Regulation concerning the attainment of doctoral degrees at the KU Leuven

Transcription

1 Regulation concerning the attainment of doctoral degrees at the KU Leuven Target group: students, KU Leuven personnel Contact: An Jansen In advance 1. Communication with potential legal significance must be submitted in writing (preferably by ). If so desired, communication with the ombudsperson can be verbal. 2. In principle, the committees concerned decide collectively. If a collective decision cannot be reached, the majority vote decides. In the event of a tie the chair decides. Subsection 1. Preliminary provisions Article 1. Scope 1. This regulation concerns the general requirements for attaining the academic degree of doctor at the KU Leuven. The following topics are addressed: (1) preliminary provisions, (2) doctoral school and doctoral committee, (3) admission and enrolment, (4) supervision and progress, (5) doctoral programme, (6) doctoral thesis and public defence, (7) joint degree and double degree, and (8) ombudsperson, appeal procedure and disciplinary regulation. 2. Within the framework of this general regulation, executive committees can draft supplementary regulations on the advice of the respective doctoral schools. A supplementary regulation lays down more specific provisions (hereinafter called Particulars ). The Particulars are supplementary to the general provisions but shall in no case be incompatible. The executive committee proposes a supplementary regulation to the Executive Board which will then be ratified by the Academic Council. The Particulars apply to anyone seeking to pursue a doctoral degree in Psychology or Educational Sciences. Article 2. Concept The purpose of preparing a doctoral thesis and the doctoral programme at the KU Leuven is to train a researcher who can contribute independently to the development of scientific knowledge. The thesis must demonstrate the capacity to create new scientific knowledge on the basis of independent scientific research. The learning outcomes in the doctoral preparation, leading to the PhD, are laid down in the Codex Hoger Onderwijs Art.II : (1) the systematic understanding of a discipline and the ability to master skills and research methodologies in that discipline, (2) the ability to design, develop, execute and adapt a wide-ranging research process with the integrity expected of a researcher,

2 (3) a contribution to moving the frontiers of science by performing original research in the shape of a wideranging body of work, part of which is worthy of a nationally or internationally peer-reviewed publication, (4) the ability to critically analyse, evaluate and synthesise new and complex ideas, (5) the ability to communicate with colleagues in the same discipline and in the wider scientific community both nationally and internationally and in society as a whole about the area in which one has expertise, (6) the ability to deliver an innovative contribution within an academic and professional context, leading to technological, social or cultural advances in a knowledge society." Article 3. PhD researcher The PhD researcher is expected: (1) to conduct original and scientific research under the supervision of a supervisor and optionally one or more co-supervisors (see Subsection 4). (2) to successfully complete the doctoral programme (see Subsection 5) with the aim of (i) expanding and deepening the knowledge of the PhD researcher within the research domain and (ii) acquiring various skills that will advance the quality and efficiency of doctoral research and promote the future professional career of the PhD researcher, within or outside the university. (3) to write and successfully defend a thesis in public (see Subsection 6). (4) to adhere to the rules of scientific integrity (see Subsection 5). (5) to comply with the general provisions laid down in this regulation and its Particulars (see art. 1. 2). Subsection 2. Doctoral school and doctoral committee Article 4. Doctoral school Each executive committee sets up a doctoral school at the group level. The responsibilities of the doctoral school include: (1) attracting research talent, (2) organising and assuring the quality of the doctoral programme in partnership with the doctoral committees (see Subsection 5). (3) ensuring doctoral efficiency, (4) concluding partnership agreements in the context of joint degrees and double degrees (see art. 21), (5) monitoring the activities of the ombudspersons (see art. 22), (6) increasing the visibility and recognisability of doctoral research at the KU Leuven. Academic responsibility for doctoral degrees and doctoral training lies with the Faculty s Vice Dean for Research (hereinafter referred to as Vice Dean ), in consultation with the doctoral programme coordinators of, respectively, Psychology and Educational Sciences (hereinafter referred to as coordinators ) and further supported by the Faculty s doctoral programme administrator (hereinafter referred to as administrator ). Additional information on procedures and documentation on pursuing a doctoral degree at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences can be found on the Faculty s doctoral programme website (

3 Article 5. Doctoral committee The executive committee or the faculty council assemble a doctoral committee at the level of every faculty. The doctoral committee consists of members of the senior academic staff and representatives of the PhD researchers. The membership must represent the various research domains within the faculty. The responsibilities of the doctoral committee include: (1) authorising the enrolment of PhD researcher (see art. 6 and art. 8), (2) authorising the enrolment of predoctoral students, stipulating the content and scope of the predoctoral test, and evaluating whether the predoctoral test has been passed (see art. 7), (3) approving the composition of the supervisory committee (see art. 12) and giving advice about the composition of the examination committee (see art. 17), (4) monitoring the progress reporting (see art. 13), (5) deciding whether the doctoral programme has been completed successfully (see Subsection 5), (6) authorising a collaboration leading to the awarding of a joint or double degree (see art. 21), (7) taking note of the anonymised report from the ombudsperson (see art. 22). The Faculty appoints a doctoral committee, which consists of the Vice Dean for Research (who also acts as the Faculty s doctoral training programme director and chair of the doctoral committee), the two coordinators, four additional senior academic staff members (two for Psychology and two for Educational Sciences), four representatives of the PhD researchers (two for Psychology and two for Educational Sciences), two representatives of the postdoctoral researchers (one for Psychology and one for Educational Sciences), the ombudsperson for PhD researchers, and the administrator. The coordinators are appointed by the doctoral committee to observe its current affairs. If necessary, the entire doctoral committee can be consulted. The doctoral committee is designed to ensure the quality of the doctoral programme and to advise on the Faculty s regulations with regard to the predoctoral exam, doctoral training and the thesis. Subsection 3. Admission and enrolment Article 6. Admission requirements Together with the future supervisor (see art.11) the candidate requests admission from the doctoral committee to enrol as a PhD researcher. The candidate must meet the following requirements: Either (1) the candidate must hold a Flemish Master s degree relevant to the doctoral research or an equivalent higher education degree, and also have obtained at least a distinction or have distinguished him/herself with high-quality scientific publications or design-oriented achievements, Or (2) the candidate must have passed the predoctoral exam with the degree of distinction (see art. 7). The candidate must also have sufficiently mastered the language of the discipline in order to be able to participate actively in the research.

4 All prospective PhD researchers must meet one of the conditions below to be admitted to the doctoral programme of Psychology or Educational Sciences Applicants who hold Belgian citizenship and have obtained one of the following degrees (at least cum laude) at a Flemish university will automatically be admitted by the doctoral committee. (1) Licentiate or Master of Psychology (or Psychological Sciences) (2) Licentiate or Master of Educational Sciences (3) (Instructional and) Educational Studies at a Flemish University (4) Aanvullende Studies van Onderwijswetenschappen / Complementary Studies Master of Educational Studies /Master Educatieve Studies / Master of Educational Studies at KU Leuven Applicants who did not graduate cum laude or holders of another Licentiate or Master s degree from a Flemish university may also be admitted by the doctoral committee. They should submit an application for admission through their supervisor. These applicants may be required to pass a predoctoral exam (see art. 7). Applicants who do not hold a degree from a Flemish university or do not hold Belgian citizenship will need to obtain approval from the doctoral committee as well as from KU Leuven s International Admissions and Mobility Unit. These applicants may also be required to pass a predoctoral exam (see art. 7). Article 7. Predoctoral period and predoctoral exam A candidate can be invited to take a predoctoral exam if there is insufficient proof of relevant academic and professional suitability and/or prior knowledge, and it may be necessary for the candidate to obtain additional qualifications before being allowed to start the doctoral programme and doctoral research. 1. The predoctoral exam assesses the suitability of the candidate to obtain the degree of doctor. The predoctoral exam is taken after a predoctoral period in which the candidate can acquire further skills by following specific course components, and developing a research project. The doctoral committee decides on the content and scope of the predoctoral period and the predoctoral exam. 2. During the predoctoral period the candidate must enrol as a predoctoral student. 3. For candidates from EEA countries (European Economic Area) the predoctoral period lasts a maximum of one year. For candidates from non-eea countries, the predoctoral period lasts a maximum of two years. 4. The predoctoral period ends with a predoctoral exam. The doctoral committee decides whether the candidate has passed the predoctoral exam. Candidates who pass the predoctoral exam with distinction are authorised to enrol as a PhD researcher. Candidates who do not pass the predoctoral exam with distinction can obtain a certificate of research specialisation for the course components that were successfully completed. Article 8. Enrolment The PhD researcher is obliged to enrol every year. The initial enrolment can go ahead once the doctoral committee has given authorisation (see art. 6) 1. A PhD researcher with a doctoral scholarship or a research and teaching assistant position with doctoral finality, must enrol at the latest on the day that the scholarship or research and teaching assistant position begins. The PhD researcher enrols for: (1) the doctoral programme: at the start of the doctoral research and thereafter every year at the start of the academic year until the doctoral programme has been completed,

5 (2) the doctoral degree: once the doctoral programme has been completed and thereafter every year at the start of the academic year, or if the PhD researcher is exempted from the doctoral programme, (3) the doctoral degree with defence: in the academic year in which the thesis is defended. The PhD researcher pays course fees at the first enrolment and at the enrolment for the doctoral degree with defence. The interim enrolments are free of charge. The number of enrolments is restricted to seven; from the eighth enrolment onwards permission is required from the doctoral committee. For non-eea researchers permission is required every year from the International Admissions and Mobility Unit from the fifth enrolment onwards. Article 9. Start of the doctoral period The doctoral period starts at the beginning of the doctoral scholarship or the research and teaching assistant position with doctoral finality, and for others on the date of the first enrolment as a PhD researcher (see art. 8). Article 10. Duration of the doctoral period A PhD researcher with a full-time research assignment obtains the doctoral degree in principle within a period of four years. A doctoral degree can be awarded two years after the completion of a Master s or Licentiate s degree. PhD researchers engaged full-time in research are expected to complete their doctoral degree within four years. PhD researchers conducting doctoral research as a research assistant are expected to complete their doctoral degree within six years. PhD researchers pursuing a doctoral degree as voluntary staff are expected to complete their degree within the time frame agreed with the supervisor. In the case of interruptions for valid reasons (e.g. illness, pregnancy, etc.), this term can be extended by a period equal to the period of interruption. Subsection 4. Supervision and progress Article 11. Supervisor and co-supervisors 1. The supervisor is a member of the senior academic staff (ZAP) of the KU Leuven and is affiliated to the faculty in which the doctoral degree is procured. The supervisor can request a motivated exception from the executive committees in question. An exception can be given ad hoc (applicable to one PhD researcher) or structurally for a certain period limited in time (applicable to several PhD researchers of the same supervisor). The following points also apply: (1) ZAP members with provisional appointment can be a supervisor if the suspected duration of their appointment is at least four years from the start of the doctoral period, (2) tenure track ZAP are equivalent to permanent ZAP and can therefore be a supervisor. (3) persons with the title special guest professor in the arts can act as supervisor of PhD researchers in the arts, (4) for emeriti the terms and conditions for being a supervisor are described in the emeritus professors policy of the KU Leuven, (5) if a supervisor leaves the KU Leuven during the doctoral period, a new supervisor is appointed. 2. In addition to the supervisor, one or more co-supervisors can be appointed. In principle, co-supervisors have a doctorate. The doctoral committee may allow an exception to this on the basis of certain competences.

6 3. The supervisor and any co-supervisors are jointly responsible for the intrinsic monitoring of the doctoral project. As such each of them separately endorses the profile of the good supervisor. The supervisor functions as a contact point, bears final responsibility for the doctoral project and coordinates the supervisors team. In addition to the supervisor there may be up to three co-supervisors. If the supervisor is not a member of the Faculty, there should be at least one co-supervisor who needs to be a senior academic staff member at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences. Depending on the field in which the research is conducted, a candidate can choose to pursue a doctoral degree in Psychology or in Educational Sciences. This is decided at the start of the doctoral project, in consultation between the supervisor(s) and the candidate. All changes to this team of supervisors should be submitted to the doctoral committee for approval. Article 12. Supervisory committee The doctoral committee appoints a supervisory committee for every PhD researcher at least one month before the first progress report (see art. 13). The supervisory committee consists of the supervisor, any co-supervisors and at least two other members. The doctoral committee ensures that the supervisory committee is sufficiently diverse, and doesn't consist exclusively of members of the same research group. The composition can be changed during the doctoral programme. The responsibility of the supervisory committee is to monitor the progress of the doctoral research by means of the annual progress report (see art. 13). The PhD researcher or supervisor can also appeal to the members of the supervisory committee for additional discussion. In addition to the application file (see art. 6), the supervisor submits a motivated proposal for the composition of the supervisory committee to the doctoral committee. This supervisory committee consists of the (co-)supervisors and two Faculty members. At least one committee member should not belong to the same research group as the PhD researcher and the supervisor. All changes to this supervisory committee should be reported to the administrator. Changes made after approval of first progress report (see art. 13) should be submitted to the doctoral committee for approval. Article 13. Progress reports The first progress report takes place at the latest one year after the start of the doctoral period and consists of an oral or written presentation on the research undertaken or still to be done. The results determine whether the doctoral programme and the preparation for the thesis can be continued or not. The evaluation takes place on the basis of two criteria: (1) the progress made in the doctoral research, and (2) the advances made in academic ability and research maturity by the PhD researcher. Subsequently the PhD researcher reports on an annual basis on the progress of the doctoral research, and in addition, if required, when applying for or extension of a scholarship or mandate. Every progress report is validated by the supervisor and any co-supervisors, and assessed by the other members of the supervisory committee. The result is substantiated and recorded in writing and sent to the PhD researcher and the doctoral committee.

7 1.Progress Reports The first progress report should be submitted within a year after the start of the doctoral project. This report consists of the standard form, a short research proposal and a data management plan. The supervisory committee evaluates the report (i.e. approved, conditionally approved subject to revision, or unsatisfactory). If the report is rated as unsatisfactory by one of the supervisory committee members, the doctoral committee will make the final decision in consultation with the supervisory committee. A positive evaluation is essential to continue the PhD. In the following years, an annual progress report (using the standard form) should be submitted before the end of each doctoral year. The supervisory committee evaluates the report (i.e. approved, conditionally approved subject to revision, or unsatisfactory). If the report is rated as unsatisfactory by one of the supervisory committee members, the doctoral committee will make the final decision in consultation with the supervisory committee. A positive evaluation is essential to continue the PhD. PhD researchers whose examining committee was approved by the Faculty Board (see art. 17) before the submission deadline of the annual progress report are not required to submit a report that year. 2. Mid-term evaluation committee and mid-term research report Before the end of the first half of the doctoral period (see art. 10), a mid-term evaluation committee will be appointed by the Faculty Board. The supervisor submits a motivated proposal for the composition of this committee to the Faculty Board and the PhD researcher submits a mid-term research report to the administrator. There should be at least one year between the approval of the mid-term research report and the public defence. The mid-term evaluation committee comprises the team of supervisors and at least three and no more than five other members, elected because of their specific relevant expertise. These additional committee members should hold a doctoral degree. The number of additional committee members should be equal to or higher than the number of (co- )supervisors. At least one committee member should also be a member of the supervisory committee, at least one committee member should be from another research group within the Faculty, and at least one committee member should be from another faculty or university. The coordinator (or another member of the Faculty s senior academic staff) will act as chairperson during the meeting of the mid-term evaluation committee. Any changes to the composition of the mid-term evaluation committee must be approved by the doctoral committee, which will make a decision after consultation with the Faculty Board. The mid-term research report consists of a description of the topic, the theoretical framework, the research questions and general design of the doctoral research, the results and future research plans. The mid-term evaluation committee investigates whether the topic and the design of the project provide a firm basis for successful doctoral research which can be completed within the specified time frame. The committee will also offer advice on improving the research project and will be available for additional advice and guidance throughout the project. After one or more meeting(s), the mid-term evaluation committee decides, by majority vote during a closed meeting, whether to approve, conditionally approve pending revision, or reject the research proposal. In the event of conditional approval, the committee should determine whether or not it will need to meet again to approve the revised version. If, in the event of rejection, a PhD researcher submits another research proposal, this will be considered as a new proposal. The mid-term evaluation committee can be convened at any time, at the request of the supervisor, the PhD researcher or the mid-term evaluation committee, for further discussion and guidance of the research. If the PhD researcher wishes to deviate considerably from the proposed research design, or if he/she wishes to change the topic of the thesis in the course of the project, he/she should inform the doctoral committee, which will then determine whether the mid-term evaluation committee should meet again.

8 Subsection 5. Doctoral programme Article 14. Doctoral programme 1. The doctoral programme is obligatory and must be successfully completed before the PhD researcher is permitted to submit the thesis and defend it publicly. 2. The doctoral programme consists of a truncus communis (see art. 15) and a supplementary part (see art. 16). The PhD researcher can only complete the doctoral programme if all the elements of the truncus communis are completed. The doctoral committee can on an individual basis grant a (partial) exemption of the doctoral programme or set a substitute assignment, on the basis of a motivated application by the PhD researcher and in consultation with the supervisor. If the doctoral research is multi- and/or interdisciplinary, the doctoral committee can give permission for elements of the truncus communis (see art. 15) to be replaced by course components from another doctoral programme, on the basis of a motivated application by the PhD researcher in consultation with the supervisor. 3. The PhD researcher reports to the doctoral committee on the progress made within his/her doctoral programme. On the basis of this report, the doctoral committee will decide whether the PhD researcher has completed the doctoral programme. 1. The doctoral training programme has the following objectives: (1) to provide broader insight into research questions and methods, both within the PhD researcher s own research field and in other research fields; (2) to develop the student s generic research skills; (3) to develop the student s presentation and communication skills for both specialist and non-specialist audiences (4) to facilitate the acquisition of diverse competences that will advance the student s future professional career, within or outside the University. Learning opportunities to achieve these objectives are offered by the PhD researcher s own research unit, by the doctoral school of Humanities and Social Sciences and through participation in scientific conferences. 2. Exemption from common core requirements (see art. 15) Exceptionally, PhD researchers can be exempted from doctoral training components (2) and (4). They cannot be exempted from the requirements described in paragraphs (1), (3), (5) and (6) nor from the requirement of annual enrolment (see art. 8). The doctoral committee will decide whether a particular activity counts towards doctoral training requirements. 3. Doctoral training certificate Prior to the submission of the thesis (see art. 18) and the start of the reading period (see art. 19), the PhD researcher must demonstrate that he/she has completed the doctoral training programme. The doctoral committee will decide whether the doctoral training has been successfully completed or not. In case of a negative evaluation, the PhD researcher and the supervisor will be informed which components need to be improved before the doctoral training can be approved. A positive evaluation is essential to get permission to defend the thesis. Article 15. Content of the truncus communis The truncus communis consists of at least the following elements: (1) the writing of at least one scientific publication at an international level or a similar achievement at an international level. By a publication at international level is meant: a peer-reviewed contribution (journal

9 article, contribution to a book, conference proceedings, patent, design) about his/her own research and written in the language of the discipline. The contribution is aimed at an international audience. In order to be able to successfully complete the doctoral programme, the contribution must be published or be accepted for publication, (2) giving at least two seminars, either about his/her own research, or on a more general theme, (3) giving at least one oral or poster presentation at an international scientific conference, (4) following at least one seminar series or course component specifically organised for PhD researchers, (5) following the course component Scientific integrity for starting PhDs during the first year of the doctoral programme. Following the course component Scientific Integrity for starting PhD is mandatory for PhD researchers whose doctoral period started during or after the academic year. (6) reporting on the progress of the doctoral research as specified in art. 13. The executive committees can add more specific provisions or additional components to the truncus communis in their Particulars (see art. 1 2). Particulars Faculty Psychology and Educational Sciences The seminar series (4) consists of attending at least ten seminars outside the own research field (preferably outside the own research unit or group) during the doctoral training period. The seminars can be selected from the list of options provided by the Faculty, Group, University or by another Belgian or international scientific institution. Half of these seminars can be replaced by a course specific to the doctoral training programme, organized by one of the University s doctoral schools, by the HR department or by another Belgian or international institution, provided that the course focuses on a scientific theme rather than on general academic skills (such as speaking, writing, or management skills). Additionally, this course can only count towards doctoral training requirements if the PhD researcher can submit a positive evaluation from the lecturer. In this case, the PhD researcher should submit an application to the doctoral committee for approval. Article 16. Content of the supplementary part The supplementary part consists of additional activities and training that the PhD researcher follows as part of the doctoral research and/or as a preparation for a career within or outside the university. The PhD researcher is ultimately responsible for the supplementary part. The supplementary part should not be in conflict with the status of the PhD researcher and must not hinder the progress and quality of the doctoral research. Subsection 6. Thesis and public defence Article 17. Examination committee The rector appoints an examination committee for every PhD researcher on the recommendation of the doctoral committee. The chair of the examination committee belongs to the ZAP of the KU Leuven and is affiliated to the faculty that will award the doctoral degree. The chair does not belong to the same research group as the supervisor and the PhD researcher, and is not a member of the supervisory committee. The chair does not act as a direct evaluator and only in the event of a tie does the chair decide. At least one member of the examination committee is external to the KU Leuven. The responsibilities of the examination committee include: (1) evaluating the thesis (see art. 19), (2) taking part in the public defence (see art. 20), (3) deciding whether or not to grant the doctoral degree after the public defence (see art. 20).

10 The examination committee consists of the chair (the coordinator or a substitute senior academic staff member), the team of supervisors and at least two opponents. The number of opponents should be equal to or higher than the number of (co-)supervisors. At least one of the opponents should be from another university and at least one opponent should be a member of the Faculty. At least one opponent should also have served on the mid-term evaluation committee. The examination committee s youngest member from the Faculty, not including the (co- )supervisor(s), will act as secretary. All senior academic staff members can act as opponents, as well as postdoctoral researchers or external experts who completed a PhD by thesis at least three years ago. However, they must not be the co-author of one of the articles included in the thesis. When all (co-)supervisors agree that the thesis is ready for defence, they submit a proposal for the composition of the examination committee to the doctoral committee and to the Faculty Board for approval. The defence should be scheduled within three months after appointing the examination committee, not including examination and holiday periods. Any changes to the composition of the examination committee must be approved by the doctoral committee, which will make a decision after consultation with the Faculty Board. Article 18. Thesis The thesis is an exam piece that must allow the examination committee to assess the quality of the doctoral research. The regulations with regard to PhD thesis copyright must be respected. The regulations on intellectual property rights on research results including copyright applies, and non-salaried PhD researchers must sign a written agreement at the beginning of their doctoral research as specified in this regulation if the results of the doctoral research have to be protected. 1. Content and format of the thesis The thesis should make an original contribution to scholarship, reflecting the PhD researcher s own intellectual and conceptual contributions. The content should be presented concisely, carefully and coherently. It is not allowed to submit a co-authored thesis. In consultation with the supervisor, a doctoral degree can be awarded on the basis of a compilation of published or accepted journal articles, and/or articles submitted for or worthy of publication, in which the PhD researcher reports on the research conducted in the framework of the doctoral project approved by the mid-term evaluation committee (see art. 12). In such cases, a doctoral degree can be awarded on the basis of at least 3 articles, each of which must be suitable for publication. At least one of these should already be published, in press or accepted for international publication. Text types may include journal articles, book chapters or contributions to conference proceedings, written in one of the languages used within the discipline, aimed at an international readership, and accepted for publication following peer review. The PhD researcher should be the first author of these articles. The thesis can be written in Dutch, German, English, or French. Regardless of the language used, the thesis should contain a Dutch and an English one-page summary. If the thesis is written in Dutch, German or French, an English summary of about 20 pages must be included as an appendix. 2. PhD by portfolio and completed thesis 2a Candidates can be awarded a doctoral degree on the basis of a research portfolio. A PhD by portfolio consists of a heterogeneous collection of separate articles related to more than one research project.

11 The following guidelines apply to this type of PhD: - If the supervisor estimates that the research could lead to a PhD, the doctoral procedure is initiated. From then on, the candidate is subject to the same arrangements and criteria applicable to other doctoral projects. 2b An external researcher may contact a supervisor and present a completed research study (rather than a research plan) which meets the requirements for a doctoral degree according to the candidate and his/her supervisor. In this case, the candidate should first submit a PhD application to the doctoral committee (see subsection 3). After admission to the doctoral programme, the admissibility committee will determine the acceptability of the manuscript (i.e. whether the candidate can be given permission to defend the thesis). If the thesis is approved, the standard procedure for the doctoral defence is initiated (see subsection 6). If the work submitted is not deemed acceptable, the candidate can still pursue a doctoral degree through the normal route. Finally, the committee may also decide that the manuscript is not acceptable in its present form but that it may be resubmitted after revision and / or expansion. In this case, the committee should specify the changes to be made as well as the deadline for resubmission (maximum 1 year). The composition and working of the admissibility committee is similar to that of the mid-term evaluation committee (see art. 12). Article 19. Evaluation of the thesis On the basis of the thesis the examination committee can take the following decisions: (1) the thesis is approved, possibly on condition that minor changes are made: the PhD researcher is permitted to publish the thesis and defend it publicly. (2) the thesis is approved on certain conditions: the PhD researcher must make changes to the thesis taking into account comments made by the examination committee and ensure that the adapted version is given to the examination committee for final approval. (3) the thesis is not approved: the PhD researcher can submit a new or thoroughly amended thesis for evaluation by the examination committee in line with the above procedure. If the thesis is not approved after the second evaluation, it can be permanently rejected. At the end of the reading period, the opponents should inform the chair of the examination committee of their decision (using the standard form). If they wish to do so, each opponent can invite the PhD researcher to discuss the thesis. If such a discussion takes place, the chair of the examination committee must be notified prior to the defence and the content of this discussion must be reported to the other members during the examiner s meeting. If necessary, opponents can ask to be given access to the original data set until the defence. If this is the case, the chair of the examination committee and the supervisor should be notified. If all opponents unconditionally approve the thesis, the public defence will be scheduled no sooner than one month after the end of the reading period. If one or more opponents conditionally approve or not approve the thesis, the examination committee consults about the necessary changes that should be made to the thesis. A report is drawn up and communicated to the candidate. Permission for the public defence will only be given after the examination committee has given its final approval to the modified version. Article 20. Public defence During the public defence the PhD researcher gives a short presentation about the thesis. Thereafter a discussion follows with the members of the examination committee. At the end the public is given the opportunity to ask questions.

12 The examination committee deliberates immediately after the public session and decides whether or not the PhD can be awarded the degree of doctor. A report is drafted and signed by all members of the examination committee present. The result is announced in public immediately after the deliberation. Subsection 7. Joint degree and double degree Article 21. Joint degree and double degree If the PhD researcher prepares the thesis in partnership with (an)other national or international institution(s), the KU Leuven can award jointly with this institution a joint doctoral degree or a double doctoral degree. 1. A joint degree or double degree can be awarded if the partnership complies as a minimum with the following requirements: (1) the PhD researcher conducts research for the thesis for at least six months at the KU Leuven and at least six months in the other institution, (2) one person per institution is appointed supervisor (see art. 11), (3) the public defence of the thesis (see art. 20) takes place in front of a jury which includes, in addition to the supervisors, at least one professor from the institutions concerned. 2. If the institutions in question agree, one institution is appointed as the main institution and the other(s) as partner institution(s). The main institution acts as the contact point for the PhD researcher. (1) If the KU Leuven is appointed as the main institution, the PhD researcher complies with the general provisions laid down in this regulation and its 'Particulars'. (2) If the KU Leuven is appointed as a partner institution, the PhD researcher complies with the regulations and guidelines of the other institution concerning supervision (see art. 12), the progress reporting (see art. 13), the doctoral programme (see Subsection 5) and the thesis and public defence (see Subsection 6). The doctoral committee checks in advance whether the doctoral programme at this institution meets the necessary requirements. The doctoral committee can also make additional demands of the PhD researcher. The other general provisions laid down in this regulation and its Particulars remain applicable. If the institutions in question do not agree to appoint one institution as the main institution, the doctoral committee decides at which institution the PhD researcher must comply with the regulations and guidelines regarding supervision (see art. 12), the progress reporting (see art. 13), the doctoral programme (see Subsection 5) and the thesis and public defence (see Subsection 6). The other general provisions laid down in this regulation and its Particulars remain applicable. 3. Together with the (future) supervisor the PhD researcher requests permission from the doctoral committee to prepare a thesis in partnership. This is done in principle at the same time as the request for authorisation to enrol as a PhD researcher (see art. 6), or else at the latest one year after the start of the doctoral period (see art. 9). 4. The conditions under which the partnership takes place are laid down in a partnership agreement between KU Leuven, the other institution and the PhD researcher. The negotiations about the partnership agreement are coordinated by the doctoral school in question. 5. The application procedure and the conditions that the partnership must meet are further clarified in the practical guidelines concerning the attainment of a joint or double doctoral degree at the KU Leuven (add intranet link).

13 Subsection 8. Ombudsperson, appeal procedure and disciplinary regulation Article 22. Ombudsperson The executive committee appoints one ombudsperson per faculty or per group to deal with disputes and problems related to the doctoral process. The ombudsperson belongs to the ZAP of the KU Leuven, including emeriti with assignment. The ombudsperson is not part of the Board of Trustees and the administrative bodies as defined in the statutory regulations of the KU Leuven. If the ombudsperson is an interested party, an ombudsperson from another faculty or group is contacted. The ombudsperson is the first contact point for all concerned to discuss problems in the doctoral process. The ombudsperson shall mediate between the involved parties and together try and find an acceptable solution with them for everyone. The ombudsperson sends a general and completely anonymised report of its activities to the doctoral committee every year. The doctoral committee discusses this report and sends it to the doctoral school, the executive committee and the Vice Rector for Research Policy. Particulars Faculty Psychology and Educational Sciences The ombudsperson for PhD researchers belongs to the senior academic staff of the Faculty and is nominated by the Faculty Board Article 23. Appeal procedure According to the procedure below an appeal is possible against the following decisions of the doctoral committee and the examination committee (Higher Education Codex Art.I.3 69 ): (1) the discontinuation of the doctoral programme, (2) the discontinuation of the preparation of the thesis, (3) the final result of the public defence. A PhD researcher who judges that a decision as mentioned above has breached his/her rights, can launch an internal appeal with the Vice Rector for Student Affairs. The PhD researcher is informed of this possibility. If the Vice Rector for Student Affairs is an interested party, he/she is replaced by the Vice Rector for Research Policy. The PhD researcher must submit the appeal by within five calendar days from the day after which the decision of the doctoral committee or the examination committee was made known. In his/her complaint the PhD researcher includes at least a factual description of the invoked objections. The Vice Rector for Student Affairs hears all parties in question and in each case the PhD researcher. The internal appeal procedure results in: (1) The motivated rejection of the appeal on grounds of unacceptability or unsubstantiated claims. This decision is brought to the attention of the PhD researcher by within fifteen calendar days from the day after which the internal appeal was launched. (2) A new decision by the Vice Rector for Student Affairs. The Vice Rector together with the Research coordinator of the group in question or the ZAP member appointed by him/her tries to find a solution. If no consensus can be reached, the Vice Rector takes an autonomous decision. The new decision must be taken within fifteen calendar days, starting from the day after the internal appeal was launched with the Vice Rector for Student Affairs and is also made known to the PhD researcher within this period. The address which the PhD researcher used to submit his/her appeal is used for this purpose.

14 The internal appeal body can inform the PhD researcher within the time available to them that it will make a pronouncement at a later date. In that case the term for external appeal only starts the day after that date. After exhausting this internal appeal procedure the PhD researcher can appeal the day after the decision of the Vice Rector for Student policy or after the expiration of the term in which the Vice Rector for Student policy could make a decision, to the Appeals Council for Study Progress Decisions in compliance with the Codex Hoger Onderwijs, codified on October In the event of disputes between the PhD researcher and the KU Leuven apart from the Appeals Council for Study Progress Decisions, only the Leuven courts have jurisdiction. Article 24. Disciplinary regulation The disciplinary regulation of the KU Leuven also applies to PhD researchers. The application of the disciplinary regulation applies to the AAP despite the provisions that apply via the Regulation for Academic personnel. In the event of improper conduct, sanctions can be imposed, which if necessary may result in discontinuation of the doctoral programme and thesis preparation. 1 A candidate-doctoral scholarship researcher from an EEA country can, in anticipation of the granting of an IWT scholarship, make use of registration as a predoctoral researcher, though without having to sit a predoctoral exam. The status of predoctoral researcher awaiting an IWT scholarship is not that of a full researcher. The primary advantage is that the researcher is insured by the KU Leuven in this period. If a researcher registers as a schoolleaver at the VDAB, he/she may be eligible for child benefit. The candidate-doctoral scholarship researcher must submit a certificate in which the faculty (1) gives permission to register and (2) declares that the researcher in anticipation of the awarding of the IWT doctoral scholarship will not be given a scholarship. If the IWT doctoral scholarship is awarded, the course fee that was paid as a predoctoral researcher will be deducted from the course fee for the doctoral programme.