福利在线免费

These procedures have been produced by the Doctoral School and the Office of the Registrar to provide guidance to examiners of work submitted by students who are requesting to transfer their studies from the Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.) degree to the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree of the University of Malta. It contains essential information on the procedures to be followed in the transfer assessment process, describes the resulting options open to examiners, and the roles and responsibilities of all concerned in the transfer assessment process. Any deviations to these procedures need to be justified.

Nothing in the content of these Procedures takes precedence over the Doctor of Philosophy - PhD Regulations, 2023[PDF] which may be subject to amendment.

2.1       The Faculty Offices are responsible for the following aspects of the transfer assessment process:

• Sending a reminder to students about the maximum period by when they are required to request the transfer of their studies from the M.Phil. to the Ph.D. degree three months before the period is due to elapse;
• Processing of students’ Request to Transfer from Master of Philosophy Degree to Doctor of Philosophy Degree Form [Word]
• Assisting the FDC in checking that the students have completed successfully any required study-unit/s with an overall average mark of at least 60% and (for students who commenced their studies from 1 February 2023 onwards) that they have pursued a number of professional development activities as required by the Ph.D. Regulations;
• Assisting the FDC in checking that the students have submitted the self-assessment form and full proposal form, if required, with regard to ethics review; in cases where it is not appropriate for this review to take place at this stage of the student’s studies, this check shall be undertaken at least one year before studies are due to be concluded;
• Processing of the Appointment of Transfer Assessment Board Form [Word] through the FDC and the Faculty Board, and referring the recommendation for the consideration of the DAC and Senate;
• Informing members of the TAB of their appointment by Senate and directing them to a copy of the Ph.D. Regulations and to these Procedures;
• Inputting the names of the members of the TAB on the PHRR task available on the eSIMS portal, thus ensuring that the Chair and the examiners will have access to the VLE platform hosting the students’ work uploaded for checking by the Turnitin plagiarism detection software; submitting to the Doctoral School a copy of the report from SIMS indicating that the names of the members of the TAB have been inputted;
• Receiving the students’ work for assessment, together with the Submission of Work for Transfer from Master of Philosophy Degree to Doctor of Philosophy Degree Form [Word], including a signed declaration that the work has been submitted through the Turnitin plagiarism detection software, and resultant report; issuing a receipt to the students for all documentation received;
• In liaison with the Chair of the TAB, dispatching the students’ work, the Report of Member of Transfer Assessment Board Forms [Word], the Transfer Assessment Board Final Joint Report Form [Word] and instructions to the TAB;
• In liaison with the Chair of the TAB, making practical arrangements for the oral examination, including identifying a suitable date, informing the student, the Principal Supervisor and the internal examiner of the time and place of the oral examination, giving the student at least three weeks’ notice in writing;
• Assisting the Chair of the TAB in gathering the reports from individual examiners before the oral examination;
• Following the oral examination, assisting the Chair of the TAB in forwarding the Report of Member of Transfer Assessment Board Form [Word] together with the Transfer Assessment Board Final Joint Report Form [Word] prepared by the Chair for consideration by the DAC and subsequently by Senate;
• Following consideration by DAC, informing the Faculty Board that the TAB’s recommendation has been forwarded to Senate;
• After Senate’s decision, assisting the Chair in forwarding a copy of the Transfer Assessment Board Final Joint Report Form [Word], including the list of changes, if appropriate, to students.
• After Senate’s decision, inserting a copy of the preliminary individual and final joint examiners’ reports (including any list of changes) in the student’s file.

2.2       The Doctoral Academic Committee is responsible for the following aspects of the transfer assessment process:

• Considering the recommendation of Faculty Boards proposing the appointment of the TAB before submission to Senate;
• Considering the decisions of the TAB before making a recommendation to Senate regarding the outcome of the transfer assessment process, ensuring that the provisions of the Ph.D. Regulations and of these Procedures have been adhered to;
• Informing Faculty Boards if DAC is not forwarding its recommendation to Senate, giving an indication of the issues which require review.

2.3       The Doctoral School and the Office of the Registrar are responsible for the following aspects of the transfer assessment process:

• Receiving and processing all documentation sent from Faculties for consideration by DAC;
• Providing support with all aspects of these Procedures;
• Preparing a letter to be signed by the Academic Registrar informing the student of Senate’s decision regarding the transfer of studies.

3.1       The transfer assessment process set out here relates to the submission of the student’s work, its preliminary assessment by the TAB, and the subsequent oral examination. The procedure to be followed is set out in the flow chart of the procedure for the transfer assessment process [PDF].

3.2       At this stage of the student’s doctoral studies, the purpose of the transfer assessment process is to ascertain that:

• the work submitted reflects the approved research proposal;
• the student has completed successfully any prescribed study-unit/s with an overall average mark of at least 60% and, if request to transfer is made by students who registered for the degree after 1 February 2023, has followed a number of professional development activities;
• the submitted work consists of either a substantial body of work based on the research and/or practice undertaken together with relevant documentation or at least two chapters of the entire thesis;
• the quality and scope of the research work presented by the student has the potential to reach the standard appropriate to that required of a doctoral degree;
• the work submitted is the student’s own and to assess the extent of any collaboration; and
• complies with the provisions of the Ph.D. regulations.

4.1       Submission of students’ work and dispatch

4.1.1    After 12 months and not later than 24 months of full-time study or the equivalent in part-time study have elapsed, students shall submit the Request to transfer from Master of Philosophy Degree to Doctor of Philosophy Degree Form [Word] to the Faculty Office.  This will allow the Faculty to start the process of appointing the TAB.

4.1.2    Students are required to formally submit an electronic copy of their work and/or any copies (as directed by the Faculty Office) to the Faculty Office by the deadline indicated. Besides copies of their work, students are to hand in the Submission of Work for Transfer from Master of Philosophy Degree to Doctor of Philosophy Degree Form [Word], including a copy of the receipt generated by the Turnitin plagiarism detection software and the resultant report.

4.1.3    It is the responsibility of the Faculty Office alone to receive the student’s work and arrange onward dispatch to the members of the TAB approved by Senate, after consultation with the Chair of the TAB.  Students’ work shall not be forwarded to the TAB before the members’ appointment is approved by Senate.

4.1.4    Under no circumstance should an examiner accept to assess part of a thesis (either electronic or hard copy) sent to them directly by the student or by the student’s supervisor or by a member of the student’s supervisory team or by any third party. Only the work sent formally and directly by the Faculty Office should be assessed.

4.1.5    The Chair and the examiners should be given from four to six weeks to examine the work submitted and prepare preliminary individual reports. Although this is a guideline rather than a regulation, it is important to note that delays in the transfer assessment process can cause considerable inconvenience and stress to the student.

4.1.6    If the student is not in a position to request transfer of studies within the stipulated period, the student is required to provide a reason for non-submission for consideration by the FDC, Faculty Board, DAC and Senate.  In this case, the recommendations that may be made to Senate are the following:

• to grant the student a specified period within which to present the work for transfer;
• to allow the student to submit the work within a specified period for examination towards the award of the M.Phil. degree; or
• to terminate the student’s registration.

4.2.      Appointment of the Transfer Assessment Board

4.2.1    Work submitted by students for transfer to the Ph.D. degree shall be examined by a TAB appointed for the purpose by Senate, on the recommendation of the FDC, Faculty Board and the DAC. The TAB shall include an examining Chair, an internal examiner, who shall normally be a resident academic, and the Principal Supervisor.  Where the student is currently involved in teaching and/or research at the University or at the Junior College, whenever practicable, the Chair and the internal examiner shall be appointed from different Faculties or departments than those where the student teaches.  It is also advisable that at least two members of the TAB have experience of examining at doctoral level.

4.2.2    Heads of Department/Directors are responsible for nominating suitable examiners using the Appointment of Transfer Assessment Board Form [Word]. If  the Head of Department or Director is a member of the supervisory team, this role should be delegated to a senior academic member in the Department, Institute, Centre, or School who is familiar with the doctoral examining process.   

4.2.3    Academics who are approached to be nominated examiners must declare any known conflict of interest in line with the requirements of the University’s Consanguinity/Affinity/Dual Relationship Policy in relation to Examiners/Supervisors and Students. This includes, but is not limited to: current or former academic supervision, pastoral relationships, family relationships, friendship, employment or professional connections. The examiners should also declare any relationships with members of the supervisory team that might constitute a conflict of interest. It is not possible to specify all instances where close connections will prevent a potential examiner from being considered as independent. Nominations may be rejected for the following reasons (but are not limited to them alone):  

(a)     an examiner, other than the principal supervisor, also being a member of the student’s supervisory team or an advisor;

(b)     a student who was holding a job offer from the same academic department as any member of the TAB;  

(c)     a member of the TAB who co-authored a paper with the student, except for the supervisor.

            Connections may exist but are not strong enough to bar an examiner from acting. These may include (but are not limited to):

• the student has met the examiner at a conference where they had spoken briefly about the thesis;
• the Chair or the internal examiner were based in the same department or Institute, Centre, School as the student/supervisor;
• the Chair or the internal examiner had supervised a member of the student’s supervisory team, but more than five years previously;
• a member of the student’s supervisory team had supervised the Chair or the internal examiner, but more than five years previously;
• the Chair or the internal examiner had co-authored a publication with a member of the supervisory team, but the publication had been written more than five years previously; and
• the Chair or the internal examiner and the supervisors were known to each other as experts within the field.

4.2.4    Incomplete forms will be returned to the Head of Department/Director, or delegate, which may cause delays to the transfer assessment process.

4.2.5    It is Senate, through the DAC, that will approve all nominations of TABs. The Faculty Office will formally inform the examiners of their appointment and direct them to a copy of the Ph.D. Regulations and to these Procedures. In liaison with the Chair, the Faculty Manager/Officer will forward a copy of the student’s work to all the examiners.

4.3       The Examiners

4.3.1    The competence and independence of examiners is of fundamental importance to the integrity of the assessment process and in maintaining the academic standards of the University’s research degrees. The members of the TAB are jointly responsible for ensuring that the requirements for the transfer assessment process as laid out in the Ph.D. Regulations and in these Procedures are adhered to.

4.3.2    The student, the student’s supervisor or supervisor team, and the examiners should avoid any situation in the period leading up to the assessment that might impair the ability of the examiners to make an impartial and unhindered assessment of the student’s work. Examiners are expected to treat the student’s work with strict confidence.

4.3.3    None of the examiners should be asked to comment on drafts of the student’s work prior to the assessment. Examiners may give the student an indication of the recommendation they will make to Senate after the oral examination has been completed but they should ensure that the student understands that the recommendation is subject to approval by Senate.  

4.3.4    Students must not contact the examiners for any reason, and may contact the Chair of the TAB with regard to their assessment only to discuss the practical arrangements.

4.3.5    Chair of the Transfer Assessment Board. The examining Chair participates fully in the transfer assessment process and is required, as with the rest of the examiners, to draw up a detailed preliminary individual report prior to the oral examination. The Chair must be a resident academic member of staff of the University and have a thorough understanding of the Ph.D. Regulations and of these Procedures.  The Chair must also have experience of doctoral oral examinations as an examiner. In addition, the Chair liaises with the Faculty Manager/Officer and makes the following arrangements/takes the following action as the assessment coordinator:

(a)   indicating a timetable, including for submission of the preliminary reports, and a tentative date for the oral examination, with an understanding that this date would be confirmed or otherwise nearer the time;

(b)   reviewing the Turnitin ‘originality’ report generated by the Turnitin plagiarism detection software and informing the Faculty Manager/Officer if the student’s work has passed the check so that the student’s work may be forwarded to the other members of the TAB;

(c)   ensuring the timely dispatch of copies of the student’s work to all members of the TAB by the Faculty Office;

(d)   drafting a report for the UADB if evidence of plagiarism or any other academic misdemeanors have been identified at any stage of the transfer assessment process; 

(e)   receiving and circulating each Report of Member of Transfer Assessment Board Form [Word] to all the members of the TAB;

(f)    chairing the oral examination and participating in the deliberations of the examiners leading to their conclusions and recommendation;

(g)   when deemed necessary for a fairer evaluation of the student’s work, seeking the written opinion of the other members of the supervisory team;

(h)   drafting of the Transfer Assessment Board Final Joint Report Form [Word], including feedback on the student’s work and suggestions for improvement;

(i)   in the case of re-submission, compiling, in conjunction with the examiners, the itemised list of changes at the required detail and ensuring that list is forwarded for the consideration of the DAC within one week of the oral examination and, following the DAC’s approval, to the student;  

(j)    ensuring that the examiners’ preliminary individual reports and the final joint report are submitted for the consideration of Senate, through the DAC; and

(k)   ensuring that the transfer assessment process is conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

4.3.6    Internal examiner/s. The internal examiner shall normally be a resident academic of the University, experienced in research in the general area of the student’s thesis and, where practicable, shall be a specialist in the topic to be examined. The internal examiner must have a thorough understanding of the Ph.D. Regulations and of these Procedures.  Where the student is currently involved in teaching and/or research at the University or at the Junior College, whenever practicable, academics with appropriate expertise from Faculties or departments different from where the student teaches shall be appointed as examining Chair and internal examiner. 

4.4       Use of Unfair Means

4.4.1    The University requires students to submit their work through the Turnitin plagiarism detection software to ensure that cheating and unfair means have not been used. This applies to both first submissions and re-submissions. It is the responsibility of the Chair of the TAB to review the Turnitin ‘originality’ report and to advise the Faculty Manager/Officer if the student’s work has passed the check, so that it can be dispatched to the examiners as soon as possible.

4.5       Examiners’ Preliminary Reports 

4.5.1    The student’s work should be assessed by the Chair of the TAB and the examiners who are each required to prepare a preliminary individual report, in all cases written in English, using the Report of Member of Transfer Assessment Board Form [Word] which will be provided by the Faculty Office when the work is sent out for assessment.

4.5.2    The examiners’ judgement of the student’s work should be based on what may reasonably be expected of a diligent and capable student after completion of the first stage of research at doctoral level and with due regard to the University’s criteria for transfer to the Ph.D. degree (see paragraph 6.1.3 below).  

4.5.3    The preliminary individual reports should be prepared after the examiners read the work submitted by the student and submitted to the Chair without unnecessary delay, normally 4 to 6 weeks from receiving the student’s work.  The Chair of the TAB shall circulate each preliminary report to the other examiners.

4.5.4    The Transfer Assessment Board Final Joint Report Form [Word] should be submitted to the DAC within 8 weeks from receiving the student’s work.

4.5.5    Preliminary individual examiners’ reports are also required in the case of re-assessment and must be submitted with the final joint examiners’ report as well as the original individual and final joint reports to the DAC.   

4.5.6    If the TAB discovers what appears to be prima facie a case of plagiarism or other academic misdemeanour in the submitted work, it shall stop the process of assessment forthwith and report the alleged breach of the regulations to the Secretary of the UADB. A copy of the Turnitin plagiarism detection software report together with supporting documentation which purports to prove the alleged plagiarism or any other academic misdeamenour shall be provided to the UADB.  The assessment of the student’s work can resume if the final decision of the UADB allows it and subject to any disciplinary penalties as may be imposed.

5.1       Arranging the oral examination

5.1.1    The members of the TAB are required to jointly test, by oral examination, the student. The oral examination should enable them:

• question the student on the substance of the work submitted;
• assess the ability of the student to present and defend intellectual arguments;
• assess the student’s knowledge and understanding of the discipline and of the relevant literature as is expected at this stage of the student’s studies; and
• verify that the work submitted by the student is the student’s own and assess the extent of any collaboration.

5.1.2    In the case of Ph.D. by Practice as Research, the oral examination shall cover both the practice and the written components.       

5.1.3    Arrangements for the oral examination are made by the Chair of the TAB. The Chair, in liaison with the Faculty Manager/Officer, is responsible for all communications with the other examiners and for notifying the student of the date and the venue of the oral examination at least three weeks in advance.   Students should be strongly advised to have their work readily available to them for consultation during the assessment.

5.1.4    The oral examination should be held at the University of Malta, unless a different location is specified in the case of a Ph.D. collaborative programme.  A suitable venue should be identified and the examination session should not begin earlier than 09:00 nor be concluded later than 18:00. An oral examination shall normally extend over a maximum of one hour.

5.1.5    The oral examination should normally be conducted in English, except in cases where the work was written in another language, or where there is formal approved agreement that requires the discussion to be conducted in another language.

5.2       The oral examination

5.2.1    The oral examination is an integral part of the transfer assessment process, with the specific purposes set out in paragraph 3.2 above. Care should be taken to avoid giving the impression at any time that the oral examination and the subsequent consideration of the examiners’ reports and their joint decision are in any sense mere formalities.

5.2.2    The members of the TAB should seek to encourage students to feel at ease during the oral examination so that they can display their knowledge and abilities to best effect. At an early stage in the proceedings, students should be given an opportunity to explain precisely what their work is intended to achieve and wherein they see its significance as a contribution to knowledge. Students should also be given the opportunity to explain any apparent failure to use important sources, whether primary or secondary, or neglect of relevant approaches or methodologies.

5.2.3    Examiners should not pre-judge the outcome of the oral examination and must not under any circumstances advise the student of their expectation of the outcome before the assessment has been completed.

5.2.4    If the TAB discerns serious dissonance between the quality and content of the work submitted and the performance of the student during the oral examination, it shall endeavour to establish whether the work is truly the student’s own. If the TAB is of the opinion that a breach of the University Assessment Regulations may have occurred, it shall submit a report in writing to the Secretary of the UADB indicating instances of plagiarism or any other academic misdemeanour.  When the UADB informs the TAB of its final decision, the transfer assessment process can resume, subject to any disciplinary penalties as may be imposed, unless the UADB decides that the student is in breach of the regulations and recommends that the student’s studies be terminated.   The student has the right to appeal this decision in terms of the University Assessment Regulations, 2009 [PDF].

5.3       After the oral examination

5.3.1    After the oral examination the examiners will produce a final joint report written in English and make an agreed recommendation on the transfer or otherwise to the Ph.D. degree (see paragraph 6.1 below). The Chair of the TAB is responsible for ensuring that the Report of Member of Transfer Assessment Board Form [Word] and the Transfer Assessment Board Final Joint Report Form [Word] are completed, signed and submitted to the DAC within two weeks following the oral examination.  In case of disagreement amongst the members of the TAB, the procedures as described in the University Assessment Regulations, 2009 [PDF] shall apply.   

6.1       Joint Recommendation of the TAB to Senate

6.1.1    The various recommendations provided for in the Ph.D. Regulations are set out on the Transfer Assessment Board Final Joint Report Form [Word] and examiners are to tick the section which applies. The decisions available to examiners and which may be recommended to Senate are the following:

TAB Decisions

1.  Recommend the transfer of registration of the student from M.Phil. to Ph.D.

This option is chosen where the examiners are fully satisfied that the work submitted and the performance of the student at the oral examination are worthy of a clear recommendation for transfer, without any reservations, further changes or examination.

2. Inform Senate that the student’s research work has not reached a sufficient standard to warrant recommendation for transfer and requires re-submission within six months if the student is registered on a full-time basis or 12 months if the student is registered on a part-time basis.

This option may be chosen where the examiners do not feel able to make a recommendation for the transfer at this time. The work is considered to have the potential to reach the required standard but needs substantial corrections in order to the meet the requirements for transfer, but the examiners feel that the student is capable of re-submitting the work, to their satisfaction, within the applicable period. 

Students are allowed to re-submit their work for transfer once only.

3. Inform Senate that the student’s work does not have the potential to reach the standard required of a doctoral degree and recommend that the student be given up to 12 months to complete the studies for the possible award of an M.Phil. degree.

This option may be chosen when the examiners are in agreement that the work submitted includes shortcomings and does not meet the required standard for transfer to the Ph.D. degree, even with time allowed for major changes to be made.  However, the work has the potential to reach the level for the award of the M.Phil. degree.  Such an option shall be allowed once only.

6.1.2    The Transfer Assessment Board Final Joint Report Form [Word] drawn up after the oral examination sets out the TAB’s assessment of the student and the submitted work and makes a firm recommendation on the transfer request, with appropriate justification, to Senate. Where the final joint report differs in its findings from any of the preliminary reports, examiners should justify the changes in their final joint report. Examiners should bear in mind that a copy of the joint report will be sent to students after being considered by Senate.

6.1.3    The Report of Member of Transfer Assessment Board Form [Word] and the Transfer Assessment Board Final Joint Report Form [Word] should be used to assist the TAB in providing a structured decision.  Examiners should comment on the strengths, any weaknesses, and limitations of the students’ work and their performance in the oral examination. Reports need to be detailed, comprehensive and specific to the student and the work submitted. Generic reports will not be accepted.

6.1.4    Should the TAB recommend that the student be not allowed to transfer to the Ph.D. degree, the student may appeal to the Doctoral Appeal Review Board.

6.1.5    Examiners shall inform the student of their joint decision but should ensure that the student understands that the recommendation may not be accepted by Senate. Examiners and students must be aware that the transfer will not take place, nor deadlines for any corrections formally agreed, until the DAC has considered the reports.

6.1.6    The DAC shall view all the reports prepared by TAB, including the preliminary individual reports and the final joint report to ascertain that all the regulations and procedures related to the transfer assessment process have been adhered to.  If all the documents are in order and changes to the work are required, the DAC will inform the Chair of the TAB to advise the student of the changes required, including re-submission, if applicable. When any required changes are submitted to the satisfaction of the TAB, its decision shall be relayed to Senate through the DAC.  Simultaneously, the Faculty Board shall be informed that a recommendation has been made to Senate.

6.1.7    After the oral examination, the Report of Member of Transfer Assessment Board Form [Word] and the Transfer Assessment Board Joint Final Report Form [Word] should be completed, signed and returned to the Doctoral School within one week of the oral examination. 

6.2       Re-submission of student’s work and re-examination for transfer

6.2.1    Students shall be granted a period of six months if registered on a full-time basis or 12 months if registered on a part-time basis to re-submit their work and be re-examined.  Students are required to follow the submission procedures in the same way as for the work submitted originally.

6.2.2    Following receipt of the re-submitted work, the TAB should review it in the same way as they did the version of the work submitted originally. Each member of the TAB should prepare another preliminary report.

6.2.3    A second oral examination shall be held in all cases to allow the student the opportunity to defend the work before a final decision is made. This should normally take place within six to eight weeks from receipt of the work by the examiners.

7.1       Students may lodge an appeal with the Doctoral Appeal Review Board against decisions taken by the TAB within 15 working days of being notified of Senate’s decision.

7.2       The academic judgement of the TAB is not reviewable by the Doctoral Appeal Review Board and a recommendation to alter the decision of the TAB can only be made if the change can be justified by objective criteria.

7.3       Appeals shall only be allowed if the student provides evidence that there was an administrative, procedural or clerical error in the assessment of the work.