REGULATIONS AND CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESEARCH …

1

REGULATIONS AND CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESEARCH PROJECTS

Academic Year 2020-2021

2

Table of Contents

1. Research Culture ................................................................................................................................................. 3

2. Supervision ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 The supervisory process .................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Student progress monitoring ......................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Procedure for dealing with unsatisfactory academic progress in PhD

research projects ................................................................................................................................. 6

3. MSc Thesis Project Deliverables and Important Deadlines ............................................................... 9

4. PhD Thesis Project Deliverables and Important Deadlines ............................................................... 12

5. Deferral and extension of studies ................................................................................................................. 13

6. Feedback mechanisms ...................................................................................................................................... 13

7. Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................ 13

6.1 Criteria for award ................................................................................................................................ 13

6.2 Submission of dissertation or PhD Progress Mini Thesis ................................................... 14

6.3 Format of dissertations for research degrees ......................................................................... 15

6.4 Format of PhD Progress Mini Thesis ........................................................................................... 17

6.5 Plagiarism - Authenticity of Scientific Writing ........................................................................ 17

6.6 Examination procedures .................................................................................................................. 19

6.6.1 Selection of Examiners ...................................................................................................................... 20

6.6.2 The Oral Examination ........................................................................................................................ 20

6.6.3 Examiners’ reports and outcomes of the examination ........................................................ 21

6.7 Student Appeals ................................................................................................................................... 23

8. List of Appendixes ............................................................................................................................................... 26

3

1. Research Culture The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine must provide a very high quality of education and an

advanced research environment. The minimum expectations are:

a) All Research Project Advisors and Heads of Department/Clinics hosting students must

ensure that the student interacts with sufficient research-active staff within the

department, CING or elsewhere.

b) All Students must have access to appropriate facilities to support their work, including

those available electronically.

c) All students are entitled to opportunities to experience and contribute to research

activities.

d) All Departments/Clinics must have strategies in place to enable students to make the

most of these opportunities, for example, by presenting their research at departmental,

institutional seminars or conferences.

e) In the event that student's project requires research facilities or expertise beyond those

which are available within CING, the Department/Clinic must ensure that the student has

adequate access to facilities outside CING.

f) The topic of each MSc/PhD Thesis, should always receive prior approval by the

Department/Clinic Head who also reserves the right to review the content of each

MSc/PhD Thesis.

2. Supervision

2.1 The supervisory process

Research Project Advisors have a fundamental role in supporting students with their research

and providing them with scientific supervision throughout the period of their studies. Each

research student will have one or two joint advisors. Additionally other individuals may provide

support to the student (e.g. post-doctoral scientists). Students need to understand in detail the

support structure operating in their department, CSMM and CING. Research Project Advisors are

responsible for offering guidance to their students on the preparation of their dissertations, up

to and including the final stages of drafting, and on corrections required by the examiners

(applicable only for PhD). However, the ultimate responsibility for the content of the

dissertation and the decision to submit the work rests with the student. Research Project

Advisors should make it clear that their comments are advisory. Responsibility for ensuring that

proof-reading is performed to the required standard lies with students. If a student is

experiencing serious difficulty with the use of English, this should be discussed as early as

possible with the student and he/she should be encouraged to consult language experts. It is

4

recommended that For MSc theses, the Research Project Advisor(s) should read only once the

draft and provide constructive and clear comments.

Research Project Advisors, in collaboration with the Department/Clinic Head, are responsible

for ensuring that students devote a sufficient and balanced amount of time to their laboratory

project tasks and that they do not spend time working on tasks which are not directly

contributing to their project.

In addition, to ensuring their students work efficiently, Research Project Advisors should

oversee the project budget, making sure that this is allocated appropriately within the project

tasks. The aim is to safeguard that all laboratory investigations described in the project, receive

adequate funding, so or to enable the delivery of sufficient results towards achieving a successful

project outcome. The students’ consumables must be available at the time that the project

begins. The Research Advisor is responsible to discuss with his/her student and explain more

about the allocation and usage of consumables for the student’s project.

In the extraordinary event that a problem arises between a Research Project Advisor and a

student, the Provost and the Dean of the CSMM, reserve the right to take appropriate actions to

remedy any emerging problems. The aim is to ensure the smooth operation of the CSMM and

safeguard the interest of all parties, for the good name of the CSMM. If problems arise, the

Research Project Advisor or the student should first inform his/her Academic Advisor who will

then discuss it with the Program Coordinator and the Dean of the School.

2.2 Student progress monitoring

The Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine expects research postgraduates to make good progress

in their studies and to complete their research within the normal study period for the award.

The progress of students should be monitored to ensure that student completion rates remain

high and that the quality of research accomplished is of the highest standard.

Furthermore, it is recommended that regular meetings and presentations are scheduled within

the Academic Year, in order to facilitate the good communication between student and advisor.

Moreover, monitoring tools for the research and library projects (MSc) with deadlines for

submission will be used according to the following scheme: for the first year, the section on

introduction/literature review of the Thesis written part and attendance in the lab, will be

required in order to ensure the successful completion of the first 10 ECTS of the Thesis. The

submission will be marked with PASS/FAIL. For the second year, for the programs that include a

total of 70 ECTS Thesis project, the final section of introduction/literature review and the

5

section on materials and methodology of the Thesis written part, will be required in order to

ensure the successful completion of the next 30 ECTS of the Thesis. Again, this will be marked

with PASS/FAIL. If plagiarism is detected, the relative CSMM plagiarism policies will apply. In

the cases where a student is unable to produce a required quality work for the Thesis’ sections

described above, the Research Advisor should advise the student not to register for the

remaining ECTS of the project and change his/her status to part-time. Furthermore, in cases

where students fail to submit the above described deliverables, they will be evaluated as fail and

subsequently, fail their degree. Following the above requirement, it will be very difficult for

either the students or the hosting Departments to request for a change to either the research

topic or to discontinue this working partnership. For the submission of the above deliverables

the appropriate form titled “MSc Thesis Progress Report” will be used.

All students must have a laboratory book which will include a laboratory attendance meeting

form, titled “Meetings/Attendance and Project Monitoring Form”. This form should be

monitored and signed regularly by the Research Advisors/Department Head. This form will be

provided by the CSMM Academic Office and should be inserted at the beginning of the personal

laboratory book that it is issued to each CSMM student. A copy of the signed attendance form

must be submitted to the CSMM Academic Committee together with the “MSc Thesis Progress

Report” form.

Especially for PhD students, official monitoring should take place, after passing the PhD thesis

progress examination and continued registration and upgrades for a research degree, is

conditional upon making satisfactory progress. The purpose of the annual progress review

process, which is mandatory for all research students, is to establish that progress is satisfactory

and, if not, to ensure that corrective actions are promptly taken.

Annual progress involves a brief written report by the PhD student and his/her Research

Advisor(s). The normal outcome of the annual progress review is that the student progresses to

the next year, through the advisor recommendation (Annual Progress Report for the PhD

Studies is provided in Appendix I).

A student and his/her Research Project Advisor(s) should discuss possible sponsor’s additional

progress monitoring requirements at an early stage to ensure that these may be met in good

time. The student should see and comment on the written report on his/her progress. Moreover,

targets for next year should be discussed, and agreed in writing The relevant form should be

completed signed and submitted to the Academic Committee, through the Education Office by

the end of each academic year.

6

2.3 Procedure for dealing with unsatisfactory academic progress in PhD research projects

If, at any time, a student’s progress is considered unsatisfactory, or the standard of work is

below expected, the following procedure should be implemented:

Progress concern stage

In the event of unsatisfactory academic work by a postgraduate research student or concerns

about a student’s academic performance are raised, the Research Project Advisor(s) should

make the student aware of this at an early stage. The Research Project Advisor(s) and research

student should meet to agree upon a plan of activities to be completed within the following 3

months. If, after this period, no substantial progress is made, the Research Project Advisor(s)

should notify the student and the Program Co-ordinator in writing.

"At high risk" stage

a) Initiating the “at high risk” stage

A “rescue” meeting will be arranged between the student, the Research Project Advisor(s) and

the Program Co-ordinator, to consider the causes of the unsatisfactory progress and any

justifying circumstances. The outcome of the meeting should be an action plan, specifying by

whom the actions are to be taken, the deadline for their completion (normally not exceeding 3

months), and list of actions for providing relevant support and training.

The Program Co-ordinator will inform the student in writing that he/she is in danger of being

expelled, and of the likely consequences on his/her funding if a PhD Registration Review Panel

(see below) recommends termination of registration. The letter should be accompanied by a

copy of the action plan and the agreed timescale. At this point the time to inform any sponsors

must be agreed, in line with the relevant contractual obligations.

b) “At high risk” outcomes

At the end of the review period, the decision will be taken either to remove or to extend the “at

high risk” status or to refer the case to a PhD Registration Review Panel. Where the actions are

satisfactorily completed within the agreed timescale and the Research Advisor(s) and Program

Co-ordinator are satisfied with the progress of the student, the Program Co-ordinator will

inform the student in writing that he/she is no longer “at high risk”. Where the student has not

completed the action plan, but there are justifying circumstances, the Program Co-ordinator may

extend the period during which the student is deemed “at high risk”. A further meeting of the

student, the Research Project Advisor(s) and the Program Co-ordinator may take place, to agree

on additional actions with appropriate timescales. The Program Co-ordinator will write to the

student with the revised action plan and timescales. Where the actions are not satisfactorily

7

completed within the agreed timescale and the Research Project Advisor(s) and/or Program Co-

ordinator continue to have serious concerns about the student's progress, the Dean should

inform the student in writing about the appointment of a PhD Registration Review Panel.

PhD Registration Review Panel

a) Composition of the Registration Review Panel

The CSMM Dean will appoint a Registration Review Panel consisting of the Dean as Chair, the

Program Co-ordinator and one other Faculty member.

In case of conflict of interest in all steps in 2.2.1, the Dean should be informed to replace either

the Program Co-ordinator or Faculty member with other appropriate staff. In case the Dean has

a conflict of interest, the Provost of CSMM will replace him or her and will be responsible for all

the procedures.

b) Initial steps

The department/clinic should provide the following documentation for the panel:

1. A covering paper which provides basic information on the case (student’s name,

Research Project Advisor(s) names, start date and expected end date, project title and any

other information which may be relevant).

2. Annual progress report forms, “rescue” meeting details

This documentation should be sent to the student and to the members of the PhD Registration

Review Panel at least 14 days before the hearing. The student should be invited to respond in

writing and to submit any supporting documentation at least 7 days before the hearing, for

circulation to the members of the PhD Registration Review Panel and the school. The Research

Project Advisor(s) should be invited to provide a brief statement in writing, if desired.

c) Hearings of the PhD Registration Review Panel

The Registration Review Panel will hold a hearing at which both the student and representatives

from the school, normally including the Research Project Advisor(s), are required to be present.

The student is entitled to be accompanied at the hearing by the students’ representative.

The Registration Review Panel will consider:

whether or not the student is capable of attaining the required academic standard within

the timescale prescribed by regulation for the award.

the amount of work already completed to a satisfactory standard (especially where the

student’s registration is to be changed).

any justifying circumstances.

Minutes of the meeting will be prepared and submitted to the Education office.

8

d) Decision of the PhD Registration Review Panel

The decision of the Panel should preferentially be consensus but if not, it will be that of the

majority of its members.

The PhD Registration Review Panel may decide, any of the following courses of action:

the student’s registration be terminated and an MSc of the same program be awarded, if

he or she has already passed the PhD Thesis Progress Examination at the end of year 2;

the student’s registration remain unchanged, but the student remains “at high risk” for

a further period;

the student’s registration remains unchanged and the student no longer remains “at

high risk”.

The Dean will inform the student, attaching a copy of the Panel's report. A copy of the decision

will be kept in the student’s file.

Appeals against a decision to terminate or change the registration of a research student may be

submitted, within a week after the Dean has informed him/her.

The student must send a letter addressed to the CSMM Dean, through the Education Office,

within one week after the decision of the PhD Registration Review Panel stating:

a) the reason(s) for the student’s dissatisfaction with the appealable decision;

b) the student’s grounds for appeal; and

c) the outcome sought by the student.

The CSMM Dean will form an Appeal Review Panel, consisting of three faculty members who

have had no prior involvement with the appealable decision.

The Appeal Review Panel may decide to hold a hearing in the proceedings, who may be

accompanied by the CSMM student’s representative. The Appeal Review Panel will consider the

student’s appeal letter and other evidence, within a month following receipt of the letter and

may:

a) refer the matter back to the PhD Registration Review Panel for re-consideration with, or

without, a recommendation for resolution. If following re-consideration the original decision is

not altered, the student may request that the matter be further reviewed by the Review Panel. If

the original decision is altered, the student will have the right of appeal in respect of the new

decision;

b) dismiss the appeal

9

3. MSc Thesis Project Deliverables and Important Deadlines MSc MOLMED | MSc MEDGEN | MSc NEURO (The deadlines provided below refer to students

attending the Full-Time Program. Part-Time students must refer to the Education Office for

additional guidance)

No Deliverable Submission Format

Submission to

Submission Deadline

Outcome

1

Introduction/literature review & meetings’ attendance and project monitoring form (10 ECTS)

Electronic Format (e-mail)

Research Advisor(s) & CSMM Education Office

Last day of Lectures of the

Spring Semester 2020

16 May 2021 (until late evening)

MSc Thesis Progress Report (to be completed by the Research Advisors)

Due: 04 Jun 2021 MRP101/MLP101 Pass/Fail

2

Submission of MSc Thesis Examination Committee, Examination date & time (to be submitted by the Research Advisor)


CSMM Education Office

05 Jul 2021

MSc Thesis Examination Committees must be further approved by the Academic Committee

3

Final Thesis Project including methodology, results and discussion & meetings’ attendance and project monitoring form (30 ECTS)



31 Aug 2021 (until late evening)

MSc Thesis Examiners Joint Report (to be completed by the MSc Thesis Examination Committee after the oral presentation and examination)

MRP102a-b/ MLP102a-b Out of 100

4

Evaluation Questionnaire for the Research Advisor (s) and Hosting Department (s)

Electronic format or hard copy


31 Aug 2021 (until late evening) N/A

5 Final Thesis Examinations

N/A N/A 06 Sep 2021 – 17 Sep 2021

MRP102a-b/ MLP102a-b Out of 100

6 Submission of 2 Bound copies (Final Corrected Thesis)

N/A N/A Oct 2021 N/A

10

Fall 2020, MSc BMR (1st Year Students - The deadlines provided below refer to students

admitted to the Full-Time Program Part-Time students must refer to the Education Office for

additional guidance).


Submission to

Submission Deadline

Outcome

1

Draft Introduction/literature review & meetings’ attendance and project monitoring form (10 ECTS)



Last day of Lectures of the Spring Semester 2020 16 May 2021 (until late evening)

MSc Thesis Progress Report (to be completed by the Research Advisor)

Due: 04 Jun 2021 MBR101a Pass/Fail

2

Final Introduction/literature review & Materials and methodology & meetings’ attendance and project monitoring form (30 ECTS)



Last day of lectures of the Autumn Semester 2021 Date to be announced


Due: date to be announced MBR101b-d Pass/Fail

3

Final Thesis Project including results and discussion & meetings’ attendance and project monitoring form (30 ECTS)



End of Spring Semester 2022 Date to be announced


MBR102 a-c Out of 100

4





N/A

5 Final Thesis Examinations N/A N/A



6 Submission of 2 Bound copies (Final Corrected Thesis

N/A N/A Date to be announced

N/A

11

Fall 2019, MSc BMR (2nd Year Students - The deadlines provided below refer to students

admitted to the Full-Time Program Part-Time students must refer to the Education Office for

additional guidance).


Submission to:

Submission Deadline

Outcome

1

Final Introduction/literature review & Materials and methodology & meetings’ attendance and project monitoring form (30 ECTS)



18 Dec 2020, (until late evening)


Due: 29 Jan 2021, 2pm MBR101b-d Pass/Fail

2 Submission of MSc Thesis Examination Committee (by the Research Advisor)



15 Mar 2021, (until 2pm)

3

Final Thesis Project including results and discussion & meetings’ attendance and project monitoring form (30 ECTS)



26 May 2021, (until late evening)



4




26 May 2021, (until late evening) N/A

5 Final Thesis Examinations N/A N/A 07 Jun 2021 – 11 Jun 2021


6 Submission of 2 Bound copies (Final Corrected Thesis

N/A N/A Jun – Jul 2021 N/A

12

4. PhD Thesis Project Deliverables and Important Deadlines

Fall 2012 - 2018 PhD Students Deadline

Submission of PhD Annual Progress Report (for students who will not graduate this year and will proceed to Year 3,4,5,6 instead) 03 Sep 2021

Fall 2019 PhD Students (2nd Year Students) Deadline

Submission of PhD Proposal by the PhD Advisor 31 Jul 2020

Submission of PhD Mini Thesis Examination Committee 03 Jun 2021

Submission of PhD Mini Thesis 11 Jul 2021

PhD Progress Examination 19 Jul 2021 - 23 Jul 2021

Fall 2020 PhD Students Deadline

Submission of PhD Proposal by the PhD Advisor 30 Jul 2021

Students who are expected to graduate by the end of the Academic Year 2020-2021 must pay attention to the following: In order for the PhD Thesis examinations to be scheduled, the following criteria must be fulfilled: o The PhD candidates must have completed at least 240 ECTS of which at least 30 ECTS are

drawn from the PhD Thesis Report and Examination (Thesis-Part IV, DRP 106)

o The CSMM Education Office receives confirmation that the student has a first author paper,

that it was published. This may also be submitted in the form of an acceptance letter from

the Editor of the Journal where the article will be published, confirming that the article is

accepted for publication (accepted with no changes or accepted with minor changes). If the

Editor’s response is conditionally accepted with minor changes, then it will not be accepted.

o Submission of the 3 members of the PhD Thesis examination committee no later than 2

months before the PhD Thesis examination. The Final PhD Thesis Report must be

submitted at least 4 weeks prior to the PhD Thesis Examination.

o Furthermore, depending on when the submission of the PhD Thesis will be finalized and the

examination will be set, the CSMM Education Office will advise the student on whether

he/she needs to register for additional ECTS.

13

5. Deferral and extension of studies In exceptional cases, students may request a deferral of studies. A deferral cannot exceed two

full Semesters (this applies for both MSc and PhD Students). Students who wish to postpone

their studies must complete and submit an application form together with all required

information to the Academic Committee, through the Education Office, for approval.

Although PhD studies have a duration of 4 years, these can be extended to a maximum of 6 years,

upon appropriate justification in the Annual Progress Report (section 2.1).

In exceptional cases, instead of postponing their studies, full Time MSc Students may decide to

change their status to Part Time Studies.

6. Feedback mechanisms Students have a variety of opportunities for giving feedback on their academic program and any

other aspect of their experience at the CSMM. As a minimum, postgraduate students must be

able to provide feedback on their experience through their Representative at School’s Council

and Committees and through participation in regular surveys of postgraduate research students

and student forums. In addition, students must submit an evaluation form at the end of the

Academic Year along with the submission of the final Thesis Report, evaluating both the

Research Advisor(s) and the Hosting Department/Clinic. The Evaluation Questionnaire provided

in the Appendix must be submitted at the Education Office along with the submission of MSc

Thesis Report / PhD Thesis Report. The results will become available to the Research Advisor(s)

and the hosting Department/Clinic only after the announcement of the final Thesis Grades.

Inappropriate behavior between any parties is not tolerated. Complaints about inappropriate

behavior should be reported duly in writing to the Education Office and they will be dealt with

by the Academic Committee. Cases which are deemed serious by the AC will be referred to the

CSMM Provost with the suggestion that the HR Department becomes involved, if appropriate.

7. Assessment

6.1 Criteria for award

a. The following minimum criteria should be achieved:

b. The written thesis consists of the Candidate's own account of his/her investigations;

c. The sources from which information has been derived, the extent to which the work of

others has been used, and the areas which are claimed as original, should be made clear

in the written thesis;

14

d. The written thesis should show the exercise of critical judgment with regard to both the

candidate's own work and that of other scholars in the field;

e. The written thesis should be well integrated, complete and present a coherent argument.

f. The written thesis and the oral examination together must demonstrate that the

candidate has:

i. an adequate knowledge and understanding of the discipline and the context

within which the research is grounded and of the literature relevant to the

research,

ii. the ability to put forward arguments in an appropriate form, both orally and in

writing.

g. The written thesis should represent a contribution to knowledge

h. The written thesis should represent a significant and original contribution to knowledge,

worthy of publication or dissemination in whole, or in part, in a form appropriate to the

discipline (for PhD studies). A minimum of one first-author publication in a peer

reviewed journal is required for a PhD award.

6.2 Submission of dissertation or PhD Progress Mini Thesis

For PhD research projects, the candidate should prepare a detailed timetable for final

preparation and submission of the written thesis, in consultation with his/her Research Project

Advisor(s), at least six months before the end of the period of study. The PhD thesis should be

submitted to the Education Office at least four weeks before the PhD Thesis Examination. The

exemption of ECTS units from the taught courses may bring the minimum time period of PhD

studies to less than 4 years. The PhD progress mini thesis should be submitted to the Education

Office at least two weeks before the PhD Thesis Progress Examination. Deadline for submission

will be set annually by the Education Office.

For MSc research projects, the written thesis should be submitted to the Education Office

approximately two weeks before the MSc Thesis Examination. Deadline for submission will be

set annually by the Education Office. The candidate shall submit four copies of his/her written

thesis to the Education Office. Following passing the MSc and PhD Thesis Examination the

student has to submit two bound hard copies of the final written thesis and an electronic copy to

the Education Office which will be then forwarded to the Library and the Research Project

Advisor’s Department/Clinic, respectively.

The final copy or copies should be hard-bound in washable plain blue stiff board, with gold foil

lettering on front cover and spine. Spine width should be 50 mm. Larger sheets or printed

matter should be placed in a pocket inside the back cover or in a separately bound volume. The

15

title of the dissertation or published work and commentary, should appear on the outside front

cover in embossed 18 point gold lettering. The spine must be lettered in embossed 18-point gold

lettering, with the successful candidate's initials and surname, degree, volume number (if

necessary), and year of submission. This should run from the top of the spine to the bottom, so

as to be readable when the volume lies flat with the top cover uppermost (Hard-bound cover for

MSc and PhD is provided in Appendix II).

6.3 Format of dissertations for research degrees

All dissertations should be written in English

Preliminary pages

The five preliminary pages must be the Title Page, Abstract, Dedication and Acknowledgements,

Author’s Declaration and Table of Contents. These should be single-sided.

Title page

At the top of the title page, within the margins, the dissertation should give the title and, if

necessary, sub-title and volume number. The full name of the author should be in the centre of

the page. At the bottom centre should be the words “A thesis submitted to the Cyprus School of

Molecular Medicine of the Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics in accordance with the

requirements for award of the degree of … in the Program of ...” with the name of the school and

month and year of submission. The word count of the dissertation (text only) should be entered

at the bottom right-hand side of the page (Title Page sample for MSc and PhD is provided in

Appendix III).

Abstract

Each copy must include an abstract or summary of the dissertation in not more than 300 words,

on one side of A4, which should be single-spaced in an 11 Arial font size.

Author’s declaration

I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the requirements

of the School’s Internal Regulations and Code of Practice and that it has not been submitted for

any other academic award. Except where indicated by specific reference in the text, the work is

the candidate's own work. Work done in collaboration with, or with the assistance of, others, is

indicated as such. Any views expressed in the dissertation are those of the author.

SIGNED: ........................................................................................... DATE:.............................

16

Table of contents, list of tables and illustrative material

The table of contents must list, with page numbers, all chapters, sections and subsections, the list

of references, bibliography, list of abbreviations and appendices. The list of tables and

illustrations should follow the table of contents, listing with page numbers the tables,

photographs, diagrams, etc., in the order in which they appear in the text.

Paper:

The dissertation must be printed on A4 white paper. Paper up to A3 may be used for maps,

plans, diagrams and illustrative material.

Margins

Page margins should be as follows:

Length of dissertation

Dissertations should normally be between 30,000 and 60,000 words (including appendices, list

of contents, references, legends and figures) for PhD Thesis and between 10,000 and 15,000

words (excluding appendices, list of contents, references, legends and figures) for MSc Thesis.

The sections of the main thesis should contain an Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results,

Discussion and Conclusions. Unnecessary length of a dissertation may be to a candidate’s

disadvantage.

Page numbering:

The pages should be numbered consecutively at the bottom centre of the page.

Text:

Text should be in double or 1.5-line spacing, and Arial font 12 size should be chosen for the main

text.

Reference style

There is no restriction on the reference style but an appropriate style should be chosen which

provides the full title.

Portrait page layout Landscape page layout

Top: 2cm

Bottom: 2cm

Left: 2.5cm

Right: 2cm

Top: 2.5cm

Bottom: 2cm

Left: 2cm

Right: 2cm

17

Recommendations for Bibliography/References for CSMM Thesis Projects

Cite references in the text sequentially in the Vancouver numbering style, as a

superscripted number after any punctuation mark. For example:“…as reported by Saito

and colleagues.15”

Two references are cited separated by a comma, with no space. Three or more

consecutive references are given as a range with an en rule. To create an en rule on a PC:

hold down CTRL key and minus sign on the number pad, or on a Mac: ALT hyphen

References in tables, figures, and panels should be in numerical order according to

where the item is cited in the text

Here is an example for a journal reference (note the use of tab,bold, italic, and the en rule

or “long” hyphen): “…15[tab]Saito N, Ebara S, Ohotsuka K, Kumeta J, Takaoka K.

Natural history of scoliosis in spastic cerebral palsy. Lancet 1998; 351: 1687–[en

rule]92.”

Give any subpart to the title of the article. Journal names are abbreviated in their

standard form as in Index Medicus

If there are six authors or fewer, give all six in the form: surname space initials comma

If there are seven or more give the first three in the same way, followed by et al

For a book, give any editors and the publisher, the city of publication, and year of

publication

For a chapter or section of a book, also give the authors and title of the section, and the

page numbers

For online material, please cite the URL, together with the date you accessed the website

Online journal articles can be cited using the DOI number

Digital recording media photocopies and photographs:

Appended digital recording media should be in a standard format and there should be a

declaration in the dissertation of the programs used and the size of the files.

Publications

Publications which arise from the work of the written thesis should be attached to the appendix.

6.4 Format of PhD Progress Mini Thesis

There is not a strict format for the PhD Progress Thesis. In general, the thesis should be brief

(less than 7,000 words including all sections) and contain a title page, abstract, introduction,

methods, results and discussion and future thesis work.

6.5 Plagiarism - Authenticity of Scientific Writing

A procedure for detection of plagiarism in course assignments and Theses is mandatory in order

to avoid inappropriate use of published work and to promote original scientific writing.

18

Each Course Coordinator (in the case of course work) or Chairperson of Theses Examination

Committees (in the case of Theses) will have to run a diagnostic test on the original software

which will be provided by the CSMM Education Office and supported by the Information

Technology Unit of CING. This will have to take place immediately after submission before any

evaluation begins. The parameters of the software for acceptable overlap with published

material will be set by the Academic Committee and announced to all students every academic

year.

If the software test passes, then the Course Coordinator will have to inform by email the

Education Office that all assignments were clear from plagiarism and then continue with the

marking; similarly, the Chairperson of the Committee will have to inform the Education Office

and the rest of the Committee Members and continue with the evaluation. If, on the other hand,

plagiarism was detected in a higher proportion than normal, then the Course Coordinator and

Committee Chairperson will have to investigate in more detail the results of the output and the

areas which exceeded the limits.

According to the CSMM regulations, plagiarism is a very serious offence and will be dealt

with as follows:

a) Up to 20% maximum permitted as per CSMM regulations = no further action is

required. However, if a plagiarism of more than 5% from a single source is detected, the student will be advised to re-write the affected parts of the Thesis Report. It is noted that the corrected version should be submitted within the deadline otherwise, the mitigation policies will apply.

b) Above 20% moderate plagiarism = In this case the student will be given one week to re-write the project with no further assistance from the Research Advisor and re-submit it for examination. Provided that it passes the 20% plagiarism check, the maximum grade allowed for the MSc thesis project, following the MSc thesis Examination Committee will be 50%

c) Above 30% serious plagiarism = Will result in the expulsion of the student from the CSMM.

The decisions b and c will be approved by the CSMM disciplinary committee.

Students of the CSMM who commit either b or c above, will be refused from registering in

any other CSMM program of study.

Following the investigation, if there is indeed plagiarism above 20% then the Course

Coordinator or Committee Chairperson should write to the Education Office and request that the

matter be investigated by the Disciplinary Committee. The Course Coordinator or Committee

19

Chairperson should submit also a letter (addressed to the Chairperson of the Disciplinary

Committee) justifying the case for plagiarism together with the original software output report,

highlighting the evidence. The evaluation of the assignment or Thesis should then be put on hold

until the Disciplinary Committee decides. In all cases, the hard copy format of the reports should

be kept compulsory in the offices of Course Coordinators and Chairpersons of Theses

Examination Committees for 5 years.

The Disciplinary Committee will sit within a week to review the evidence and additionally to

allow the student to explain and defend his or her case. Following the meeting, the Disciplinary

Committee will decide accordingly depending on the severity of the case. If one member of the

Disciplinary Committee is the Course Coordinator or Committee Chairperson investigating a

case of plagiarism, the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee appoints a Member of the CSMM

Faculty as a replacement, who has no conflict of interest. If the Chairman of the Disciplinary

Committee is the Course Coordinator or Committee Chairperson investigating a case of

plagiarism, then the Chief Executive Director of CSMM chairs the Disciplinary Committee.

6.6 Examination procedures

The main procedures are described in the Internal Regulation. There are three main

examinations for MSc and PhD degrees: a. MSc Thesis Examination, b. PhD Progress Thesis

Examination, c. PhD Thesis Examination

Note that in order for the PhD Thesis examinations to be scheduled, the following criteria must

be fulfilled:

The PhD candidates must have completed at least 240 ECTS of which at least 30 ECTS are

drawn from the PhD Thesis Report and Examination (Thesis-Part IV, DRP 106)

The CSMM Education Office receives confirmation that the student has a first author

paper, which has been published. This may also be submitted in the form of an

acceptance letter from the Editor of the Journal where the article will be published,

confirming that the article is accepted for publication (accepted with no changes or

accepted with minor changes). If the Editor’s response is conditionally accepted with

minor changes, then it will not be accepted.

Submission of the 3 members of the PhD Thesis examination committee no later than 2

months before the PhD Thesis examination

Furthermore, depending on when the submission of the PhD Thesis will be finalized and the

examination will be set, the CSMM Education Office will advise the student on whether he/she

needs to register for additional ECTS.

20

6.6.1 Selection of Examiners

The composition of the various examinations is described in the Internal Regulation.

During the preparation of the dissertation, the candidate and his/her advisor(s) should discuss

possible external and internal examiners. Together with the submission of the PhD progress

thesis, the advisor(s) should suggest names of examiners to the Academic Committee, through

the Education Office. Similarly, advisor(s) should suggest names for examiners no later than

three months before the intended submission date, for MSc and PhD Thesis Examinations.

The criteria to be used when selecting external and internal examiners are:

a. the external examiner for PhD Thesis Examination has the required expertise in the

candidate's subject area.

b. the examiners between them have adequate experience of examining PhD research

degrees for the same type of program as that leading to the candidate's intended award

c. the internal examiners understand the requirements of the School regulations that apply

to the awards

d. none of the examiners, excluding the advisor has any connection with the candidate,

which might impair their ability to make a fair and impartial assessment of the

candidate's work.

e. none of the examiners has any connection with the research project or the advisor(s) or,

in the case of external examiners, with the School or the Cyprus Institute of Neurology

and Genetics, which might impair their ability to make a fair and impartial assessment of

the candidate's work.

Information about the qualifications of examiners are described in the Internal Regulation.

6.6.2 The Oral Examination

The oral examination must be conducted in English.

In case the student has two joint Research Project Advisors, only one should participate in the

Examination Committee, as decided between them.

Examiners should discuss with the candidate the strengths as well as any weaknesses of the

candidate's work.

The oral examination enables the examiners to:

21

Verify that the work submitted is the candidate's own and assess the extent of any

collaboration.

question the candidate on the substance of the work submitted

assess the ability of the candidate to present and defend intellectual arguments

assess the candidate's general knowledge and understanding of the discipline and of the

relevant literature and critical thinking

In all cases, the student should first make a presentation of the thesis which should not

last more than 45 minutes for PhD Thesis Examination, 20 minutes for MSc (MOLMED,

MEDGEN & NEURO) Thesis Examination, up to 30 minutes for MSc (BMR) Thesis

Examinations and 20 minutes for PhD Thesis Progress Examination. In the first three cases,

the presentations should be open to the public. The viva voce examination should be in the

presence only of the committee members.

If there are any medical or other extenuating circumstances that might affect the candidate's

performance in the oral examination, the candidate should bring these to the attention of the

internal examiner, normally at least 1 month before the oral examination. Examiners will make

appropriate adjustments to the conduct of the examination, seeking specialist advice where

required.

The examinations take place as follows:

a. Before the beginning of the following academic year for MSc Thesis Examination

b. Before the beginning of year 3 for PhD Progress Thesis Examination

c. Up to 4 months after the submission of written thesis for PhD Thesis Examination

6.6.3 Examiners’ reports and outcomes of the examination

The examiners' joint report after the oral examination must be sufficient to enable the Academic

Committee to assess the scope and significance of the work submitted by the candidate and to

determine whether the candidate satisfies the School’s criteria for the award of the research

degree. Reports should, where appropriate, include discussion of the:

a. purpose of the research and the overall approach taken

b. candidate's application of research methods

c. candidate's review of the literature

d. extent of any collaboration

e. candidate's contribution to the advancement of knowledge in the subject represented

22

f. suitability for publication of the unpublished work reported apart from the already published work

g. quality of presentation of the work submitted, and the inferences that can be drawn about the candidate's ability to present and defend intellectual arguments in writing

h. candidate's general knowledge of the subject

i. candidate's performance in the oral examination, and the inferences that can be drawn about the candidate's ability to present and defend intellectual arguments verbally.

For MSc Thesis Examination, the Examiners will mark the student based on the above criteria,

justified by a brief report and the average of the three will be the final mark. If examiners do not

agree for a joint decision they have to produce separate reports (Examiners Joint Report MSc

Research Form & MSc Research/Library Project Examination Examiners’ Corrections to the MSc

Thesis Report form, are provided in Appendix IV),

The allocation of the mark for the MSc project will be based on the evaluation of the following

aspects:

1. Description of background related to the field of study, including critical evaluation of

ideas and appreciation of the field of study

2. Clear hypothesis and well defined aims

3. Methodologies, practical techniques and approach

4. Discussion of results and limitations of the study

5. Oral presentation and ability to respond to questions

0-49 Fail

Poor research work with major deficiencies in the understanding of project design, hypothesis,

aims and deficiencies in the discussion of results.

Poor oral presentation and poor response to questions.

50-60 Pass

Satisfactory research but with deficiencies in the understanding of project design, structure,

aims and hypothesis. Satisfactory discussion of results. Satisfactory oral presentation with

adequate responses to questions.

61-70 Good

Good research with only slight deficiencies in the understanding of project design structure,

hypothesis results analysis with good discussion of results.

Good presentation with responses to questions demonstrating a moderate level of critical

thinking.

71-84 Merit

23

Very good understanding of project design structure with clearly defined hypothesis and aims.

Very good discussion of results.

Very good presentation supported by answers demonstrating a very good level of critical

thinking.

85-100 Distinction

Excellent understanding of project design structure with very clearly defined hypothesis and

aims. Excellent discussion of results.

Excellent presentation supported by sound answers demonstrating a high level of critical

thinking.

For PhD Thesis Progress Examination the Examiners could recommend the following:

A. The continuation of the PhD studies

B. The award of an MSc and discontinuation of the PhD studies

C. A failed examination in such case the candidate will receive no degree

For PhD Thesis Examination the Examiners may recommend:

A. That the degree sought be awarded unconditionally

B. That the degree sought be awarded subject to the correction of minor errors

C. That the degree sought be awarded, once errors or omissions of substance have been

corrected to the satisfaction of the examiners

D. That the degree sought, should not be awarded, but that the candidate be permitted to

resubmit a revised form of the dissertation or published work for examination

E. that the relevant degree of Master be awarded

F. that the relevant degree of Master be awarded, subject to the correction of minor errors

G. That no degree be awarded

The decision should aim to be a consensus, but if not, individual reports could be produced for

PhD Examinations. The Examination Committees should forward their report to the Academic

Committee within one week after the examination for final approval (Examiners Joint report for

PhD Research is provided in Appendix V)

6.7 Student Appeals

Appeals may only be made on the basis of one or more of the following permissible grounds:

1. There has been a material irregularity in the decision making process sufficient to

require that the decision can be reconsidered. For example:

24

a) the assessment and subsequent decision making process were not conducted in

accordance with the relevant regulations;

b) an adverse decision has been taken because of an administrative error;

c) the student has not been given the opportunity to draw relevant matters to the

attention of the Examination Committee; and/or

d) appropriate account was not taken of illness or other extenuating circumstances

known to the Examination Committee.

2. A student’s performance in assessment has been affected by illness or other factors

which the student was unable, for good reason, to reveal before the Oral Examination.

Grounds of appeal that are not permissible:

1. Disagreement with the academic judgment of the Examination Committee will not

constitute a ground for appeal.

2. No appeal will be considered if it raises for the first time issues concerning the

supervision or teaching of a student. Such matters will only be considered if they have

been raised by the student promptly, at the time they first arose.

The student must send a letter addressed to the CSMM Dean, through the Education Office, within

one week after the announcement of the Examination outcome stating:

a. the reason(s) for the student’s dissatisfaction with the appealable decision;

b. the student’s grounds for appeal; and

c. the outcome sought by the student.

The CSMM Dean will form an Appeal Review Panel, consisting of the Dean (chairman) and two

faculty members who have had no prior involvement with the appealable decision.

The Appeal Review Panel may decide to involve a hearing in the proceedings, who may be

accompanied by the CSMM student’s representative. The Appeal Review Panel will consider the

student’s appeal letter and other evidence, within a month following receipt of the letter and

may:

a. refer the matter back to the Examination Committee for reconsideration with, or

without, a recommendation for resolution. If following reconsideration, the original

decision is not altered, the student may request that the matter be further reviewed by

the Review Panel. If the original decision is altered, the student will have the right of

appeal in respect of the new decision;

b. dismiss the appeal

25

26

8. List of Appendixes

1. Appendix I: Annual Progress Report for PhD Studies

2. PhD Thesis Progress Examiner’s Joint Final Report

3. Appendix II: Hard-bounded cover for MSc and PhD Studies

4. Appendix III: Title page sample for MSc and PhD Studies

5. Appendix IV: MSc Research degree examiners’ joint final report & MSc Research Project

Examination Examiners’ Corrections to the MSc Thesis Report form (Part A&B)

6. MSc Thesis Progress Report

7. Appendix V: PhD Research degree examiners’ joint final report

8. Meetings’ Attendance and Monitoring Form

9. Evaluation Questionnaire

27

ANNUAL RPOGRESS REPORT FOR PhD STUDIES

This form should be completed for upgrading students to the next academic year (year 3 onwards). Please ensure that the student has seen, made comment and signed this form. Research Project Advisor(s) should return this form completed by the end of each academic year. Based on the outcome of the report, Research Advisors are obliged to advise the student and report in writing to the Education Office regarding the student’s future registration.

Students Name:

Student’s I.D. number:

Department/Clinic:

Research Project Advisor(s):

Program:

Start Date of PhD studies:

Expected End Date:

Year of studies completed:

PART A: RESEARCH ADVISOR(S) COMMENTS (Justification for upgrading to the next academic year should be stated. In cases where the student is expected to register for a 5th or 6th year, reasons for the extension should be given and guidelines regarding the registration of the student must be provided)

28

PART B: OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE STUDENT

☐

Excellent

☐

Good

☐

Average

☐

Weak

☐

Unsatisfactory

Approval for registration to ........................ year ☐ YES

☐ NO

PART C: STUDENT COMMENTS

SCIENTIFIC TARGETS FOR NEXT ACADEMIC YEAR

Name of Research Project Advisor Signature Date

Name of Research Project Advisor Signature Date

Name of Student Signature Date

Notes: Unsatisfactory progress and non-recommendation to register to the next year will activate the Procedure for dealing with unsatisfactory academic progress in PhD research

projects.

29

PHD THESIS PROGRESS EXAMINER’S JOINT FINAL REPORT

This report form is formatted to allow cells to expand to match their content. Please complete the form electronically and submit a signed printed copy. Hand-written reports will not be accepted.

Full name of candidate

Student ID Number

Program

Candidate's department

Research Project Advisor

Title of Research Project

Name of Examiner 1

Name of Examiner 2

Name of Examiner 3

Date of the oral examination:

EXAMINERS’ REPORT Reports must be informative and specific to the candidate and his/her dissertation and oral Examination.

30

EXAMINERS' RECOMMENDATION TO THE ACADEMIC COMMITTEE

We recommend: Please

tick one box only

1 The continuation of the PhD studies ☐

2 The award of an MSc and discontinuation of the PhD studies ☐

3 A failed examination in such case the candidate will receive no degree ☐

EXAMINERS’ DECLARATIONS If examiners do not agree for a joint decision they have to produce separate reports

Name of Examiner 1 Signature Date



ACADEMIC COMMITTEE’S EVALUATION/VALIDATION

Final Decision Approved ☐ YES ☐ NO

Notes (if any):

Prof Kyriacos Kyriacou, Chairman Signature Date

Prof Marios Cariolou Signature Date

31

Prof Kyproula Christodoulou Signature Date

Prof Kleopas Kleopa Signature Date

Prof Theodoros Kyriakides Signature Date

32

33

BASE CHANGES IN THE 3’ UNTRANSLATED REGION OF THE QCD TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR GENES CAUSE MENTAL RETARDATION IN A MOUSE MODEL

ANNA NICOLAOU

Dissertation submitted to the Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine of the Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics in accordance with the requirements for award of the degree of MSc/PhD in the Program of Molecular Medicine

February 55,000 words

34

35

MSc RESEARCH PROJECT EXAMINERS' JOINT FINAL REPORT



Student ID Number

Program


Research Project Advisor

Title of Research Project

Name of Examiner 1

Name of Examiner 2

Name of Examiner 3

Date of the oral examination

EXAMINERS’ REPORT Examiners will mark the student, justified by a brief report, based on the relevant Regulations.

36

EXAMINERS' GRADES

Name of the Examiner Grade

Each Examiner should mark the student to the 100 grading scale. Passing grade is 50 out of 100. The average will become the final mark.

1 /100

2 /100

3 /100

Final Grade /100

EXAMINERS’ DECLARATIONS If examiners do not agree for a joint decision they have to state their individual evaluation in the same joined report.





Final Grade Approved ☐ YES ☐ NO

Notes (if any):






- 1 -

MSc Research Project Examination

Examiners’ Corrections to the MSc Thesis Report (Part A)

The Examiners’ Corrections to the MSc Thesis Report must be completed after the oral examination and must be attached to the MSc Research Project Examiners’ Joint Final Report. This recommendation report will be made available to the Student and to the Academic Committee.

Student:

MSc Thesis Topic:

MSc Thesis Examination Committee:

1) 2) 3)

Examination Date:

Following the MSc oral examination, the appointed MSc Thesis Examination Committee has decided to award the grade stated in the MSc Research Project Examiners’ Joint Final Report provided that the following corrections to the MSc Thesis will be made by the student within the requested time frame.

EXAMINERS’ CORRECTIONS

Corrections will be checked by: ….……………………………………………………………………………..

- 2 -

The corrected MSc Thesis must be submitted to ……………………………………………………… in electronic

format the latest by: …………………………………………………………………………….

EXAMINERS’ DECLARATIONS

If examiners do not agree for a joint decision they have to produce separate reports




- 3 -

MSc Research Project Examination

Examiners’ Corrections to the MSc Thesis Report (Part B)

EXAMINER’S DECLARATION

Student:

MSc Thesis Topic:

MSc Thesis Examination Committee:

1) 2) 3)

Examination Date:

I confirm that the above mentioned student has made all corrections according to the MSc Thesis Examination Committee’s suggestions.

Name of the Examiner: …………………………………………………..………….. Signature: ……………………………..………………………….…….. Date: ………………………………………..………………….…..

- 4 -

MSc THESIS PROGRESS REPORT

This report form is formatted to allow cells to expand to match their content. The report must be completed by the Research/Library Advisor(s) and must be submitted to the Education Office at the end pf the Spring Semester. Please complete the form electronically and submit a signed printed copy. Hand-written reports will not be accepted.

Full name of Student

Student ID Number

Program of Study

Student’s Hosting Department/Clinic/Group/Team

Research/Library Project Advisor(s)

Title of Research/Library Project

……………………… was submitted on: (note the deliverable)

Percentage of Turnitin Plagiarism Check

RESEARCH/LIBRARY ADVISOR (S) REPORT Reports must be informative and specific to the student and his/her submitted Thesis Work (introduction).

RESEARCH/LIBRARY ADVISOR (S) GRADE AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE ACADEMIC COMMITTEE

- 5 -

I / We recommend: Please tick accordingly

1 The Assignment of Passing Grade to the MRP101/MLP101/MBR101A-D: MSc Thesis Part I

☐

2 The Assignment of a Failed Grade to the MRP101/MLP101/MBR101A-D: MSc Thesis Part I and the termination of the status of a student. No degree will be awarded in this case.

☐

3 The registration of the Student to the MRP102/MLP102/MBR102: MSc Thesis Project Part II during the Summer Period

☐

4 That the student changes his/her status from Full-Time to Part-Time allowing more time to complete the Thesis Project due to student’s poor performance during the MRP101/MLP101/MBR101A-D: MSc Thesis Part I

☐

5 That the student is directed to the Disciplinary Committee due to Plagiarism detection. An incomplete grade will be assigned to the student and the student will not be able to register to the MSc Thesis Part II until the Disciplinary Committee comes to a decision.

☐

RESEARCH/LIBRARY ADVISOR (S) DECLARATIONS

I / We declare that: During the Semester we had …………… meetings with the student (please attach a signed copy of the meetings attendance & project monitoring form attendance sheet) The Student has been present within the Department/Clinic and towards completing his/her Project ☐ Additional Comments (If any):

Name of Research Advisor Signature Date

Name of Research Advisor Signature Date

STUDENT’S DECLARATIONS

I agree with the details and the Recommendations stated above by my ☐ Research Advisor(s) I do not agree with the details and the Recommendations stated above by ☐ my Research Advisor(s)

- 6 -

Additional Comments (If any):

Name of Student Signature Date


Grade and Recommendations approved ☐ YES ☐ NO

Notes (if any):






- 7 -

PhD RESEARCH DEGREE EXAMINERS' JOINT FINAL REPORT



Student ID Number


Research Project Advisor(s)

Title of dissertation

Reports must be informative and specific to the candidate and his/her dissertation. Generic reports will not be accepted.

1. Date of the oral examination

2. Comments on the candidate's performance at the oral examination, referring in particular to the candidate’s response to the issues raised in the examiners' preliminary reports and to the candidate's general knowledge of the topic.

- 8 -

3. Outline the grounds for your overall recommendation, with reference to both the dissertation (or published work submitted) and the candidate's performance at the oral examination, indicating if relevant, the reasons why your final conclusions differ from those in any of the preliminary reports.

EXAMINERS' RECOMMENDATION TO THE RESEARCH DEGREES EXAMINATION BOARD

We recommend that: Please

tick one box only

A the degree sought be awarded unconditionally

☐

B the degree sought be awarded, subject to the correction of minor errors ☐

C the degree sought be awarded once errors or substantial omissions have been

corrected to the satisfaction of the examiners

☐

D the degree sought should not be awarded but the candidate be permitted to

resubmit a revised form of the dissertation or published work for examination

☐

E the relevant degree of Master be awarded ☐

F the relevant degree of Master by research be awarded, subject to the

correction of minor errors

☐

G degree award be declined ☐

Notes: 1. For minor errors (recommendations B or F), examiners must provide the candidate with

written details of the corrections required. 2. For substantial errors or re-submission (recommendations C, D or G), examiners must

provide clear and comprehensive written guidance for the candidate and attach a copy of it to this report.

3. Re-submission (D or G) will normally require a full re-examination including a another oral examination.

.

- 9 -

Recommendation for award.

EXAMINERS’ DECLARATIONS If examiners do not reach a consensus decision, they have to produce separate reports

We individually declare that we do not have any connection with the candidate, the advisor, the research described in the work submitted or (external examiner only) with the Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine of the Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics, which might impair our ability to make a fair and impartial assessment of the candidate's work.




- 10 -

MEETINGS’ ATTENDANCE AND PROJECT MONITORING FORM This attendance form must be co-signed every time a meeting is held between the Student and his/her Research Advisor (s). The attendance form must be included in the laboratory book and must be submitted to the Research Advisor(s) and the Department Head at the end of each Semester. Full name of Student: ………………………………………………………………………………………… Student ID Number: ………………………………………………………………………………………….. Program of Study: …………………………………………………………………………………………….. Student’s Hosting Department/Clinic/Group/Team: ……………………………………………………………………. Research/Library Project Advisor(s): …………………………………………………………………………………………… Title of Research/Library Project: ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

No Date

Time/ Duration

Topic/ Description

Agreed Actions Research Advisor(s) Signature

Student’s Signature

- 11 -

EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

This questionnaire should be completed in approximately 20 minutes. Please use this opportunity, to evaluate your Research/Library Advisor and your hosting Department, to give constructive comments and suggestions for your supervision and the time spent in laboratory. Your anonymous feedback is very important to the Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine.

1. Please rate your experience at the CSMM while performing your Research/Library

project in terms of :

Research / Library Advisor (s) (Circle the appropriate number: 1: Lowest Performance, 5: Highest Performance):

Advisor’s Name

Advisor’s Name

Ability & availability to provide guidance and feedback where needed

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Ability & availability to understand the student’s needs and project’s needs

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Ability & availability to provide training and support to the student

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Ability & availability to provide guidance to develop achievable goals for each stage of the Project

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Ability & availability to communicate openly with the student

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Availability in office hours and for regular meetings with the student

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Guidance on identifying Relevant bibliography 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Provision/availability of relevant consumables required for the student’s research work (leave blank if not applicable i.e. Library project)

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Overall rating of the Research/Library Advisor 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Please state any other comments below: ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

- 12 -

Hosting Department/Clinic (Circle the appropriate number: 1: Lowest rating, 5: Highest rating):

Hosting Department

Hosting Department

Usage/availability of Lab Facilities (e.g. space in the lab dedicated for students, equipment)

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Friendly and welcoming environment 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Supportive CING/CSMM Staff 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Supportive other CSMM Students hosted in the department/clinic/research team

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Teamwork 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Open Communication Channels 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Overall rating of my experience in the Department / Clinic 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Please state any other comments below: ..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

2. Do you think that your experience and knowledge acquired during your Thesis

Project will be important for your future career?

(Circle the appropriate answer)

Yes Partially No

3. Which were the positive and negative aspects of your experience in your Thesis

Project?

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

4. Do you have any other comments or suggestions pertaining to your Thesis Project?

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

..................................................................................................................................................................................... ………………………………….

- 13 -

Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine The Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics

6 Iroon Avenue, 2371 Ayios Dhometios, P.O. Box 23462, 1683 Nicosia, Cyprus Telephone CING: +357 22358600 | Telephone CSMM: +357 22392840 | E-mail: [email protected]

www.cing.ac.cy/csmm/

http://www.cing.ac.cy/csmm/

Date post:	05-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

REGULATIONS AND CODE OF PRACTICE FOR RESEARCH …

Documents