International School of Advanced Studies

SUPERVISORS & COORDINATORS

IMPORTANT

Verify the regulations applicable to the candidate's cycle and programme

Deadlines, committee arrangements and procedural requirements may differ for earlier cycles, national PhD programmes, joint programmes, co-supervision agreements and programmes governed by specific international agreements.

01

Final verification of the doctoral career

Before considering admission to thesis review, verify that the candidate has completed the required research activities, training credits, mobility obligations and any additional requirements connected with the scholarship or research project.

Outstanding activities, missing documentation or unresolved career issues should be addressed before the final decision is adopted.

02

Admission to external thesis review

At the end of the programme, the Faculty Board evaluates the research and training activities completed by the candidate and adopts a formal decision on admission to thesis review and the final examination procedure.

The decision should include an overall assessment of the candidate's doctoral activity and must be communicated through the Coordinator and transmitted to SAS.

03

Preparation and electronic submission of the thesis

The Supervisor should verify that the thesis is scientifically complete, uses the required title-page model and includes any acknowledgements, logos or statements required by the applicable funding programme.

The candidate must submit the thesis and accompanying documents through the dedicated portal within the deadline applicable to the relevant cycle and communicated by SAS.

04

Identification of external evaluators

After consulting the Supervisor and co-supervisors, the Faculty Board identifies or proposes at least two professors or expert researchers with appropriate scientific expertise to evaluate the thesis.

The proposal should include the evaluators' names, institutions, contact details, scientific field and sufficient information to verify their qualifications and independence.

05

Qualification, independence and conflicts of interest

Evaluators must be highly qualified and external to UNICAM's tenured staff. They may belong to Italian or foreign universities and research institutions.

Before proposing a name, verify the absence of relationships, recent collaborations or other circumstances that may compromise the evaluator's independence or create an actual or apparent conflict of interest.

06

Transmission of the thesis and evaluation period

SAS formally transmits the electronic thesis, the overall Faculty Board assessment and any required evaluation material to the external evaluators.

Evaluators normally submit an analytical written assessment within the period communicated by SAS. Supervisors and Coordinators should not independently transmit unofficial or different versions of the thesis once the formal review has started.

07

Outcomes of the external evaluation

Each evaluator issues an analytical judgment and proposes either admission to the public defence or postponement for significant additions or corrections.

Minor comments that do not require postponement should nevertheless be considered by the candidate and Supervisor before the final version is submitted to the examination committee.

08

Significant revisions and postponement

When significant additions or corrections are requested, the public defence is postponed for the period indicated by the evaluators, within the maximum period permitted by the applicable regulation.

The Supervisor should agree with the candidate on a revision plan covering the requested changes, timetable and documentation needed for the subsequent review.

09

Submission of the revised thesis

After completing the requested changes, the candidate submits the revised version through the procedure communicated by SAS.

The same evaluators examine the revised thesis and issue a new opinion. At the end of the permitted revision period, the thesis is admitted to public discussion with the evaluators' updated assessments.

10

Proposal of the final examination committee

The Faculty Board proposes the final examination committee in accordance with the rules applicable to the candidate's programme.

For standard UNICAM programmes governed by the current regulation, the proposal should normally include at least three full members and one alternate, together with their affiliations and information needed to verify compliance.

11

Composition requirements

Under the current UNICAM regulation, the committee must be composed:

• for at least two-thirds by members external to the institutional headquarters of the programme;
• for no more than one-third by members belonging to entities participating in the programme;
• for at least two-thirds by members of academic origin;
• taking gender balance into account where possible.

Committees for national, joint or international programmes may follow the arrangements established in their specific agreements or internal regulations.

12

Incompatibilities and conflicts of interest

Before approving the proposal, verify that the proposed members do not fall within the incompatibilities established by the applicable regulation.

Under the current UNICAM regulation, the committee cannot include:
• the candidate's Supervisor or co-supervisors, whether internal or external;
• the external evaluators of the thesis;
• persons who co-authored scientific publications with the candidate during the PhD programme or in the previous five years.

13

Formal appointment and examination notice

The final examination committee is formally appointed by the Head of SAS following the Faculty Board proposal and the administrative verification of its composition.

The candidate and committee members receive the official notice indicating the date, time, venue, examination arrangements and documents available for the session.

14

Examination format and exceptional circumstances

Under the current general UNICAM regulation, the final examination is held in person and consists of the public discussion of the doctoral thesis.

Different arrangements may apply only where expressly provided for national, joint or international programmes or by the relevant agreements and specific regulations.

In the event of illness or documented force majeure, the candidate may request an alternative date from the Head of SAS. The ordinary procedure does not allow the final examination to be repeated.

15

Public defence, minutes and final outcome

The committee considers the thesis, the Faculty Board's overall assessment and the external evaluators' judgments before conducting the public discussion with the candidate.

At the end of the examination, the committee prepares the official minutes and expresses a collective written assessment for each candidate.

Where permitted by the applicable regulation, honours may be awarded unanimously for results of particular scientific importance.

16

Confidentiality, intellectual property and embargo

The candidate and Supervisor must identify confidentiality, patent, industrial-property or intellectual-property issues before the thesis is transmitted to external evaluators.

Contact the competent offices promptly when special safeguards, confidentiality undertakings or postponement of public access to the thesis may be required. An embargo does not replace the external evaluation or final examination procedure.

17

Doctor Europaeus

A possible Doctor Europaeus certification must be planned well before the external evaluators and final examination committee are identified.

The Coordinator and candidate should verify with SAS the current requirements concerning:

• the international research period completed by the candidate;
• the institutional origin of the thesis evaluators;
• the international composition of the examination committee;
• the language used for the thesis and public defence;
• the documentation required to certify fulfilment of the conditions.

The certification cannot be organized retrospectively after reviewers and committee members have already been appointed.

OPERATIONAL WORKFLOW

Coordinate every stage before the Faculty Board meeting

1. verify completion of the candidate's career;
2. collect the final report and Supervisor's assessment;
3. adopt the admission decision;
4. identify qualified and independent external evaluators;
5. transmit the decision and documentation to SAS;
6. monitor completion of the review and any revisions;
7. verify committee composition and incompatibilities;
8. submit the complete committee proposal in time for formal appointment;
9. coordinate the examination date and official communications;
10. ensure that minutes and final documentation are returned promptly.

Need support before proposing reviewers or committee members?

Contact the SAS Office before the Faculty Board meeting when deadlines, evaluator eligibility, committee composition, conflicts of interest or examination arrangements are uncertain.