have examined at least two degrees at the
level of the examination,
3.7.3.4. must have examined at least two postgraduate
research degrees at the level of the examination
with at least one for the University,
3.7.3.5. must be familiar with the University’s regulations,
guidelines and procedures. They need to attend
an Internal Examiners and Chairs Briefing session
or refresher run by the University within the past 3
years prior to the oral examination,
with the candidate and should be independent of
the supervision team and/or any collaborating
establishment, and
3.8. An independent non-examining Chair is appointed in the following
exceptional circumstances:
3.8.1. the student being examined is also a member of academic or
research staff at the University,
3.8.2. the internal examiner has no PGR examining experience at
the University of Plymouth,
3.8.3. the examination team as a whole does not have experience in
a total of three UK examinations at the level of the
examination,
3.8.4. the viva voce examination is being conducted via video-
conference,
3.8.5. 'reasonable adjustments' have been made or disability has
been taken into account in viva voce examination
arrangements or conduct,
3.8.6. the thesis is collaboratively co-authored by two students being
examined together,
3.8.7. issue(s) have been raised by either the internal or external
examiner(s) in their pre-viva reports – and, in particular, if both
examiners have ticked the box on the RDC.4P (or RDC.4PR
in the case of a resubmission) form indicating that they believe
the thesis to be seriously flawed and not on target to merit
consideration for the degree to be awarded, or
3.8.8. the student has requested a Chair due to issues related to
equality and diversity.
- 61 -
3.9. Please note that an examination team in which both b and c in 3.8
above are the case is unlikely to be approved by Doctoral College
Quality Sub-committee, even with an experienced Chair in place.
3.10. The DoS must ask their student if they would like a Chair of their own
gender appointed if both their examiners are a different gender to their
own (although they are free to decline this offer).
3.10.1. Confirmation of their wishes must be uploaded to GradBook
on the RDC.3 page.
3.10.2. Please note under no circumstances may a candidate have
two examiners and a Chair of a different gender to their own
(e.g. a female-identifying candidate with two male examiners
and a male chair). In such circumstances, it is the candidate
who identifies their own gender.
3.10.3. A Director of Studies may also propose a Chair (including on
behalf of the student or one of the examiners) when one is not
required.
3.10.4. It is strongly recommended that a Chair is appointed in cases
where a second oral examination is required for a resubmitted
thesis. If relevant and possible, this should be the same
person who chaired the candidate’s first viva voce
examination.
4. The Examination Process
Documentation issued prior to the viva voce examination
4.1. The thesis and relevant paperwork (described below) will be sent out
by the Doctoral College office to the examiners and Chair, if appointed,
as soon as possible after submission.
4.2. The external examiner(s) will receive:
4.2.1. a copy of the thesis with a letter confirming that the Director of
Studies will be making the arrangements for the viva voce
examination,
4.2.2. a link to the Research Degrees Handbook and to the Doctoral
College website, which includes the University of Plymouth
‘Notes for guidance for research degree examiners’, an
extract of the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications
(FHEQ) for doctoral and masters level examinations and the
‘Roles and responsibilities of Chairs at viva voce examinations
of research degrees’,
4.2.3. a copy of the pre-viva report (form RDC.4P or RDC.4PR in the
case of resubmissions), and
4.2.4. expenses and honorarium claim forms and details of the limits
for travel and expenses claims.
- 62 -
4.3. The internal examiner will receive:

4.3.1. a copy of the thesis with a memorandum confirming that the
Director of Studies will be making the arrangements for the
viva voce examination,
College website, which includes the University of Plymouth
‘Notes for guidance for research degree examiners’, an
extract of the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications
(FHEQ) for doctoral and master examinations and the ‘Roles
and responsibilities of Chairs at viva voce examinations of
research degrees’,
case of resubmissions), and
4.3.4. if a Chair has not been appointed, the examiners’ report form
RDC.4 (or in the case of a resubmission report form RDC.4R)
to be completed jointly; it is the responsibility of the internal
examiner to arrange for the post-viva report to be filled in and
sent to the Doctoral College as soon as possible after the
examination.
4.4. If a Chair has been appointed, they will receive:
4.4.1. a copy of the thesis with a letter confirming that the Director of
Studies will be making the arrangements for the viva voce
examination,
College website, which includes an extract of the Framework
for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) for doctoral and
master examinations and the ‘Roles and responsibilities of
Chairs at viva voce examinations of research degrees’,
case of resubmissions) for their information only, and
4.4.4. the examiners’ report form RDC.4 (or in the case of a
resubmission report form RDC.4R) to be completed jointly by
the examiners and the Chair at the end of the viva voce
examination. It is the Chair’s responsibility to arrange for this
form to be filled in, signed and sent to the Doctoral College
within two weeks of the examination.
4.5. The Director of Studies will receive a memorandum:
4.5.1. confirming that copies of the thesis have been sent to the
examiners and chair (if appropriate),
thesis which have been identified by the Doctoral College, and
4.5.3. asking to arrange for the viva voce examination, liaising with
candidate and Disability Services (DS) if there are any special
- 63 -
needs and notify the Doctoral College as soon as this date is

known.
4.6. The candidate will receive an email:
4.6.1. confirming that copies of the thesis have been sent to the
examiners,
thesis which have been identified by the Doctoral College,
4.6.3. confirming that their Director of Studies will make the
necessary arrangements for the viva voce examination,
4.6.4. asking them to contact Disability Services (DS) if appropriate,
and
4.6.5. outlining the general procedures with regard to the exam and
the possible outcomes.
The viva voce (oral) examination
4.7. Supervisors should offer their students a ‘mock viva’ to help them
prepare.
4.8. The viva voce (oral) examination must be organised by the candidate’s
Director of Studies. This should be scheduled no sooner than 6 weeks
and no later than 3 months from the date that the thesis is sent to the
examination team by the Doctoral College.
4.9. The Director of Studies is expected to:
4.9.1. arrange the viva voce examination date, time and location with
the examiners, the research student and the Doctoral College
after the thesis has been sent out to the examination team by
the Doctoral College,
4.9.2. notify the Doctoral College of the date, time and venue for the
oral examination,
4.9.3. check whether the candidate wants one of their supervisors to
be present at the examination, and pass this information to the
internal examiner or the chair if one has been appointed,
4.9.4. ensure that accommodation and travel for the external
examiner(s) has/have been booked (usually by the Doctoral
College), and
4.9.5. book an appropriate quiet room for the duration of the
examination (normally 3 or 4 hours) taking into account any
requirements from Disability Services where appropriate and
arrange for refreshments during this period.
4.10. When, due to exceptional circumstances, a viva voce examination is to
be conducted via videoconferencing, prior approval by the Director of
the Doctoral College is required.
4.10.1. This option should only be considered as the last resort when
all other possibilities have been exhausted.
- 64 -
4.10.2. The videoconference facility must be a secure link with

adequate bandwidth to ensure an uninterrupted oral
examination.
4.11. Students can request to make a presentation at the viva voce
examination, but this must be requested via the Director of Studies and
approved by all examiners at least 10 working days in advance of the
viva voce examination. Please note that examiners are not obliged to
approve this request.
4.12. A (single) supervisor (normally the DoS) may, if requested by and with
the consent of the candidate, attend the oral examination as an
observer. They may not participate in the discussion unless invited by
the examiners.
4.12.1. Exceptionally the examiners may request a discussion in
private with the supervisor prior to making their final decision.
4.12.2. The supervisor must withdraw with the research student prior
to the deliberations of the examiners on the outcome of the
examination.
4.13. If the Director of Studies (or other supervisor) is not present during the
viva voce examination then they should leave instructions as to how to
be contacted by the examiners in case they are needed. They are
expected to accompany the research student to hear the decision of
the examiners at the end of the examination.
4.14. It is recommended that supervisors read the ‘Notes of Guidance for
Examiners’ and ‘Roles and Responsibilities of Independent Chairs’,
both in this Handbook, to familiarise themselves further with the
examination process.
Following the viva voce examination
4.15. Directors of Studies (and other supervisors where necessary) are
expected to support their students up to the completion of their
programme of study.
4.16. If you are the DoS of an overseas student on a Tier 4 General Student
visa, you must fulfil and adhere to the regulations given by the UK Visa
and Immigration (UKVI) office and ensure that regular (monthly)
interactions are documented and signed off on GradBook as proof of
academic progress up to the moment of completion (i.e. the
submission of the final approved thesis to PEARL).
4.17. If your student needs to make corrections to their thesis or to prepare a
resubmitted thesis, this is not to be an iterative process between the
student and their examiners. If the student has any questions about
what is required or expected, they should ask their Director of Studies
or other supervisor to liaise with the examiners on their behalf.
4.18. Only the student concerned is able to appeal an academic decision or
examination outcome. If, as a supervisor, you are concerned about the
running of a viva voce examination or any aspect of the examination,
- 65 -
please contact either the Director of the Doctoral College or Deputy

Director for your Faculty for a confidential discussion.
5. Alumni Research Fellowship Scheme
5.1. The University’s Alumni Research Fellowship scheme is for individuals
who graduate from the University with a doctoral level degree.
5.2. As part of the application process, their Director of Studies must
support the application and confirm that to the best of their knowledge,
the applicant has successfully completed their doctoral project and
uploaded the final approved version of their thesis to the University’s
PEARL repository and that the applicant is likely to act in a manner that
upholds the values and reputation of the University.
5.3. The DoS must also agree to mentor and offer support to the applicant
for a total of 5 hours over the period of the appointment (maximum of
two years) or else recommend a colleague who is in a position to do
so.
- 66 -
2019 Edition
GUIDANCE NOTES FOR ‘EXPERT COMMENTATORS’

(PROJECT APPROVAL & CONFIRMATION OF ROUTE)
1. General
1.1. The role of an Expert Commentator is an incredibly important one in
the student journey. It is your responsibility to use your expert
judgement to determine whether the submission you review
demonstrates that the student is on target to achieve their research
degree.
1.2. The University uses Expert Commentators for two assessed
‘milestone’ processes: 1) Project Approval, and 2) Confirmation of
Route. In both cases, it is the Expert Commentator who determines
whether the student ‘passes’. Although the requirements and purposes
of these assessed milestones are very different, they share
characteristics which will be discussed in this section.
1.3. The student’s Director of Studies (DoS) will nominate you to be Expert
Commentator. This does not have to be approved at School, Faculty or
University level. As soon as the DoS nominates you, you will receive a
link to the student’s submission on GradBook.
1.4. You will need to use GradBook to access the submission and also to
submit your response. Your response will trigger an outcome
notification to the student, the Doctoral College and the Director of
Studies.
1.5. Each submission will comprise material written on a proforma directly
on GradBook, as well as uploaded documents, as required. Please
note that while there are minimum requirements across the University
for these documents, different Schools have different requirements for
their students (for example, the School of Humanities & Performing
Arts requires a 3000 word ‘prospectus’ as part of Project Approval
stage; Peninsula School of Medicine requires a viva voce presentation
at Confirmation of Route stage). You will need to confirm via the DoS,
this Handbook and any relevant supplement what is required of the
student.
1.6. You must review all of the submitted material and make a judgement
based on all of them together.
1.7. Please review the submitted material and submit your response within
20 working days of receiving notification on GradBook. If this is not
possible, please contact the DoS, letting them know when you will be
submitting your response, so they are able to keep their student
informed of progress.
1.8. All of the members of the supervisory team will have indicated that they
have seen the submission and have the opportunity to add any
comments prior to you receiving it. These can be read on the
GradBook page. You may take into account their comments when
making your decision. You are also welcome to contact the supervisors
- 67 -
UoP guidance notes for expert commentators 2019 Edition
or the student for a discussion, in order to clarify any points, prior to

making your decision.
1.9. Should you decide not to ‘pass’ the assignment, it is very important that
you give clear and concise reasons why. The student has an
opportunity to submit as a second and final attempt and your feedback
will be invaluable to them. You will not necessarily be the Expert
Commentator for the second attempt (for example, if you are not
available, if the project changes direction, etc.); this is up to the
Director of Studies.
1.10. Should you suspect or identify plagiarism or academic dishonesty in
your role as Expert Commentator, please contact the Doctoral College
(doctoralcollege@plymouth.ac.uk) immediately. An academic
dishonesty allegation that relates to a Project Approval (RDC.1) or
Confirmation of Route (RDC.2) submission is treated as an Academic
Offence. The University’s ‘Assessment Offences and Research
Misconduct Procedure’ can be found on this page.
1.11. If you ‘pass’ the submission, please supply up to one page of
constructive comments to the candidate, identifying areas of good
practice, exciting opportunities, and recommending possible directions
and sources. It is also possible to offer specific critiques and/or
recommendations to improve aspects of the project without ‘failing’ the
submission. While these are not ‘conditions’, they can be monitored by
the supervisory team as the project progresses.
2. Project Approval (RDC.1)
2.1. As Expert Commentator, you are asked to confirm the following:
2.1.1. that the academic content and quality of the proposed
programme of work is at the appropriate level, meets
disciplinary expectations, and is achievable within the limits of
the research programme and according to the submitted
schedule of work,
2.1.2. whether the Data Management Plan is realistic and
appropriate to your project and adheres to ethical and legal
guidelines (see below),
2.1.3. whether the project can be supported in terms of resources,
research training and supervision for the duration of the
programme.
2.2. You must explain your decision and supply constructive comments for
the candidate in a brief report either directly on the form or in an
uploaded document to GradBook. Full feedback must be provided to
the student explaining what needs to be improved.
Guidance for reviewing the Data Management Plan
2.3. The Expert Commentator is responsible for reviewing the DMP at the
appropriate stage/s (i.e. Project Approval or, if it has changed in the
meantime, at Confirmation of Route) and advising the student of areas
of concern or recommendations for improvement. They hold the
- 68 -
discretion to approve or reject the DMP based on their level of

satisfaction with the DMP for the individual project. As different projects
will require very different DMPs, the role of Expert Commentator is
crucial to ensure that disciplinary differences and needs are considered
within the DMPs.
2.4. When assessing the DMP, you consider the following qualities:
2.4.1. The plan looks realistic and appropriate to the project.
2.4.2. The plan demonstrates awareness of all relevant policy,
ethical and legal requirements, and indicates how the student
will comply with them. Relevant requirements include:
• Legal and ethical requirements in respect of
personal/confidential data
• Any funder requirements around data
sharing/publication and how the student plans to meet
these
• Any contractual dispositions regarding IP ownership
and publication – for example, industrial sponsorship or
IP assignment.
2.4.3. The plan should identify any possible restrictions on data
sharing, and demonstrate how the student will manage these
and take measures to maximise possibilities for data sharing
on the principle of “as open as possible, as closed as
necessary”. Possible restrictions may pertain to personal or
sensitive data, intellectual property or contractual obligations.
2.4.4. Any non-standard or additional support or resource
requirements should be identified and justifiable – for
example, funds for a training course, costs of additional
bibliographic resources or if the use of experimental or
national computing facilities is planned.
2.4.5. Where applicable, if sections are incomplete or lack
specificity, the student demonstrates awareness that more
information is needed and will be provided in future iterations
of the plan.
2.5. The ultimate discretion of what makes a satisfactory DMP lies with the
Expert Commentator, taking into consideration the extent to which it
meets the critical points above. Different projects will have different
requirements for data management and projects requiring no data
collection or use of secondary data will have little to no planning
required, so a longer DMP is not necessarily better than a shorter
DMP.
2.6. The Expert Commentator has the discretion to deem a DMP
unsatisfactory if little effort has been made to complete it, or if it
demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding or preparation on the
part of the student. They may also deem it unsatisfactory if the content
implies that the PGR will contravene legal or ethical legislation or fail to
- 69 -
meet their funder’s requirements by carrying out the project as per the
DMP.
2.7. If a DMP is deemed unsatisfactory then revisions can be requested
through the Project Approval (RDC.1) feedback process, without
necessarily rejecting the project as a whole.
3. Confirmation of Route (RDC.2)
3.1. Please read Section 9 of the ‘Your Programme of Study as a Research
Degree Candidate’ section of this Handbook.
3.2. As Expert Commentator, you are asked to:
3.2.1. confirm that that the student has evidenced satisfactory
progress in their research programme to date; that the project
meets disciplinary expectations in terms of methodology and
engagement with current discourse and practice; and that
there is evidence that the research provides the basis for a
PhD (in the case of transfers to PhD);
3.2.2. recommend whether the student should either remain on a
masters level programme or transfer to PhD/doctoral level
status.
3.3. You must explain your decision and supply constructive comments for
the candidate in a brief report either directly on the form or in an
uploaded document (one page of A4) to GradBook. Full feedback must
be provided to the student explaining what needs to be improved.
- 70 -
2019 Edition
MINIMUM RESOURCES FOR

POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH STUDENTS
1. Purpose of Minimum Benchmarking

The University’s postgraduate research (PGR) provision is based on the
expectations of the QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education: that is, that the
University offers a “research environment that provides secure academic
standards for doing research and learning about research approaches, methods,
procedures and protocols. This environment offers students quality of
opportunities and the support they need to achieve successful academic, personal
and professional outcomes from their research degrees.”
PGR students can be enrolled in full-time (FT) or part-time (PT) modes and may
be based at a campus of the University or a remote site (i.e. distance mode).
The University is committed to providing equality of opportunity to all PGR
students, irrespective of the group or groups to which they belong (based on, for
example, a declared disability, specific cultural background, location or age).
PGR students have different needs and requirements depending on the subject of
study, discipline, methodology and nature of their research programme. Despite
these differences, the University has identified certain minimum requirements
which it is committed to providing all PGR students (through a combination of the
Doctoral College, Schools, Faculties, external partners and/or ‘Node’).
2. Provision of all PGR Students
All PGR students will be provided with the following:
• a suitably qualified supervision team that encourages the development and
successful pursuit of their programme of research,
• access to the University’s IT and online systems including email, software
and digital learning environment,
• access to the University’s Library resources through Primo, the gateway to
print and electronic collections such as books, e-books, journals, digital
maps, British Standards, e-newspapers and more. The majority of
electronic resources are available off-campus. An overview of subject
resources is available via online LibGuides,
• access to GradBook,
• access to a suitable programme of research-related skills and development
opportunities that contribute to their ability to successfully complete their
programme of study,
• access to and support for a range of development opportunities that
contribute to their ability to develop personal and, where pertinent,
employment-related skills,
• guidance on the ethical pursuit of research and the avoidance of research
misconduct,
• mechanisms for addressing their feedback both as individuals and
collectively,
• the opportunity to raise complaints or to appeal,
- 71 -
UoP minimum resources for PGR students 2019 Edition
All PGR students located at a campus of the University of Plymouth will

additionally be provided with the following:
• a work-space with the following minimum attributes:
o a desk and/or workbench, which may be shared or “hot-desked”,
o a lockable space for personal items,
o access to a computer, which may be shared or “hot-desked”,
o access to printing facilities, which may require payment,
• access to appropriate facilities to conduct their research, agreed at
admission and/or project approval stages,
• access to photocopying to an agreed maximum,
• library access (including to its electronic holdings) and an entitlement to a
defined quantity of Inter-library loans,
• access to all student-focused resources listed in the University’s Student
Handbook (except for those identified explicitly for undergraduates and
postgraduates on ‘taught’ programmes only),
• access to at least one subject-relevant taught postgraduate module run by
the University.
Please note that this represents the University’s minimum commitment for any
student based at a University of Plymouth campus (whether full time, part time or
in ‘writing up’ mode) and will be exceeded in many departments, especially for full
time students. Information on disciplinary-specific resource expectations should be
discussed at interview stage and made available in local research degree
handbooks.
3. Distance Students
Distance PGR students include those who are not located at a campus of the
University, who are undertaking a low residency programme of study, as well as
those based at co-operating institutions remote from a University campus or one
of its partner Institutions.
When PGR students are based either FT or PT at a co-operating institution, then it
is expected that the Institution will provide facilities in line with those outlined
above.
Distance students can expect good access to their supervisory team by email,
Skype, and/or telephone and a number of face-to-face meetings at pre-determined
intervals. Access to appropriate research facilities by distance students must be
determined prior to enrolment on the programme of study.
Additional library support services are available for part-time students, students
living more than 25 miles from the University and for students with disabilities.
The SCONUL Access Scheme provides borrowing privileges at most other higher
education libraries in the UK and Ireland for University of Plymouth postgraduate
research students. This scheme does not normally include access to IT or
electronic library services.
APPROVED December 2005, November 2012 and June 2017
- 72 -
2019 Edition
SCHOOL AND FACULTY

ACTIVITIES AND EXPECTATIONS
FOR POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH DEGREES
1. Faculty-level
Most activities to be undertaken by Deputy Director of the Doctoral College for the
Faculty (i.e. Faculty PGR Co-ordinator) unless explicitly delegated or otherwise
noted.
Activities Comments
1. Represent the Faculty, and all elements of its PGR Identify deputy for times
constituency and business, as a core member of the when not available
Doctoral College Board and its working groups
2. Represent the Faculty as a core member of Doctoral Identify deputy for times
College Quality Sub-committee and its working groups when not available
or sub-committees (including those which review
RDC.3 Examination Approvals, revision of regulations,
etc.)
3. Chair a Faculty Doctoral Committee, meeting at least 3
each year, which includes & responds to student
representation
4. Facilitate student representation on Doctoral College
Board
5. Represent the Faculty at the Research Programmes Identify deputy for times
Taught Components Award Board when not available
6. Report to Faculty executive/senior management group
on PGR issues and cascade issues related to PGR and
postdoc ECR throughout Faculty for implementation
and information as required
7. Prepare Faculty Annual Monitoring Report, based on
review of School PGR annual monitoring processes
and outcomes (to be submitted to Doctoral College
Board)
8. Prepare and monitor the Faculty’s PGR Action Plan (to
be submitted to Doctoral College Board)
9. Respond formally to PRES and other mechanisms of Working with Schools *
student feedback, following up actions and efficacy
10. Train and support School PGR Coordinators in all
elements of their roles
11. Ensure that there is appropriately resourced high- Working with Schools and
quality discipline-specific training and career Institutes *
development opportunities for all PGR students and
postdoctoral ECRs in their Faculties (including at
nodes)
12. Organise and run discipline-specific training for Working with Schools and
supervisors and examiners (including ‘refreshers’ or up- Researcher Development
- 73 -
UoP School and Faculty PGR activities and expectations 2019 Edition
dates), where necessary, that complements the general Manager in Doctoral College
provision offered by the Doctoral College *
13. Deputise for Director of Doctoral College where
necessary (e.g. at meetings, committees, induction
events, etc.)
14. Contribute to and participate in PGR Complaints and
Appeals processes that are referred to the Doctoral
College
15. Support Schools in resolving PGR problems, first stage
complaints, student-supervisor breakdowns, etc. and in
interpreting/implementing regulations
16. Provide clear expectations throughout Faculty about the Working with finance
raising and use of ‘bench fees’ and ensuring this is business partner and
communicated to students and supervisors; Doctoral College *
17. Manage and promote studentship opportunities within Working with Research
their disciplines, ensuring transparent selection Groups, Marketing, Schools,
processes and procedures etc. *
18. Lead on, develop and manage doctoral training Working with Schools,
partnerships, consortia, and external funding Research Groups *
opportunities for postgraduate research, etc. in their
research areas;
19. Lead on the development, sustainability (including Working with Schools,
financial) and quality assurance of PGR Academic Partnerships,
nodes/partnerships in their Faculties Doctoral College *
20. Organise and participate in local/Faculty-level Working with Doctoral
inductions that supplement and complement those of College Administrators,
the Doctoral College (including at ‘nodes’) Schools & Research Groups
*
21. Ensure and monitor production of School research Working with Doctoral
student handbooks that supplement and complement College Administrators,
those of the Doctoral College, as well as Handbooks for Professional Doctorate
Professional Doctorate programmes in their Faculty Programme leads, Schools &
Research Groups *
22. Enhance and develop opportunities for PGR Working with Create Digital,
recruitment and visibility through the University website, Doctoral College, Alumni Unit
external events, running webinars, etc. and Schools, Institutes *
23. Sign off/approve RDC milestones/proforma as
necessary
24. Support the preparation of REF environment Working with UoA
statements related to PGR and postdoc ECRs Coordinators, ADRs *
25. Embed Research Integrity and Ethics processes and Working with R&I, FREICs
Data Management Planning, understanding and and Schools *
training for PGRs and postdoc ECRs, and their
supervisors, throughout Faculty
- 74 -
2. School-level
Most activities to be undertaken by School PGR Co-ordinator/Lead (or equivalent
e.g. Associate Head of School for Graduate Affairs) unless explicitly delegated or
otherwise noted. Note that School PGR Co-ordinators are not responsible for
students on Professional Doctorate programmes (for which Programme Leads are
appointed, with similar expectations and responsibilities for those students).
Activities Comments
1. Work closely with the Faculty’s Deputy Director of the Taking lead as and when
Doctoral College on activities above marked * appropriate for specific
project or elements within
2. Deputise for Faculty’s Deputy Director of Doctoral
College where necessary (e.g. at meetings,
committees, induction events, etc.)
3. Represent School on Faculty Doctoral Committee,
disseminating information to colleagues in their
respective areas and feeding back from colleagues to
FDC
4. Develop and put in place School/local initiatives and
structures to enhance the quality of postgraduate and
postdoctoral early career researcher experience, both
as cohorts and individually
5. Act as first point of contact for potential applicant
enquiries
6. Complete and sign off Admissions Proforma, assigning HoS must also approve &
appropriate supervisory teams and taking into account sign all admissions proforma
the workloads of colleagues or else delegate
7. Manage and approve individual student milestones Working closely with Doctoral
(RDC.1, RDC.2) and recommend approval of proposed College Administrators
examination teams (RDC.3) via GradBook
8. Ensure parity of opportunity for all postgraduate
researchers in their area, and that all are offered a
voice at appropriate levels (e.g. school, programme,
node, etc.)
9. Liaise with students and supervisors (individually or Work with Deputy Director of
separately) to come to a resolution in the event that the Doctoral College for Faculty
supervisory team cannot resolve a student issue or or Head of School as
concern, or when there has been a breakdown of appropriate
communication
10. Support students and Directors of Study when there
has been a ‘failure to progress’ and ensure due
processes are followed, including participation in
Fitness to Study processes where appropriate
11. Ensure regulatory compliance of supervisors and Work with Doctoral College
examiners in their areas (including UKVI interactions, Director and Deputy Director
the timely completion of RDC processes, annual for Faculty. In serious cases,
monitoring, etc.) the Head of School will be
involved.
- 75 -
12. Recommend the approval of interruptions and Work with Doctoral College
extensions via GradBook Administrators
13. Approve changes to supervisory teams Consult with Head of School
where there might be
workload management or
resourcing issues
14. Review Annual Monitoring Reports for School/area Work with Doctoral College
(student and DoS), compiling or contributing to School- Administrators
level Annual Monitoring report (including list of actions
that have been taken or required)
15. Maintain oversight all aspects of validating, organising, May be led by named
resourcing and assessing taught elements of research ‘programme leader’, working
degree programmes (with exception of Professional with ADT&L or School T&L
Doctorates) lead
16. Respond to and resolve individual student concerns Confer with Doctoral College
and queries related to their fees, funding and and HoS as necessary
resourcing in their school
17. Embed and monitor the University’s Equality & Diversity Work with School and/or
policy in all areas of the School’s PGR and postdoctoral Faculty Equality & Diversity
ECR provision (including supervision, examining, leads
training, etc.)
18. Ensure that the University’s Minimum Resource
Requirements are fulfilled for all PGRs (except
Professional Doctorates) in School (including students
working at a distance)
19. Respond to and carry out initial investigation of See Complaints and Appeals
complaints made by PGR students within their School procedures.
(related to teaching, supervision and resourcing),
resolving if possible, following the University’s standard
complaint procedure
- 76 -
2019 Edition
NOTES OF GUIDANCE FOR EXAMINERS

OF THE DEGREES
RESEARCH MASTERS,
MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY,
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY,
DOCTOR OF MEDICINE,
AND PROFESSIONAL DOCTORATES
1. Appointment of Examiners
1.1. Candidates are usually examined by one internal and one external
examiner. If the candidate is a member of academic or research staff
of the University, then two external examiners and one non-examining
Chair are required.
1.2. Examiners are approached in the first instance by the candidate’s
Director of Studies (DoS), at least four months before the intended
submission of the thesis (or any part thereof if it includes practice). The
School in which the candidate is located then formally nominates all
examiners and examination teams to the University’s Doctoral College
Quality Sub-Committee, which is responsible for approving all
nominations.
1.3. Requirements of examiners:
1.3.1. no examiner will have acted as supervisor or advisor to the
candidate during this research degree (other than, for internal
examiners, in the course of annual monitoring processes, or
as expert commentator for project approval [RDC.1] or
Confirmation of Route [RDC.2] milestones 2),
1.3.2. an external examiner will not normally have held any
appointment with the University during the period in which the
candidate has been registered for the degree, nor had any
formal supervisory or advisory relationship with the candidate,
1.3.3. at least one examiner must have experience of examining UK
Research Degree candidates. In an examination for PhD, at
least one examiner must have experience of PhD examining,
1.3.4. no person who is registered for a research degree may act as
an examiner,
1.3.5. the selection of external examiners is subject to the
University’s general requirements. Details of any past or
2Subject to local guidelines; in some Faculties, internal examiners are not

permitted to have acted as expert commentator for the RDC2 process.
- 77 -
UoP notes of guidance for PGR examiners 2019 Edition
current association with the University, its staff or students

must be declared at the time the examination arrangements
are considered, and
1.3.6. internal examiners must fulfil the current training requirements
set by the Doctoral College, at least 4 weeks prior to the viva
voce examination.
1.4. For full details about the appointment of examiners and the
requirements of the examination team (including the appointment of
Chairs and their roles), please see the Research Degrees Handbook.
2. The Role of the Examiners Prior to Oral Examination
2.1. Examiners must agree to attend the viva voce (oral) examination in
person, as well as any elements of the thesis which must be examined
in situ (e.g. in the case of creative or professional practice).
2.2. Prior to the viva voce examination, the Examiners must:
2.2.1. read the thesis carefully and engage with any non-written
elements if relevant;
2.2.2. identify shortcomings in the thesis/research and notify the
Doctoral College immediately should they suspect academic
dishonesty or plagiarism;
2.2.3. submit an individual pre-viva report form (RDC.4P) at least 10
working days prior to the viva voce oral examination (see 7.4
below);
2.2.4. prepare appropriate questions with which to challenge the
candidate and enable them to demonstrate the fulfilment of
the assessment criteria; and
2.2.5. identify any editorial/presentational corrections needed to
improve the final version of the thesis. The marked up version
of the thesis may be given to the candidate at the close of the
examination and noted in the formal notification of the
examination outcome (i.e. list of corrections).
2.3. Examiners may not discuss any element of the thesis with either the
candidate or supervisor(s) prior to the oral examination. They also
must not discuss any elements of the thesis with the other examiner
until after both pre-viva reports are submitted. It is permissible to raise
issues in advance with the Chair of the viva voce examination where
one has been appointed, who should consult with the Doctoral College
if required.
3. Submission of the Thesis
3.1. The written element of the thesis must be presented in English. Its
presentation is expected to be of a high standard in line with the
University of Plymouth’s Research Degrees Handbook. Any
amendments required to the presentation of the thesis will be detailed
to the candidate by the Doctoral College for inclusion in the final
electronic version of the thesis, following the viva voce examination. In
- 78 -
some cases in which presentation requirements are not met or material

is missing, the Doctoral College may require amendments prior to the
thesis being sent to the examination team.
3.2. Sufficient copies, for distribution to each examiner (and Chair where
appropriate), must be submitted to the Doctoral College office in a
“perfect” temporary or permanently bound form.
3.3. It is entirely the candidate’s decision to submit their thesis for
examination; they do not require their Director of Studies’ approval to
do so.
3.4. Work submitted for another degree may not form part of the
submission for the research degree (except in the case of a
collaboratively produced co-authored thesis examined simultaneously
or co-authored elements within a thesis which may potentially appear
in another person’s degree submission).
3.5. The thesis may include non-written forms of research presentation
(e.g. creative or professional practice) or else research outputs,
including articles, published or made public during the course of the
degree registration.
3.5.1. In such cases, the nature and form of the thesis must be
approved by the examiners prior to submission. Please note
that there is always an expectation that in addition to these
outputs, the thesis will include an introduction (outlining
research aims, enquiry, methodology and defining key terms
as well as positioning within one or more fields of study) and
conclusion (including a clear statement of the contribution to
knowledge, in the case of a doctorate).
3.5.2. It may be necessary for examiners to engage in some
elements of the thesis (e.g. performance or exhibition) some
time prior to the submission of the written element or the viva
voce examination. If this is the case, the examiners may not
discuss this work with the candidate – except in general and
non-critical ways which do not represent formative feedback –
prior to the viva voce examination meeting.
3.5.3. In cases where individual elements of the thesis are co-
authored and/or co-produced, the candidate’s specific role as
a researcher within these elements must be clearly indicated
within the thesis and it must be explained how this contributes
to the overarching methodology of their research project as
represented by the thesis as a whole. Normally it would be
expected that the candidate is the named first author (or
disciplinary equivalent) of any publication included as part of
the thesis and that a statement is provided by each co-author
confirming the candidate’s contribution.
3.5.4. It is only possible to include Open Access publications or
‘green’ final manuscript versions of articles or papers within
theses for copyright reasons.
- 79 -
3.5.5. The thesis as a whole must be framed as a single coherent

research project and meet the relevant QAA Framework for
Higher Education criteria for qualifications at Masters (Level 7)
or Doctoral (Level 8) level (as appropriate to the degree).
4. Preparation for the Oral (Viva Voce) Examination
4.1. The Director of Studies, with the support of the Doctoral College,
normally organises the time, date, location and arrangements for the
examination in conjunction with the examiners and the candidate.
4.2. The candidate should let their Director of Studies know whether they
would like one of their supervisors to be present at the viva voce
examination. The candidate’s wishes should be passed on to the
Internal Examiner prior to the viva voce examination.
4.3. The viva voce examination should normally be scheduled no sooner
than 6 weeks from the date the thesis is posted to the examiners and
no later than 3 months thereafter. DoSs should not confirm the date of
the viva voce examination until after the Doctoral College has sent the
thesis to the examiners.
4.4. The viva voce examination should be held at University of Plymouth
whenever possible, but it is sometimes necessary to meet elsewhere.
This must be approved by the Director of the Doctoral College (or
delegate) as for any viva voce examination which needs to take place
via video conferencing or Skype. These options should only be
considered as the last resort when all other possibilities have been
exhausted.
4.5. It is important that the viva voce examination:
4.5.1. be held in an accessible room that is quiet and not subject to
telephone or other interruptions;
4.5.2. takes into account any requirements for students or examiners
with special needs;
4.5.3. uses a table large enough to accommodate the required
number of theses, papers, diagrams, etc.;
4.5.4. has drinking water available;
4.5.5. has sufficient time allowed (at least 2 hours), although
candidates should not have to face an excessively long
examination without good reason; and
4.5.6. has available a waiting area for the candidate and supervisor
to use that is not within hearing range of the examination
room.
4.6. When a non-examining Independent Chair has not been appointed, the
Internal Examiner will act as Chair for the viva voce examination.
4.7. The University is committed to making reasonable adjustments to the
oral examination for candidates who require them. These should be
organised as far in advance as possible. In such cases, a non-
- 80 -
examining Chair will be appointed to the examination team to support

all participants.
5. The Oral Examination
5.1. Viva voce examinations are required for all candidates who submit
theses. The only exception is in the case of resubmitted theses where
both examiners agree, having read the resubmitted thesis, that a
second viva voce examination may be waived. (Please see 10.3
below).
5.2. Immediately prior to the viva voce examination, the examiners and
Chair (if one has been appointed) will meet to develop an agenda or
plan of questioning that takes into account their pre-viva reports
(RDC.4Ps or RDC.4PRs in the case of a resubmitted thesis). This
meeting is usually scheduled to take place in the hour prior to the
scheduled viva voce examination. No members of the candidate’s
supervisory team may be present at this meeting.
5.3. All examiners and the Chair (if appointed) shall be present at the viva
voce examination.
5.3.1. Supervisors may, if requested by the candidate, attend the
oral examination. They may only contribute to or participate in
the discussion if explicitly requested by one of the examiners,
and must withdraw prior to the deliberations of the examiners
on the outcome of the examination.
5.3.2. Notes should be taken throughout by one or both examiners
(or the Chair, if one has been appointed) to record the
progress and key moments of the examination. Chairs must
submit their notes to the Doctoral College following the viva
voce examination (with form identified in 5.3c below). Please
note that students have the right to request to see notes made
by chairs and examiners during the viva voce; examiners are
therefore requested to send these to the Doctoral College.
5.3.3. Following the viva voce examination, the external examiner
and Chair are asked to complete a brief form for the Doctoral
College, reflecting on the conduct of the examination and
offering any feedback on the process.
5.4. Either the Director of Studies or Chair will inform the examiners, before
the recommended outcome of the examination is determined, of any
exceptional circumstances which might have affected the candidate’s
performance adversely (should these be known).
5.5. After the viva voce examination, the examiners will, where they are in
agreement, jointly report on the thesis and examination using a RDC.4
(or RDC.4R in the case of a resubmission) form. This must be signed
by all parties and returned to the Doctoral College office as soon as
possible and always within 14 days. Where the examiners are not in
agreement, separate reports and recommendations must be submitted
to the Doctoral College (See 6.5 and 7.14 below).
- 81 -
5.6. In the case of collaboratively produced co-authored theses, the

candidates will be examined together by the same internal and external
examiner with a non-examining Chair (except if one or both candidates
are staff – in which case two externals will be appointed and supported
by a Chair), normally at the same viva voce examination.
5.6.1. A single RDC.4/4R form is to be completed and the same
outcome must be recommended for both candidates.
5.6.2. The examining team must also use the form to record whether
the oral examination has demonstrated that the candidates,
separately and together, have met the criteria of the relevant
degree qualification (providing evidence as necessary).
6. Examination Outcomes
6.1. Recipients of ResM or MPhil degrees must meet the QAA Framework
for Higher Education criteria for qualifications at Level 7 at (at least)
threshold level. Level 7 research degrees should include the results of
an appropriate research programme or a critical analysis of existing
knowledge in a defined field.
6.2. Recipients of PhD, MD or Professional Doctorate degrees must meet
the QAA Framework for Higher Education criteria for qualifications at
Level 8 at (at least) threshold level. The thesis should include a distinct
contribution to the current knowledge of the subject(s) identified,
demonstrate systematic study and independent, critical and original
powers and should be suitable for publication in whole or in part.
6.3. Following the viva voce examination, the examiners must recommend
one of the following outcomes, based on the QAA Framework for
Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) at the relevant level:
6.3.1. Pass: the degree be awarded. The examining team may
provide advisory guidance on editorial corrections to the
thesis, such as minor typographical or grammatical errors; or
6.3.2. Corrections: the thesis is satisfactory in substance, but the
examiners have identified shortcomings in the shaping or
articulation of the research. Corrections to be made to the
satisfaction of one or all of the examiners by six months from
the date of the formal notification of the outcome of the
examination; or
6.3.3. Defer – resubmission allowed. The thesis is unsatisfactory in
substance, with shortcomings in the presentation and/or
content, and may require further research. The candidate is
permitted to resubmit for the degree (with detailed advice) and
be re-examined on one further occasion by twelve months
from the date of the formal notification of the outcome of the
examination; or
6.3.4. Compensatory award: the degree for which the research
student is examined is not to be awarded but a lower level
degree (MPhil, ResM, PgCert or PgDip) or, in the case of
Professional Doctorates, and where the individual regulations
- 82 -
for each Professional Doctorate allow, an appropriate master

level degree be awarded subject to the presentation of the
thesis being amended to the satisfaction of the examiners by
one month from the date of the formal notification of the
outcome of the examination; or
6.3.5. Fail: the degree not to be awarded and the candidate not be
permitted to be re-examined.
6.4. No outcome may be suggested to the student or their supervisors prior
to the viva voce examination or until the questioning and discussion
with the candidate is completed.
6.5. Where the examiners’ recommendations are not unanimous, individual
report forms (RDC.4 or RDC.4R) will be issued for the decisions to be
reported separately. The Doctoral College:
6.5.1. will normally appoint an additional external examiner to
arbitrate and shall consider the reports of all examiners before
reaching a decision; or
6.5.2. may exceptionally accept the recommendation of the external
examiner(s).
7. Examination of Thesis: Procedure & Outcome Recommendations
7.1. The Doctoral College will distribute copies of the thesis to each
examiner (and Chair, if appointed) as soon as possible on receipt,
together with these Notes of Guidance for Examiners, Pre-viva Report
Form (RDC.4P/4PR), Recommendation of Examiners Form
(RDC.4/4R) and expenses claim and honorarium forms, as
appropriate.
7.2. The Director of Studies will make arrangements for the viva voce
examination and keep the internal and external examiners, the Chair (if
relevant), the candidate and the Doctoral College informed of the date
and schedule for the examination.
7.3. It is the responsibility of the Doctoral College to determine and pay
fees and expenses to external examiners, following receipt of all
required paperwork. It is a requirement that external examiners present
their passports and other relevant documentation so that the University
is able to confirm that they have the right to work in the United
Kingdom.
7.4. At least 10 working days in advance of the viva voce examination,
each examiner must submit a pre-viva report (RDC.4P or RDC.4PR in
the case of resubmitted theses) to the Doctoral College. These reports
will be exchanged between examiners and a copy given to the Chair if
appointed.
7.4.1. At this stage, examiners may also request that the candidate
make a brief presentation at the viva voce examination, to be
prepared in advance. [Students can also request to make a
presentation at the viva voce examination, but this must be
requested via the Director of Studies and approved by both
- 83 -
examiners at least 10 working days in advance of the viva

voce examination.]
7.4.2. Copies of the pre-viva reports are held by the Doctoral
College in the student’s file; these remain confidential
throughout the duration of the examination. Should a copy be
requested under the Data Protection Act 2018, it will only be
provided within the extended timescales allowed under the
Act. If examiners wish their comments to remain confidential,
they should advise the University when they submit them and
explain the issues which give rise to their concern.
7.5. It is the responsibility of the Internal Examiner – and the principal duty
of the Chair if one is appointed – to ensure that the examination is
conducted fairly and professionally, and in accordance with University
regulations.
7.6. After the completion of the oral examination, either:
7.6.1. the examiners may inform the candidate of the outcome and
that they require a few minutes to complete the paperwork (at
which point the candidate and, if relevant, supervisor must
withdraw); or
7.6.2. the examiners ask that the candidate and, if relevant,
supervisor withdraw while they reach a decision and complete
the paperwork. In exceptional circumstances, the supervisor
may be asked to withdraw and the candidate asked further
questions (where it is thought that student/supervisor
relationships may have affected the thesis/research). There
may also be a situation where the candidate is asked to
withdraw and the supervisor is asked further questions. This
may be the case, for instance, if it appears that the student
has failed to heed advice given or else has encountered
difficulties along their research journey (e.g. changes to the
supervisory team, etc.).
7.7. Once the decision is agreed, the candidate and supervisor should be
invited back into the examination room for a statement of the outcome.
If this is not 'good news' then it should be offered with as much tact,
clarity and sensitivity as possible.
7.8. The Recommendation of Examiners Form (RDC.4 or RDC.4R in the
case of a resubmission), which is sent to the Internal Examiner or the
Chair when one has been appointed, should be completed as soon as
possible after the viva voce examination, in consultation with the
external examiner(s).
7.8.1. It is the Internal Examiner’s (or Chair’s, if one has been
appointed) responsibility to arrange for the post-viva report to
be filled in and sent to the Doctoral College.
7.8.2. The form must be completed, signed by all members of the
examination team, and returned to the Doctoral College office
as soon as possible after the examination and within 14 days
- 84 -
at the latest. Lists of specific corrections for the candidate may

follow within 2 weeks of the viva voce examination and should
not hold up the completion and submission of the RDC.4/4R.
7.9. The RDC.4/4R form indicates the nature of the response required for
many of the questions but the examiners must pay particular attention
to the appropriateness of their recommended outcome. Note that a
Pass (6.3a above) should be awarded when the examiners are happy
to approve the thesis with no further amendments. Any minor editorial
corrections listed and supplied to the candidate with this outcome are
purely advisory; the candidate is not required to respond to them prior
to supplying the final version of their thesis for the award of their
degree.
7.10. In the case of recommendation 6.3b above (‘Corrections’), it must be
agreed and noted on the RDC.4/4R who will check the final version of
the thesis (Internal Examiner or External Examiner or both) to ensure
that all required corrections are made. The candidate should be told
the general nature of the corrections before leaving the examination
room. This must be followed up with a clear list in writing (to the
Doctoral College within 2 weeks). It is also possible to give the student
an annotated copy of the thesis that indicates some or all of the
corrections required (this should be noted both on the RDC.4/4R form
and on any supplementary correction lists or documents).
Please note that examiners cannot request additional corrections after
submitting these requirements to the Doctoral College and the
candidate’s fulfilment of these requirements will be judged solely on
their response to the original corrections identified by the examiners in
writing.
7.11. In the case of recommendation 6.3c above (Deferral - Resubmission),
the examiners must be explicit about the nature of the work to be done
for the candidate to meet the threshold criteria of the degree. In
addition to the full completion of the RDC.4 form, the examiners must
provide a separate document (no briefer than 1 side of A4) describing
this work to the Doctoral College. This document will be forwarded to
the candidate. Please note that candidates must have clear and
unambiguous instructions, as they will be judged solely on their
response to those instructions at the time of resubmission. This is to
ensure that examiners do not ask for further modifications at that time,
except for those that arise from the revision itself.
7.12. In the case of recommendation 6.3d above (Compensatory lower
degree awarded), the examiners must clearly indicate in Section 3 of
the RDC.4/4R why the candidate did not meet the threshold criteria for
the degree. They may also supply a list of required corrections for the
award of the lower degree. These corrections, to be submitted within
one month of the formal notification of the outcome of the viva voce
examination, must be checked by the Internal Examiner (or Chair if
there is no Internal Examiner). Additionally, all references to the higher
degree must be amended to that of the lower degree to be awarded.
- 85 -
Examiners must indicate which degree they recommend be awarded;

advice is available from the Doctoral College if required.
7.13. In the case of recommendation 6.3e above (Fail – no degree awarded),
Section 3 of the RDC.4/4R form and any supporting documents must
be very clear about the grounds for rejection of the thesis, which
should align with the QAA Framework for Higher Education criteria for
qualifications at the relevant level. Please note that a candidate may
request to see any documentation related to their examination in the
case of an appeal.
7.14. In the event of an outcome not being agreed by the examiners, each
must present a separate report and RDC.4/4R form to the Doctoral
College as soon as possible. In the event of a disagreement, the
candidate should be told and it should be explained to them that
individual reports are being lodged with the Doctoral College which will
write to them as soon as possible. If there is a disagreement, it is
always possible to telephone the Doctoral College and, if available,
either the Director or relevant Deputy Director of the Doctoral College
may be able to come to the examination room or give advice to the
examination team by telephone.
7.15. If there are any doubts about the completion of the RDC.4 (or RDC.4R
in the case of resubmissions), please contact the Doctoral College.
7.16. It must be remembered that the main grounds for appeal against a
result are related to either the conduct of the examination and/or lack
of clarity about the requirements of corrections or a resubmitted thesis
in the formal notification document provided to the candidate.
7.17. Please note that the University’s regulations related to PGR
Examination Outcomes were updated for all theses submitted on or
after 1 September 2018. If you are examining a thesis that was
submitted prior to this date – or else a resubmitted thesis that was first
submitted prior to this date – then 2017-18 regulations must be
followed (please refer to the Notes of Guidance for PGR Examiners
document produced in October 2017 instead).
8. Award of a ‘Pass’ Degree: Procedure
8.1. On agreement by the examiners that the candidate has passed and the
degree be awarded (recommendation 6.3a above), the candidate will
be asked to submit an electronic copy of the thesis to the University’s
repository. The expectation is for the candidate to submit this electronic
copy of the thesis within 60 days of the formal notification of the
outcome by the Doctoral College.
8.2. Examiners may provide a list of editorial corrections comprising minor
typographical or grammatical errors to the candidate, either at the
close of the viva voce examination or else within two weeks via the
Doctoral College (to be sent with the formal examination outcome
letter). Please note that it is the candidate’s decision whether to make
these recommended amendments to their thesis and this will not be
checked or monitored.
- 86 -
8.3. The award will not be given until the electronic copy of the thesis has
been submitted to the University repository (PEARL) and the
submission been approved by the Doctoral College and any
outstanding academic debts to the University have been paid. Please
note that students are entitled to request an embargo period for their
thesis.
8.4. The Doctoral College will arrange for the certificate to be produced and
will notify the Exams and Awards Office that the candidate is eligible to
attend the next Graduation Ceremony.
9. Corrections to the Thesis: Procedure
9.1. On agreement of the examiners that the thesis is satisfactory in
substance, but that there are shortcomings in the shaping or
articulation of the research (recommendation 6.3b above), the student
must be informed of the corrections required to the thesis and the date
by which these should be made at the end of the oral examination. If
not submitted with the RDC.4/4R form, the list of corrections must be
sent to the Doctoral College, to be forwarded to the candidate, within 2
weeks of the viva voce examination. Corrections are to be approved by
the internal and/or the external examiner(s) and not the Chair. The
candidate should be told by the examiners the form in which to submit
the corrections; normally an electronic copy with the
changes/corrections tracked, highlighted or tagged is preferred, with a
cover sheet indicating where each correction can be found.
9.2. The corrections must be made and submitted to the Doctoral College
to send to the Internal Examiner and/or the External Examiner (as
indicated on the RDC.4/4R) within six months of the formal notification
of the outcome. If a candidate is unable to meet this deadline, they
may request an extension; all extensions must be approved by the
examiners.
9.3. Corrections are not an iterative process between the candidate and
examiners and examiners are not expected to act as mentors or
advisors during this process. If a candidate has any queries, they
should ask their Director of Studies or other supervisor to liaise with the
examiners on their behalf.
9.4. In the case of corrections arising from a first viva voce examination, the
examiner(s) must complete Corrections Report Form COR.1 and return
it to the Doctoral College within 20 working days of receiving the
corrections. If for any reason they are unable to consider these
corrections and respond within 20 working days, the Doctoral College
should be notified so the candidate may be informed of the delay.
Please see 9.5.
If the corrections are submitted either for the second time or else to a
thesis that had been resubmitted as the result of a deferral, the
examiners must complete Corrections Report Form COR.2 and return
it to the Doctoral College within 20 days of receiving the corrections.
Please see 9.6.
- 87 -
9.5. Please remember that examiners may not expect or require the
candidate to make any corrections that were not on the List of
Corrections sent to them by the Doctoral College with the formal
notification of their examination outcome.
If the corrections are not approved, and these have been submitted for
the first time for a thesis that had not been resubmitted as the result of
a deferral, then the candidate is entitled to a ‘2nd attempt’. Please see
the attached ‘Flowchart of PGR Examination Outcomes’. Examiners
must use form COR.1 to identify the ways in which the corrections
were deficient and also list the corrections that are still required; in this
case, the protocol described in 9.2 – 9.4 above must be followed.
9.6. If the corrections are not approved, and these have been submitted
either for the second time or to a thesis that had been resubmitted as
the result of a deferral, then the examiners must use form COR.2 to
recommend either:
9.6.1. that the candidate receives a compensatory lower award: that
is, the degree for which the student has been examined is not
to be awarded but a lower level degree (MPhil, ResM, PgCert
or PgDip) or in the case of Professional Doctorates and where
the individual regulations for each Professional Doctorate
allow, an appropriate master level degree be awarded. Please
note that corrections that require approval by examiners are
not permitted with this outcome (although the candidate must
make amendments to references to the level of the degree
and examiners may provide a list of recommended
typographical corrections which the candidate may choose not
to attend to), or
9.6.2. that the candidate fails: the degree not to be awarded and the
candidate not be permitted to be re-examined.
Please see the attached ‘Flowchart of PGR Examination Outcomes’.
9.7. If the corrections are approved, or a compensatory lower award is
recommended, the degree will be awarded when the electronic copy of
the final corrected thesis has been submitted to the University
repository (PEARL), the submission been approved by the Doctoral
College and any outstanding academic debts to the University have
been paid. In the case of a lower degree being awarded, the candidate
must amend the title of the degree on the cover page as well as any
references to the level of the degree throughout the thesis.
9.8. The Doctoral College will arrange for the certificate to be produced and
will notify the Exams and Awards Office that the candidate is eligible to
attend the next Graduation Ceremony.
10. Resubmission following Deferral: Procedure
10.1. A thesis may be re-submitted (i.e. ‘re-examined’) on one occasion,
normally with a further viva voce examination. Details of any further
research requirements must be submitted by the examination team to
the Doctoral College who will then forward them to the research
- 88 -
student (see 7.11 above) following the first viva voce examination.
Sufficient copies of the revised thesis must be resubmitted to the
Doctoral College office by the deadline. Failure to resubmit by this date
will normally be regarded as failure of the examination. However, if a
candidate is unable to meet this deadline, they may request an
extension, which must be approved by the examiners.
10.2. A resubmitted thesis is normally examined by the same examination
team. Should either examiner be unavailable, or a (different) Chair
required, the Director of Studies must nominate the entire examination
team (via the RDC.3 form on GradBook), preferably four months prior
to submission of the revised thesis, which must be approved by the
Doctoral College Quality Sub-committee. It is strongly recommended
that a Chair is appointed for the examination of a resubmitted thesis,
even if one had not been appointed to the original examination team;
please contact the Doctoral College to add a new RDC.3 to the
GradBook record if this is the case.
10.3. If, having read the resubmitted thesis, the examiners agree that the
outcome of the examination will be either ‘pass’ or ‘corrections’, they
have the discretion to waive the requirement to hold a second viva
voce examination. The examiners should tell the Doctoral College if
this is the case no later than 10 working days prior to the scheduled
viva voce examination (although preferably at least a month in advance
so that the student may be told not to arrange travel, etc.).
Before the examiners agree the outcome of ‘award of lower degree’, or
‘fail, no award’ for a resubmitted thesis, a second viva voce
examination is mandatory. [Please note that this is not the case for
outcome decisions following the submission of Corrections to a thesis].
10.4. The examination for a resubmitted thesis should be run as per Items 1-
9 above, with the following exception: the examination outcome 6.3c
(deferral – resubmission) is not available for resubmitted theses.
Please see the attached ‘Flowchart of PGR Examination Outcomes’.
10.5. If the viva voce examination is waived for the resubmitted thesis, the
examination team must return the RDC.4R form and any List of
Corrections within either 3 months of the thesis having been sent to
them by the Doctoral College or else within 2 weeks of the scheduled
viva that had been waived (whichever comes first).
The examination team (without the student or supervisor present) must
hold a meeting (by Skype or videoconferencing if necessary) to discuss
and agree the thesis and examination outcome. Normally the Chair, if
one has been appointed, is responsible for completing the RDC.4R
form and, if required, the examiners agree and complete the List of
Corrections. The form needs to be printed and signed by all members
of the examination team. It is possible for the form to be scanned and
emailed to the Doctoral College, copied to all members of the
examination team; those members with outstanding signatures can
indicate their approval in a ‘reply all’ email in lieu of a signature.
- 89 -
10.6. Please note that candidates who begin their programme of study after
1 September 2018 will be required to pay a resubmission fee to be re-
examined, whether or not the viva voce examination is waived.
11. Compensatory/lower award: Procedure
11.1. In the case of a compensatory or lower award (recommendation 6.3d),
when the thesis does not require any corrections, the candidate will be
asked to submit an electronic copy of the thesis to the University’s
repository within 60 days of the formal notification of the outcome. The
candidate must amend the title of the degree on the cover page as well
as any references to the level of the degree throughout the thesis.
These are not considered ‘corrections’ and do not need to be approved
by a member of the examination team.
Please note that this also applies to compensatory awards
recommended when corrections are not approved (see 9.6.a above).
11.2. On agreement of the examiners that the thesis requires further
corrections in order to meet the criteria for a lower award, the student
must be informed of the corrections required to the thesis and the date
by which these should be made at the end of the oral examination. If
not submitted with the RDC.4/4R form, the list of corrections must be
sent to the Doctoral College, to be forwarded to the candidate, within 2
weeks of the viva voce examination. Corrections are to be approved by
the Internal Examiner (or Chair if there is no internal examiner, who
may liaise with one or both external examiners in making their
decision). The candidate should be told by the examiners the form in
which to submit the corrections; normally an electronic copy with the
changes/corrections tracked, highlighted or tagged is preferred, with a
cover sheet indicating where each correction can be found.
11.3. The corrections must be made and submitted to the Doctoral College
to send to the Internal Examiner or Chair within one month of the
formal notification of the outcome. If a candidate is unable to meet this
deadline, they may request an extension; all extensions must be
approved by the examiners.
11.4. Corrections are not an iterative process between the candidate and
examiners and examiners are not expected to act as mentors or
advisors during this process. If a candidate has any queries, they
should ask their Director of Studies or other supervisor to liaise with the
examiners on their behalf.
11.5. The Internal Examiner (or Chair) must complete a Corrections Report
Form COR.3 and return it to the Doctoral College within 20 working
days of receiving the corrections. If for any reason they are unable to
consider these corrections and respond within 20 working days, the
Doctoral College should be notified so the candidate may be informed
of the delay.
11.6. If the corrections are approved, the degree will be awarded when the
electronic copy of the final corrected thesis has been submitted to the
University repository (PEARL), the submission been approved by the
- 90 -
Doctoral College and any outstanding academic debts to the University

have been paid.
11.7. If the corrections are not approved, then the outcome of the
examination is a fail; the candidate will not receive an award and no re-
examination is permitted. Please see the attached ‘Flowchart of PGR
Examination Outcomes’. The Internal Examiner (or Chair) must use
form COR.3 to identify the ways in which the corrections were
deficient. Please remember that examiners may not expect or require
the candidate to make any corrections that were not on the List of
Corrections sent to them by the Doctoral College with the formal
notification of their examination outcome.
12. PhDs on the basis of Prior Published Works
12.1. The viva voce examination for a thesis submitted for the award of PhD
on the basis of Prior Published Works should be run as per Items 1-9
and 11 above, with the following exception: the examination outcome
6.3c (deferral – resubmission) is not available.
12.2. As the published works are already in the public domain, and cannot
be revised following examination, examiners may only recommend
Corrections that can be made to the Integrative Summary. Please see
the Regulations and Guidance Notes for this award.
13. Appeals Against Academic Decisions
13.1. Details of the regulations on Appeals against academic decisions can
be found at https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/student-life/your-
studies/essential-information/complaints-appeals.
14. Questions and Concerns
14.1. Please email any questions about regulatory matters, operational or
administrative processes to doctoralcollege@plymouth.ac.uk or
telephone (+44) 01752 587640
14.2. If you wish to discuss any matter related to the conduct of the
examination or wish to ask for advice or guidance about your role as
an examiner in confidence, please contact the Director of the Doctoral
College.
15. Flowchart of PGR Examination Outcomes
See next page
- 91 -
UoP flowchart of PGR examination outcomes 2019 Edition
- 92 -
2019 Edition
THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES

OF INDEPENDENT CHAIRS
AT VIVA VOCE EXAMINATIONS
OF RESEARCH DEGREES
1. The appointment of a non-examining Independent Chair (from here on, ‘Chair’)

for a research degree (PGR) viva voce examination must be approved either
by the Doctoral College Quality Sub-Committee or, in exceptional cases of
urgency, the Director of the Doctoral College on its behalf.
The need to appoint a Chair should be exceptional, rather than the norm, for
examination teams.
If a Chair has not been appointed, the roles and responsibilities described in
point 7 below should be undertaken by the Internal Examiner.
2. A non-examining Independent Chair must be appointed to the examination
team in the following circumstances:
• the student being examined is also a member of academic or research staff
at the University;
• the internal examiner has no PGR examining experience at the University
of Plymouth;
• the examination team as a whole does not have experience in a total of
three UK examinations at the level of the examination;
• the viva voce examination is being conducted via video-conference;
• 'reasonable adjustments' have been made or disability has been taken into
account in viva voce examination arrangements or conduct;
• the thesis is collaboratively co-authored by two students being examined
together;
• issue(s) have been raised by either the internal or external examiner(s) in
their pre-viva reports – and, in particular, if both examiners have ticked the
box on the RDC.4P (or RDC.4PR in the case of a resubmission) form
indicating that they believe the thesis to be seriously flawed and not on
target to merit consideration for the degree to be awarded;
• the student has requested a Chair due to issues related to equality and
diversity (All students must be asked if they would like a Chair of their
gender appointed if both their examiners are a different gender to their own,
although they are free to decline this offer.)
Please note: under no circumstances may a candidate have two examiners
and a Chair of a different gender to their own (e.g. a female-identifying
candidate with two male examiners and a male chair).
A Director of Studies may also propose a Chair (including on behalf of the
student or one of the examiners) when one is not required.
It is strongly recommended that a Chair is appointed in cases where a second
oral examination is required for a resubmitted thesis. If relevant and possible,
- 93 -
UoP role and responsibility of chairs 2019 Edition
this should be the same person who chaired the candidate’s first viva voce
examination.
3. The principal duty of the Chair is to ensure that the examination is conducted
fairly and professionally, and in accordance with University regulations.
It is therefore important that Chairs: are University of Plymouth staff members;
have examined at least two degrees at the level of the examination; have
examined at least one postgraduate research degree at the University; and are
familiar with the University’s regulations, guidelines and procedures. They are
expected to have attended an Internal Examiners’ or Chairs’ Briefing session
or refresher run by the University within the 3 year period prior to the oral
examination.
Chairs are not examiners of the thesis and do not determine the outcome of
the examination. However, they are likely to facilitate the examiners in making
their decision together.
4. Prior to the oral examination, the Chair will be provided with:
• a letter of appointment,
• notes of Guidance for Examiners of Research Degrees,
• copies of the pre-viva reports (RDC.4P/4PR forms) from both examiners,
which must be submitted 10 working days prior to the oral examination,
• a copy of the thesis. It is recommended that they read the abstract and
scan the thesis for familiarity and to note any gross irregularities,
• details of ‘reasonable adjustments’ made to the form or content of the oral
examination,
• a copy of the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications Award
Descriptor for Masters and Doctorates. These descriptors should act as an
aide memoire by which the examiners determine whether the candidate
satisfies, or not, the UK criteria for the degree, and
• a ‘Chair’s Feedback’ form, which must be completed following the oral
examination and returned to the Doctoral College.
5. The Chair is required to attend the meeting with the examiners prior to the oral
examination and be present for the duration of the oral examination and post-
viva discussions.
When the thesis includes practice elements, it is desirable that the Chair is in
attendance with the examiners.
6. At the pre-viva meeting, Chairs must ensure that both examiners understand
the Chair’s role in the examining process and explain why they have been
appointed (see point 2 above).
Please note that, prior to the viva voce examination, students should not be
told why the Chair has been appointed, except when this was due to gender
balance at the student’s request.
7. Chairs must ensure that the University’s regulations and ‘Notes of Guidance for
Examiners of Research Degrees’ are followed. In relation to these, and
ensuring that good practice is adhered to, the Chair is normally responsible for
the following:
- 94 -
• Ensuring that during the pre-viva meeting, the examiners develop an

agenda or plan of questioning for the oral examination that takes into
account their pre-viva report forms (RDC.4P/4PR);
• When the thesis includes the assessment of live practice, screenings or an
exhibition, ensuring that the examiners provide no formative feedback to
the candidate prior to the viva voce examination;
• Setting up the room for the viva voce examination and seeking an
alternative venue if the room assigned is unsuitable;
• Ensuring that, if the candidate’s supervisor attends the viva voce
examination, the supervisor is not part of the examination process. The
Chair may ask the supervisor to leave the room if they intervene
inappropriately in the examination process. Supervisors can only contribute
during the examination with the permission of the Chair after consultation
with the examiners.
• Knowing how to contact the supervisor, if not present at the viva voce
examination, or their nominee (phone extension, or mobile phone number),
in case they are required;
• Welcoming the candidate into the examination room; introducing
everybody; explaining the Chair’s role in the process (as per point 3 above);
making sure that the candidate is ready to start and is comfortable;
• Giving the candidate an opportunity to relax into the viva voce examination
at the start. It is appropriate for the Chair to ask an initial introductory
question (e.g. ‘what did you really enjoy about your project?’, ‘what made
you want to do this research?’) before handing over to the examiners;
• Offering a 5-10 minute break to the examiners and candidate,
approximately 90 minutes into the viva voce examination, if it is likely to go
much beyond this;
• Taking notes of the progress of the viva voce examination with a time line
noted in the margin. These notes may be used in the case of a complaint or
appeal.
It is expected that that the Chair takes notes by hand, so as not to disturb
the candidate or examiners with the sound of a typing on a keyboard.
• Intervening if they judge that an examiner’s questioning is too aggressive,
or may be biased or discriminatory. If necessary, the Chair has the right to
call a temporary break to discuss these concerns with the examiners.
• If the candidate is showing signs of extreme stress, suspending the viva
voce examination and allowing the candidate a short break to compose
themselves. In very extreme cases, the Chair has the right to suspend the
viva voce examination indefinitely; in such a case, the Doctoral College
must be informed immediately and the Chair referred to the Director of the
Doctoral College for advice of how to proceed. If the latter is not available,
then the Chair should use their judgement on how to proceed until advice
can be sought.
- 95 -
• At the end of the questioning period, asking whether both examiners are
satisfied that they have enough information to come to an examination
decision regarding the candidate. If they agree, then the Chair should ask
the student whether they have any points they would like to raise.
It is the Chair who then normally asks the candidate (and supervisor) to
leave the room to allow the examiners to confer and come to a decision.
• During the period of conferring, bringing objectiveness to the discussion, by
reflecting back on particular relevant issues that occurred in the viva voce
examination. In the case of a ‘borderline’ student, the Chair may use their
experience to suggest to the examiners how they felt the candidate had
performed in the viva voce examination (e.g. using phraseology such as
average, above average, below average).
The Chair should go through the questions and prompts on the RDC.4 (or
RDC.4R) one by one. If the examiners are not in agreement, the Chair
should help them to come to a decision through discussion. The Chair
should also discuss each of the options for the result of the examination
with the examiners, helping them to rule out options one by one, based on
QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications Award Descriptors.
In the case of all decisions which require further work by the student (either
corrections or that the thesis is referred for resubmission), the Chair must
ensure that the examiners agree what needs to be done by the student; the
extent of the further work; how the written list of corrections (or guidelines
of what is required for a resubmitted thesis) will be produced; and which
examiner(s) will consider corrections.
• Calling the candidate and their supervisor back into the examination room
in order to deliver the verdict of the examination. Where this involves
corrections or the thesis is referred for resubmission, this must include a
summary of what the student needs to do next, the process and timescale.
The Chair may explain these if agreed in advance by both examiners.
• Ensuring that all members of the examining team, including the Chair, sign
the examiners’ joint report form RDC.4 (or RDC.4R if examining a
resubmitted thesis) before leaving the examination room. It is appropriate
for the Chair to complete the body of the form, should the Internal Examiner
agree.
The Chair must emphasise that a formal written identification of the
corrections required (or notes for guidance if the thesis is referred for
resubmission) must be submitted to the Doctoral College as soon after the
end of the viva voce examination as possible (normally within a day or two
and definitely within a two-week period from the date of the examination).
• When agreed with the examiners, corresponding with them following the
oral examination about the precise form and content of the formal written
version of the corrections (or notes for guidance if the thesis is referred for
resubmission), and possibly sending the final agreed version to the Doctoral
College.
- 96 -
8. After the oral examination, the Chair is required to sign the examiners’ joint
report (RDC.4 or RDC.4R) and ensure that it is returned to the Doctoral
College as soon as possible.
Together with the ‘Chair’s Feedback’ Form, they must also submit their notes
taken during the viva voce examination and/or a brief report (using ‘Chair’s
Feedback’ form) to the Doctoral College. This is very important in the case of a
thesis that has been referred for resubmission or the award of a degree
different to which the thesis was submitted for, as the student has the right to
appeal against this decision and the University has a duty to provide evidence
on the conduct of the examination.
Reviewed June 2008, November 2012, October 2014 and October 2017
- 97 -
2019 Edition
POSTHUMOUS RESEARCH DEGREES

AND AEGROTAT AWARDS
1. A research degree may be awarded posthumously on the basis of a thesis

completed by a candidate which is ready for submission for examination.
The degree can also be considered if the research was at its final stages. In
this case, the supervisors will need to compile a thesis in readiness for
examination.
2. The University may award an aegrotat degree to students who are unable
to complete the oral examination in the usual way due to irreversible health
problems.
3. In both cases the Doctoral College Quality Sub-Committee shall seek
evidence that the candidate would have been likely to have been
successful had the oral examination taken place.
4. A request from the supervisors to the Doctoral College Quality Sub-
Committee to proceed with the examination will be required. A brief report
explaining that the thesis and work carried out by the candidate are
believed to be of sufficient quality for the research degree to be awarded
should accompany the request.
5. If the research work was not concluded by the research student, the
supervisors should include reasons as to why the work should be
considered for examination, taking into account how far the research had
advanced and the extent of understanding of the topic by the student, etc.
6. In the case of an aegrotat degree, the request should be made after all
other avenues have been investigated and exhausted when appropriate,
such as interruptions, change to part-time, termination at a lower degree
level, etc.
7. Two examiners, at least one of them external, must assess the thesis and
report independently on whether the degree should be awarded or whether
a lower award is more appropriate (e.g. a ResM or an MPhil instead of a
PhD). If the student was an academic or research staff member of the
University, two external examiners will normally be required. Other
requirements for examiners as in normal research degree regulations need
also be fulfilled.
8. Outcomes of the examination should be as for normal degrees, excluding
the possibility of corrections/amendments and resubmission.
9. Other forms of research outcomes may be included and/or considered in
the examination, such as conference presentations, papers, annual reports,
etc.
10. The electronic copy of the thesis must state it was submitted in partial
fulfilment of a posthumous/aegrotat award and must be submitted to the
University repository prior to conferment of the degree.
- 98 -
UoP PGR students fee amendments 2019 Edition
FEE AMENDMENTS
FOR INTERRUPTIONS, WITHDRAWALS (INCLUDING
DE-REGISTRATION), EXTENSIONS TO REGISTRATION
AND FOR SUBMISSION AND EARLY SUBMISSION OF
THESIS FOR EXAMINATION
This policy will come into effect on 1 August 2020
for all PGR students (except DClinPsy)
The University operates the following fee refund and payment policy for
postgraduate research students who interrupts, withdraw, extend their registration
or for early submission of thesis for examination.
Fees for research degree students are charged per academic year and each
academic year is split in two halves.
Interruptions
Interruptions of less than 4 months in a single academic year will not incur
cancellation of fees.
In the academic year of interruption, fees are payable as follows:
• Interruption period of 4 months or less: full fees are payable for that
academic year
• Interruption period between 4 months and 1 day and 10 months:
fees will be cancelled for half of the annual fee for that academic
year
• Interruption period between 10 months and 1 day and 12 months: no
fees payable for that academic year
Please note that this only applies to interruptions that have been formally
approved by the University. Retrospective interruptions are not normally approved
if the start date of the interruption is more than 2 months from the date of
application.
Fees overpaid as a result of interruption may be applied to subsequent years of
study.
Withdrawal
A student who withdraws, or is required to withdraw, will not be reimbursed for any
fees paid prior to the current year of registration.
In the academic year of withdrawal, fees will be charged for registration periods
shorter than a semester as follows:
• Registration periods of 2 months or less: no fees charged for that
half of the annual fee
• Registration periods of 2 months and 1 day or above: fees will be
charged for that half of the annual fee
- 99 -
UoP PGR students fee amendments 2019 Edition
These registration periods may be reduced to take into account interruptions in

this or a prior academic year for which fees were paid.
Extensions
A student who submits their thesis after their due date, with or without an
approved extension, will be charged extension fees as follows:
• Submission within 1 month of due date: no additional fees charged
• Submission 1 month and 1 day or above after due date: additional
extension fees charged (pro-rata per month or part of month) from
due date to date of thesis submission
These extension periods may be reduced to take into account interruptions in this
or a prior academic year for which fees were paid 3.
Students will not be reimbursed for fees paid prior to the current year of
registration.
Candidates will not be awarded their degree if fees are outstanding.
Early submissions of thesis:

A student who submits their thesis after their minimum period of registration and
before their due date will be charged fees as follows:
• Submission within 2 month after last period charged for: no
additional fees charged
• Submission 2 months and 1 day or above after last period charged
for: fees will be charged for that half of the annual fee
These charging periods may take into account interruptions in this or a prior
academic year for which fees were paid3.
Students will not be reimbursed for fees paid prior to the current year of
registration.
Candidates will not be awarded their degree if fees are outstanding.
3For instance, a student who suspended for 2 months in total during previous
academic years and payed full fees for those years, would not have to pay
additional fees for a 2 month extension period.
- 100 -
2019 Edition
DESCRIPTORS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

QUALIFICATIONS AT LEVEL 7 (MASTER’S DEGREE)
AND LEVEL 8 (DOCTORAL DEGREE)
Extract from QAA – UK QUALITY CODE FOR

HIGHER EDUCATION Part A, October 2014
1. Master’s level
(Descriptor for a higher education qualification at level 7 on the FHEQ and
SCQF level 11 on the FQHEIS)
The descriptor provided for this level of the framework is for any master's degree
which should meet the descriptor in full. […]
Master’s degrees are awarded to students who have demonstrated:
• a systematic understanding of knowledge, and a critical awareness of
current problems and/or new insights, much of which is at, or informed by,
the forefront of their academic discipline, field of study, or area of
professional practice
• a comprehensive understanding of techniques applicable to their own
research or advanced scholarship
• originality in the application of knowledge, together with a practical
understanding of how established techniques of research and enquiry are
used to create and interpret knowledge in the discipline
• conceptual understanding that enables the student:
o to evaluate critically current research and advanced scholarship in the
discipline
o to evaluate methodologies and develop critiques of them and, where
appropriate, to propose new hypotheses.
Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to:
• deal with complex issues both systematically and creatively, make sound
judgements in the absence of complete data, and communicate their
conclusions clearly to specialist and non-specialist audiences
• demonstrate self-direction and originality in tackling and solving problems,
and act autonomously in planning and implementing tasks at a professional
or equivalent level
• continue to advance their knowledge and understanding, and to develop
new skills to a high level.
And holders will have:
• the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring:
o the exercise of initiative and personal responsibility
o decision-making in complex and unpredictable situations
- 101 -
Descriptors for Masters and Doctoral Level 2019 Edition
o the independent learning ability required for continuing professional

development.
Much of the study undertaken for master's degrees is at, or informed by, the
forefront of an academic or professional discipline. Successful students shown
originality in the application of knowledge, and they understand how the
boundaries of knowledge are advanced through research. They are able to deal
with complex issues both systematically and creatively, and they show originality
in tackling and solving problems. They have the qualities needed for employment
in circumstances requiring sound judgement, personal responsibility and initiative
in complex and unpredictable professional environments.
Master's degrees are awarded after completion of taught courses, programmes of
research or a mixture of both. Longer, research-based programmes may lead to
the degree of MPhil. The learning outcomes of most master's degree courses are
achieved on the basis of study equivalent to at least one full-time calendar year
and are taken by graduates with a bachelor's degree with honours (or equivalent
achievement).
Master's degrees are often distinguished from other qualifications at this
framework level (for example, advanced short courses, which often form parts of
continuing professional development programmes and lead to postgraduate
certificates and/or postgraduate diplomas) by an increased intensity, complexity
and density of study. Master's degrees, in comparison to postgraduate certificates
and postgraduate diplomas, typically include planned intellectual progression that
often includes a synoptic/research or scholarly activity. […]
2. Doctoral level
(Descriptor for a higher education qualification at level 8 on the FHEQ and
SCQF level 12 on the FQHEIS)
The descriptor provided for this level of the frameworks is for any doctoral degree
which should meet the descriptor in full. […]
Doctoral degrees are awarded to students who have demonstrated:
• the creation and interpretation of new knowledge, through original research
or other advanced scholarship, of a quality to satisfy peer review, extend
the forefront of the discipline, and merit publication
• a systematic acquisition and understanding of a substantial body of
knowledge which is at the forefront of an academic discipline or area of
professional practice
• the general ability to conceptualise, design and implement a project for the
generation of new knowledge, applications or understanding at the forefront
of the discipline, and to adjust the project design in the light of unforeseen
problems
• a detailed understanding of applicable techniques for research and
advanced academic enquiry.
Typically, holders of the qualification will be able to:
• make informed judgements on complex issues in specialist fields, often in
the absence of complete data, and be able to communicate their ideas and
- 102 -
Descriptors for Masters and Doctoral Level 2019 Edition
conclusions clearly and effectively to specialist and non-specialist

audiences
• continue to undertake pure and/or applied research and development at an
advanced level, contributing substantially to the development of new
techniques, ideas, or approaches.
And holders will have:
• the qualities and transferable skills necessary for employment requiring the
exercise of personal responsibility and largely autonomous initiative in
complex and unpredictable situations, in professional or equivalent
environments.
Doctoral degrees are awarded for the creation and interpretation, construction
and/or exposition of knowledge which extends the forefront of a discipline, usually
through original research.
Holders of doctoral degrees are able to conceptualise, design and implement
projects for the generation of significant new knowledge and/or understanding.
Holders of doctoral degrees will have the qualities needed for employment that
require both the ability to make informed judgements on complex issues in
specialist fields and an innovative approach to tackling and solving problems.
Doctoral programmes that may have a substantial taught element in addition to
the research component (for example, professional doctorates), lead usually to
awards which include the name of the discipline in their title (for example, EdD for
Doctor of Education or DClinPsy for Doctor of Clinical Psychology). Professional
doctorates aim to develop an individual's professional practice and to support
them in producing a contribution to (professional) knowledge.
The titles PhD and DPhil are commonly used for doctoral degrees awarded on the
basis of original research.
Achievement of outcomes consistent with the qualification descriptor for the
doctoral degree normally requires study equivalent to three full-time calendar
years.
Higher doctorates may be awarded in recognition of a substantial body of original
research undertaken over the course of many years. Typically a portfolio of work
that has been previously published in a peer-refereed context is submitted for
assessment. Most degree awarding bodies restrict candidacy to graduates or their
own academic staff of several years' standing.
Note
Honorary doctoral degrees are not academic qualifications.
- 103 -
2019 Edition
STUDENT REPRESENTATION ON DOCTORAL COLLEGE

BOARD (DCB)
1. Student representatives (‘reps’) may be enrolled on any full or part time

University of Plymouth PGR programme (including ResM, MD, MPhil/PhD,
PhD, professional doctorate). A student who formally completes or withdraws
from their programme of study is not eligible to be a student representative on
DCB.
2. Student reps should normally commit to being members of DCB for a 12 month
period (this can start at any time of the year to include 3 scheduled meetings).
3. DCB meets 3 times per year (once per academic term). Appointed student
reps should attend at least 2 out of 3 meetings during their 12 month
appointment period.
4. There are 3 student reps on DCB, one from each Faculty: Arts & Humanities;
Health; and Science & Engineering.
5. Student reps on DCB are likely to also be members of either a Faculty or

School-level Doctoral Committee; however, this is not a pre-requisite.
6. Students who are formally interrupted on the day of a DCB meeting may not
attend. A student rep who is likely to miss more than one meeting, on the basis
of interruption or suspension of studies, will be asked to step down (but will be
welcome to become a rep when they resume, if appropriate).
7. Working with PGR students, it is up to the Faculty to agree and adopt an

appropriate mechanism for appointing their student rep to DCB, ensuring that
this is a fair and transparent process. It is important that there is a parity of
opportunity for all postgraduate researchers to put themselves forward and
participate; whenever possible and appropriate, student reps should be elected
by their peers, following a nomination process. It is the responsibility of the
relevant Deputy Director of the Doctoral College to appoint their Faculty’s
student representative after such a process.
8. ‘Student-led business’ is a standing item on the DCB agenda. Student reps on

DCB represent the views and interests of PGR students in their Faculty and
the University at large. They primarily represent matters relating to the
academic experience as well as the impact of the wider student experience on
academic issues. Issues of relevance at individual/personal, departmental or
School levels should always be raised in the first instance at the appropriate
local level; these should only be raised at DCB if they are likely to impact upon
or be of relevance to a wider body of students or if resolution at Faculty level
(e.g. via Faculty Doctoral Committee) has not been possible.
9. The names and UoP email addresses of student reps will be made available to
all PGR students at the University, who will be encouraged to contact the
- 104 -
UoP student representation at DCB 2019 Edition
student representative for their Faculty should they wish to raise an issue at
DCB. Student reps are expected to feedback to the students concerned
following DCB. Student reps may choose to forward these issues to School or
Faculty committees, or to the Deputy Director of the Doctoral College, instead
of raising at DCB if more appropriate.
10. Student reps are entitled to receive training, resources and ongoing support
from UPSU’s Student Voice team; contact details will be shared with UPSU for
this purpose. Student reps can also make use of 1:1 support and guidance to
help them prepare for high level University committees such as DCB.
11. Student reps are full members of DCB and are welcome to speak and
comment on any matter under discussion. When decisions are to be taken,
they have full voting rights. They will receive papers in advance of the meeting
and are expected to read them and prepare as required.
- 105 -
2019 Edition
THESIS PRESENTATION
Except with the formal permission of the Doctoral College Quality Sub-Committee,
the thesis must be presented in English.
FORMAT
Perfect/Temporary Binding
Theses must be bound in a sufficiently secure way to guarantee that pages cannot
be added or removed. This includes comb binding or perfect binding where all
pages are glued together on the spine of the document.
The University library offers a range of printing and binding services:
https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/student-life/your-studies/library/library-printing-and-
multimedia-services
The University requires all theses, in their final form following examination, to be
submitted as an electronic version of the thesis which will need to be uploaded in
the University electronic repository. The award will not be given until the electronic
copy of the thesis has been submitted to the University repository and the
submission been approved by the Doctoral College and any outstanding academic
debts to the University have been paid.
Page Format
• Page size/type: A4 portrait; white or cream (70 to 100 g/m2)
• Margins top/bottom: 20 mm
• Page numbering: Arabic numerals located bottom centre, in
single sequence throughout, including pages
that carry tables, figures, plates and
appendices
• Chapter numbering: In sequence from start to finish of the thesis,
not including Introduction and Conclusion
• Footnotes/endnotes: Single spaced
• Printing: Double-sided (i.e. on both sides of the page)
Line Format
• Justification: Left compulsory; right optional
• Inside margin: 40 mm
• Outside margin: 20 mm
• Line length: 60 to 70 characters
• Spacing: Text in double spacing; indented quotations in
single spacing
The font throughout the main body of the text should be size 12. Other smaller
fonts may be used in page numbering, footnotes, footers and headers.
Alternative formats are possible but must be approved by their examiners.
Students should discuss this with their Director of Studies in the first instance.
- 106 -
UoP PGR thesis presentation 2019 Edition
CONTENTS
Sequence
• Copyright statement (see below)
• Title page (see model that follows)
• Acknowledgements
• Signed author's declaration including word count (see model that
follows)
• Abstract (including full name of candidate and title at the top)
• List of contents with page numbers
• List of tables, illustrations, etc. (if relevant)
• Text, divided into chapters, sections, etc.
• Bibliography/List of Sources
• List of publications produced during period of study with DOIs (if
relevant)
• Appendices (if relevant)
Copyright Statement
The following statement should be placed on a single page on the first page of the
thesis:
This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who
consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with its author
and that no quotation from the thesis and no information derived from it may
be published without the author's prior consent.
Acknowledgements
This section normally includes acknowledgements of assistance including
scholarships and grants, acknowledgements of assistance from supervisors and
colleagues and thanks for support from friends, family, etc.
Author's Signed Declaration
A model declaration follows. The declaration page should be signed and dated by
the candidate at the foot of the page and contain:
• a declaration that at no time during the registration for the research
degree has the author been registered for any other University award,
without prior agreement of the Doctoral College Quality Sub-
Committee,
• a declaration that no work submitted for a research degree at University
of Plymouth may form part of any other degree for the candidate either
at the University or at another establishment,
• details if the degree has been undertaken as part of an official
agreement between University of Plymouth and another institution(s)
(Joint or dual degree),
• if the study was part of a collaborative project then a clear indication of
the individual contribution of the candidate and extent of collaboration,
- 107 -
• if the thesis has been proofread by a third party, confirming that a copy
of the original thesis is available for inspection, and
• relevant aspects of research training undertaken such as courses
completed, conferences attended, presentations of research and
published or other forms of presentation of creative research work.
Abstract
This should be approximately 300 words in length and should provide a synopsis
of the thesis, stating the nature and scope of work undertaken and the contribution
to knowledge in the subject. The abstract must be headed by:
• the candidate’s name in full (not initials), and
• the title of thesis.
Illustrations
Illustrations should appear near to the first reference made to them in the text. It
may be desirable to group illustrations at the back of the thesis, as appendices, if
they:
• need to be compared with one another, or
• are referred to frequently in the text, or
• need to be separate because of their size or character.
List of Illustrations
Every illustration in the thesis, including appendices and material that cannot be
bound, should be included in the list of illustrations with page numbers or other
identification.
Legends and Labels
A short legend should be provided for each illustration detailing the title of the
illustration and any other necessary information e.g. meaning of codes, size and
source of item reproduced.
Numbering
Illustrations should be numbered consecutively in a single sequence.
Large Illustrations
If it is necessary to bind an illustration into the thesis which is greater than A4 in
size, it should be produced on paper that can be folded to fit within the thesis or if
too large, then it should be placed in a pocket attached to the inside back cover of
the volume.
Material that cannot be bound should be avoided if possible. Any such material
that cannot be bound near to the related text should be:
• packaged in such a way that it can be bound with the thesis, or
• stored in a pocket attached to the inside back cover, or
• gathered into another volume and stored in a rigid container of the
same size as the bound thesis.
Tables
- 108 -
If there are relatively few tables, each should appear near to the first reference
made to them in the text. Each table should, if possible, appear complete on one
page. It may be desirable to group tables at the back of the thesis, as appendices,
if:
• they are referred to frequently in the text, or
• there are many tables.
Number and Title
Each table should have a number and title. The number should precede the title
and the title should describe the content of the table.
Tables within the text should be numbered in a single sequence, separate from
illustrations. Tables that are not the work of the author but that are reproduced in
the thesis should be numbered and treated as illustrations. Tables in an appendix
should have a separate sequence. If there is more than one sequence of tables,
the different sequences should be identified. If a table occupies more than one
page, its number should be given on each page, followed if necessary by
'continued'.
The size of characters should be large enough to allow the table to be reproduced
without risk to legibility. Numerical tables may require a larger character size than
the main text. A series of tables should be consistent in character size, use of
space, etc.
Appendices
Appendices may contain material of considerable length, lists, documents,
commentaries, tables and other matters that if included in the thesis would
interrupt the flow. The style should be consistent with the main text.
If long appendices are divided into chapters these divisions should be detailed in
the list of contents under the main heading of the appendix. Appendices should
follow the main text of the thesis, possibly with a separate list of contents,
particularly if the thesis is divided into more than one volume.
Appendices may also take the form of CDs, DVDs, sketch/notebooks, etc. (in the
case of creative/professional practice) and must be secured to the main body of
the thesis.
Appendices are not included in the thesis’s word count.
Bibliography/List of Sources
Full bibliographical references should be given for all works cited in the text and
should follow one of the major accepted systems.
A bibliography lists all works which have been read or consulted during the course
of the research but will not necessarily be an exhaustive list of all material relevant
to it. (Students whose bibliography includes non-textual sources may wish to call
this a ‘List of Sources’ instead of Bibliography.)
Alternatively (on the advice of one’s Director of Studies), a list of references (or
‘works cited’) may be included instead; this is likely to be the case only for PhDs
on the Basis of Prior Published Works. Such a list is confined to only those
sources mentioned in the thesis text.
- 109 -
The bibliography/list of sources does not count toward the thesis’s word length.
Publications
Students are encouraged to publish and/or present their research material in
advance of the thesis submission (although this is not a requirement), thereby
having some peer review of their work. In such a case, the thesis should include a
list of publications with full publication details including their DOIs.
If the thesis itself includes articles or other published written research outputs (e.g.
as chapters or equivalent), it is only possible to include Open Access publications
or ‘green’ final manuscript versions of articles or papers within theses for copyright
reasons.
Creative practice
If the thesis includes creative practice, the nature and form of these elements
and/or their representation must be approved by the examiners prior to
submission.
Hard Cover/Binding for Personal Use
As noted above, the University does not require or accept bound hard copies of
the final accepted version of the thesis. However, students may wish to produce
this for themselves, their supervisors or their funders.
If so, any final hardbound thesis should be such that the spine is flexible enough
so that it can be opened fully for ease of reading. It should be fixed so that pages
cannot be removed or replaced and the cover is rigid to support the weight of the
pages when upright
The wording on the spine of a permanent bound thesis should include
• surname and initials of the candidate,
• qualification aim/achieved,
• year of submission, and
• volume of work if the work consists of more than one volume.
The wording on the front page/cover should include:
• title of the work,
• surname and initials of the candidate,
• qualification aim/achieved, and
• year of submission.
- 110 -
MODEL DECLARATION
Author's Declaration
TO BE TAKEN AS AN EXAMPLE, AND AMENDED ACCORDING TO THE

CANDIDATE’S REQUIREMENTS AND DETAILS
At no time during the registration for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy has the
author been registered for any other University award without prior agreement of
the Doctoral College Quality Sub-Committee.
This thesis has been proofread by a third party; no factual changes or additions or
amendments to the argument were made as a result of this process. A copy of the
thesis prior to proofreading will be made available to the examiners upon request.
Work submitted for this research degree at the University of Plymouth has not
formed part of any other degree either at the University of Plymouth or at another
establishment.
This research has been conducted under a formal agreement with name of other
higher education institution(s), for which a joint award will be awarded.
This study was financed with the aid of a studentship form the sponsor name and
carried out in collaboration with collaborating institution.
A programme of advanced study was undertaken, which included taught modules
taken, other as relevant.
The following external institutions were visited for research and consultation
purposes:
Publications (or public presentation of creative research outputs):
Presentations at conferences:
Word count of main body of thesis:
Signed
Date
- 111 -
MODEL TITLE PAGE:
AN EVALUATION OF THE MEASUREMENTS OF PORT EFFICIENCY
by
SUSAN MARIE SMITH
A thesis submitted to the University of Plymouth

in partial fulfilment for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences
[In collaboration with

Rutland Port Authorities]
August 2020
- 112 -
UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH
DRAKE CIRCUS, PLYMOUTH PL4 8AA
Doctoral College
December 2019

Research Degrees Handbook 2019-20 Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Degrees Handbook 2019-20 Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Degrees Handbook

for ResM, MD, MPhil/PhD and PhD programmes

INTRODUCTION TO THIS HANDBOOK ............................................................... 5

19. Appeals Against Academic Decisions...................................................... 45

10. Resubmission following Deferral: Procedure ........................................... 88

INTRODUCTION TO THIS HANDBOOK

This Handbook should be read in conjunction with the University-wide Academic

Please note that separate and/or additional regulations apply to students

IMPORTANT: New regulations related to Examination Outcomes came into effect

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions related to this Handbook,

THE DOCTORAL COLLEGE

Professor Roberta Mock Director of the Doctoral College

2. Doctoral College Governance & Reporting Structure

3. Doctoral College Scope & Responsibilities

3.3. To act as a central point of information for prospective doctoral

3.16. To ensure that innovative and accessible training is provided for

YOUR PROGRAMME OF STUDY

1. Key Staff Members and Support Structures

1.3.11. to assist you in the self-assessment of personal and

students), and to ‘sign off’ these interactions on GradBook,

2.1.1. ResM – Research Masters

will apply. However, if you transfer and continue to PhD then

Route on GradBook, which is the University’s online platform for PGR

partnership ‘node’), you must have your relevant documents

4.2. Attending a University Induction Event is mandatory for PGR students.

4.4.13. made aware of opportunities to voice views and input into

sufficient progress during this time (normally indicated by not

Registration type Mode of Minimum Maximum

6.8. Extensions may be granted for a maximum of 12 months at any one

Mode of PhD MPhil ResM MD

8.3.6. consideration of your qualifications/experience and potential to

GradBook. If this is the case and your deadline passes, it will

Management Units (please see your Faculty/School

9.9.3. Extensions to the submission of the Confirmation of Route for

10.2. The Doctoral College’s Researcher Development Programme offers

11. Monitoring of Progress

12.3. If, due to a change in circumstances, e.g. redeployment of your

13.2.5. it is only possible to include Open Access publications or

edition, then the written contextual/critical element of thesis should

conferencing or Skype. This option may only be considered as the last

15.15.2. corrections: the thesis is satisfactory in substance, but the

outstanding academic debts to the University have

examiners are not available and a new examination team (in

15.22.2.3. If you are unable to meet this deadline, you must

Doctoral College Board (if it is relevant to PGR students from across

NOTES FOR SUPERVISORS

1. Appointment of Supervisors and Responsibilities

completion) of the degree for which the candidate is

Lack of academic progress

2.22.2. escalate the process where appropriate to a Stage 2 under

2.28.1. You should be open to discussions with your student around

Expert Commentator. Do not simply refuse to identify an

2.36.3. Expert Commentators are usually staff members of the

Academic Offences/Research Misconduct

1Subject to local guidelines; in some Faculties, internal examiners are not

3.7.3. The Chair (if appointed, see Item 3.8 below):

4.3. The internal examiner will receive:

needs and notify the Doctoral College as soon as this date is

4.10.2. The videoconference facility must be a secure link with

please contact either the Director of the Doctoral College or Deputy

GUIDANCE NOTES FOR ‘EXPERT COMMENTATORS’

or the student for a discussion, in order to clarify any points, prior to