University of Silesia in Katowice

DS – Doctoral School at the University of Silesia in Katowice,

IRP – individual research plan (template on the website: https://us.edu.pl/szkola-doktorska/en/indywidualny-plan-badawczy/

report – a report on the implementation of the education program and the implementation of the doctoral student’s individual research plan at the Doctoral School at the University of Silesia in Katowice (template on the website: https://us.edu.pl/szkola-doktorska/indywidualny-plan-badniczego/

abstract – an overview document regarding the research project, prepared by the doctoral student (approved by the supervisor) for members of the scientific council – summary of the substantive part of IPB (up to 2000 characters).

1. The PhD student completes the second year of education and, first of all, passes all classes, conducts an internship in the form of teaching classes with students, and carries out tasks resulting from the Individual Research Plan.
2. The PhD student submits to the DS office:
   • a request for a mid-term evaluation
   • the IRP implementation report signed by himself and the Supervisor/Supervisors
   • an abstract approved by the Supervisor
   • NOTE – documents should be submitted in hard copy with original signatures or sent with documents signed with a certified electronic signature (all signatures) – with the exception of publications attached to the report
   • publications attached to the report (published or accepted for printing) should be prepared in pdf format, named in accordance with the principle Lastname__Name_first_words_of_a_title and upload it here: https://ssd.us.edu.pl/index.php/s/sk0s5vJmI3vF9IG
3. The proposal initiates a mid-term evaluation; it should be submitted from June 1 to September 30, with the procedure starting on September 1 at the earliest. After September 30, the evaluation is initiated ex officio by the Doctoral School (DS).
4. The SD office reserves a 14-day period to check the documents and pass the year. If the documentation is correct and the year is passed, the SD office notifies the SD Dean about the possibility of starting the assessment.
5. The Dean of DS asks the institute director to include the PhD candidate’s speech in the program of the institute council (or to convene an additional council meeting devoted exclusively to PhD candidates joining the mid-term evaluation). The application is appended with:
   • abstract,
   • list of members of the PhD candidate’s evaluation committee with e-mail addresses,
   • PhD candidate’s e-mail address.
6. The Doctoral School office sends the chairman of the evaluation committee the report and IRP attachments approved by the dean.

1.The institute director sends an invitation to the part of the institute council meeting devoted to PhD candidates,

• members of the institute council,
• members of the PhD candidate evaluation committees concerned by this meeting,
• supervisor, auxiliary supervisors
• The PhD candidate

2. In the part of the meeting at which the PhD candidate presents his project, apart from members of the institute council, the following participants are: the doctoral student, at least two members of the evaluation committee, and the supervisor/supervisors.

3. The PhD candidate appears before the institute council, presenting his research project and paying special attention to the already completed IRP parts (he has a maximum of twenty minutes).

4. Members of the institute council, the evaluation committee, and the PhD candidate’s supervisor/supervisors take part in the discussion.

5. The PhD candidate’s speech is noted in the protocole of the institute council meeting (name and surname of the doctoral student and the subject of the project).

1. The meeting of the evaluation committee is organized by its chairman.
2. The evaluation committee meets with PhD candidate and talks about implementing his IRP; a supervisor may be invited to the meeting. The PhD candidate (and – if applicable – the supervisor) should be notified of the date of the meeting at least one week in advance (notifies the chairman of the committee).
3. The evaluation committee carries out a mid-term evaluation in a closed session; the protocol of the meeting, signed by all committee members, is delivered by the chairman to the DS office. The form is attached to the Dean’s order – above.
4. The minutes of the evaluation, pre-determined by all members of the committee, are delivered by the chairman to the SD office in pdf form – uploading via the website https://ssd.us.edu.pl/index.php/s/lugMqxjZNsX8kp3. The form is attached to the dean’s order – above.

1. If PhD candidate wants to start the mid-term evaluation before September 30, 2024, he/she submits an application to the Dean of DS to start the mid-term evaluation.
2. Completes the second year of education, that is:

• has grades from all classes in which he participated,
• conducted classes following the internship plan,
• submits a report on the implementation of IRP (form: https://us.edu.pl/szkola-doktorska/indywidualny-plan-badawod/),
• submits an application to the DS office for a mid-term evaluation (appendix to the dean’s order – above)
• the PhD candidate submits an abstract prepared and approved by the supervisor.
• the PhD candidate appears before the institute council, presenting his research project and paying particular attention to the already completed IRP parts (he has a maximum of twenty minutes for this), and then taking part in a discussion.
• participates in the evaluation committee meeting related to the implementation of its IRP.

Note

All documents should be delivered to the Doctoral School office to Ms. Agnieszka Szewczyk, in paper form, with original signatures. The exceptions are attachments to the report (publications), which should be uploaded to the disk via the link: https://ssd.us.edu.pl/index.php/s/sk0s5vJmI3vF9IG.

PhD students staying abroad, including PhD students from Sapienza University, can prepare scans of documents or documents signed electronically. Such documents should be forwarded to the Polish supervisor, who signs them in original and delivers them to the SD office.

1. He/She gives opinions and signs the report.
2. Accept the abstract.
3. He/She participates in the institute council meeting where the PhD candidate presents a research project and may join in the discussion after the doctoral student’s speech.
4. If the supervisor is invited to the final mid-term evaluation meeting of the evaluation committee, he or she participates in that meeting.

1. After receiving the reports and IRP from the DS office, the PhD candidate passes them on to other commission members.
2. He/She makes sure that all committee members know the institute council meeting.
3. Agree with the committee members on the date of the final committee meeting; inform the PhD candidate and supervisor, and the DS office about this date. Determines the validity of the supervisor’s participation in this interview and invites him to a meeting with the committee.
4. Participates in the institute council meeting at which the PhD candidate speaks and participates in the discussion on his/her project.
5. Organizes the final evaluation committee meeting, during which the implementation of IRP of the PhD candidate is assessed and an interview with the PhD candidate (and – if the committee decides with the supervisor), and prepares the protocol of this meeting (on the template prepared by the DS office).
6. Protocole should be send to the Doctoral School office to address agnieszka.a.szewczyk@us.edu.pl. It will be deliverd to the commission to be signed via Autenti system.

1. They participate in the meeting of the institute council at which the PhD candidate is present and take part in the discussion on his/her project (at least two out of three members of the commission, including the chairman).
2. They participate in the final meeting of the evaluation committee, during which the implementation of IRP of the PhD candidate is assessed.
3. They conduct a conversation with the PhD candidate (and – as well with the supervisor if was invited) about the implementation of IRP by the PhD candidate and the resulting research plans.
4. During the meeting, they adopt a resolution on mid-term evaluation. The assessment can be positive or negative.
5. The resolution of the committee is adopted by voting. The vote is open unless a committee member requests that a secret vote be held.
6. An absolute majority of votes adopts the resolution (a positive evaluation is at least two votes for a positive mid-term evaluation).
7. They prepare a justification for the assessment – both the case of a positive and negative assessment.
8. They sign a protocole delivered by the Doctoral School office through the Autenti system.

1. At the request of the Dean, DS includes the PhD candidate’s speech in the program of the institute council or organizes a separate meeting. Invites to this meeting:

• members of the institute council,
• members of the evaluation committee,
• supervisor/supervisors,
• the PhD candidate

In the case of an online meeting – by sending them a link to the meeting.

2. Informs the members of the institute council about the inclusion of the PhD candidate’s speech in the council’s program and sends them an abstract provided by the supervisor and information about the role of the institute council in the mid-term evaluation of the PhD candidate.

1. They participate in the meeting where the PhD candidate presents research project.
2. They participate in the discussion after the PhD candidate’s speech.
3. A PhD candidate’s presentation does not require a vote or a resolution of the institute council. It should only be noted in the protocol of the meeting.