Keeping on track

Useful information for current PhD candidates
Training and supervision
Radboudumc training regulation
Courses for competencies
Scientific integrity
PhD mentor

Other phases

for starting your PhD
for completing your PhD

Keeping on trackTraining and supervision


Keeping on track

You have probably realized that time passes surprisingly quickly when doing your PhD. We recommend that you think about your progress and objectives for the coming year. This will help you keep on track.

read more

Keeping on track

Important questions

  • Is your PhD progressing as you had expected?
  • How would you assess the interaction and communication between yourself and your (co)supervisor(s)?

In light of these two questions, the following example points may be raised

  • Reflection on expectations from the PhD project and from the supervisor(s)
  • Reflection on end-of-year assessment [jaargesprek] with supervisor
  • Reflection on personal ambition & interests
  • Combination work and personal life
  • Future career plans
  • Reflection on achievements in last year
  • Reflection on personal strengths and weaknesses (knowledge gaps, specific interests)
  • Elective courses and workshops followed to date. Outcome & relevance e.g. in the light of improving weaknesses, technical expertise, future plans etc
  • Reflection on Timeline for writing thesis: thesis chapter ideas > chapter titles > start writing.
  • Foreseen difficulties
  • Update Training and Supervision Plan


Training & Supervision downloads

PhD candidates of RIHS and RIMLS can submit the following forms: DCMN PhD candidates can download the TSP format from the Donders Graduate School intranet pages (z number inlog).

Useful documents



Scientific Integrity: guidelines for publication and authorship

The 'Guidelines for publication and authorship' set the standard for the eligibility for authorship, and determine which order of authorship is the most appropriate. In his/her department, the head of department is responsible for creating a climate in which authorship and order of authorship comply with the basic principles of these guidelines.

See the full text of the document here.

Please pay attention to the fact that you cannot be member of a Doctoral Thesis Committee if you are co-author of an article that is part of the thesis of this PhD candidate

Radboudumc training regulation


Radboudumc training regulation

as set forth in Article 17.4 UMC of the CLA for researchers in training

read more

Radboudumc training regulation

March 2016

as set forth in Article 17.4 UMC of the CLA for researchers in training


  • ln this regulation, the terms below shall be defined as follows:

    1. Radboud university medical center: the university medical center that operates as an independent subsidiary (without legal personality) of Stichting Katholieke Universiteit (SKU) in Nijmegen.
    2. Director: the director of the Radboud university medical center's research institute with which the Graduate School is affiliated.
    3. Training and Supervision Committee: the Training and Supervision Committee referred to in Article 5 of this regulation.
    4. Researcher in training: the employee seeking to obtain a doctorate and employed to this end by Radboud university medical center, as described in Article !7 .3 (2) of the university medical center's CLA.
    5. Doctoral thesis supervisor a professor or professors appointed to play a supervisory role, pursuant to the Doctorate Regulations of Radboud University.
    6. Doctorol thesis co-supervisor: an individual holding a doctoral degree who is involved in the preparation of a dissertation, pursuant to Article 6 of Radboud University's Doctoral Degree Regulations.
    7. Daily supervisor a postdoctoral researcher tasked with supervising the researcher in training on a daily basis. This may be the doctoral thesis (co)-supervisor .
    8. Mentor: the individual with whom the researcher in training can consult for questions about non-content aspects of the training.

Courses for competencies


Core competencies for PhD candidates and postdocs

Young researchers are the future scientists solving medical healthcare problems of tomorrow. Radboudumc has defined a set of core competencies for PhD and postdoc candidates as a guideline for professional career development.

read more

Core competencies for PhD candidates and postdocs

During their training, PhD and postdoc candidates are expected to become independent researchers skilled in (financial) project management, policy/decision making and management. These types of transferable skills stand candidates in good stead not just for an academic career but also for the professional job market beyond the university setting. 

Self-assessment tool

Collectively the university medical centres designed a competence model as a self-assessment tool to help you further develop yourself, and to recognize acquired competences.

PhD Compentence Model: Link
 

Types of core compencies

  • Research skills and knowledge
  • Responsible conduct of science
  • Personal effectiveness
  • Professional development
  • Leadership and management
  • Communication
  • Teaching
  • Radboud specific
For each type of compencies we offer a number of courses if you feel that you use some extra training to enhance these skills.

Courses for competencies and transferable skills

Have a look at the courses on offer for PhD candidates at Radboudumc.

read more

Scientific integrity


The backbone of research

Radboudumc believes scientific integrity is the basis of science itself. Scientific results are useless when their validity or sources are questionable.

read more

The backbone of research

"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful.", - Dr. Samuel Johnson, English writer 1709-1784

Integrity without knowledge is weak Scientific integrity is the backbone of research. Integrity is breached if, e.g., research data are falsified or manipulated, if the researcher intentionally misleads colleagues or other stakeholders, or if Intellectual Property Rights are exploited improperly. But a breach of integrity may be much more subtle than this. Researchers within Radboudumc are responsible for keeping up a high standard of integrity, and consequently the reputation of  the Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, the Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, the Donders Institute, Radboud University and Radboudumc.

To this end, several reports and guidelines have been issued. The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice by the Association of Dutch Universities (VSNU) was adopted by Radboud University and Radboudumc (available in Dutch and English).

The Federa (Federation of Dutch Medical  Scientific Societies) COREON ('COmmissie REgelgeving ONderzoek') developed the Code for Proper Secondary Use of Human Tissue and the Code of Conduct for the Use of Data in Health  Research.

The Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences (KNAW) installed the Netherlands Board on Scientific Integrity (LOWI) which serves as an advisory panel for Executive Boards of universities where suspected breaches in integrity have occurred.

To evaluate suspected breaches, Radboud University itself issued a special regulation on scientific integrity (available in Dutch and English). The present regulations apply both to any research performed at Radboud University and to any scientific research performed at Radboudumc.

Claims of a suspected breach of integrity can be discussed with a confidant. Prof. Gerhard Zielhuis, Prof. Dorine Swinkels and Prof. Hannie Kremer function as confidential advisors scientific integrity. PhD candidates can also choose to contact their mentor.

Principals of good scientific practice

Although dishonesty in science cannot be fully prevented through sets of rules alone, appropriate precautions can nevertheless guarantee that all those involved in scientific activity are regularly made aware of the standards of good scientific practice.

read more

Principals of good scientific practice

The principles of good scientific practice can be violated in many ways - from a lack of care in the application of scientific methods or in documenting data, to serious scientific misconduct through deliberate falsification or deceit. All such violations are irreconcilable with the essence of science itself as a methodical, systematic process of research aimed at gaining knowledge based on verifiable results. Although dishonesty in science cannot be fully prevented through sets of rules alone, appropriate precautions can nevertheless guarantee that all those involved in scientific activity are regularly made aware of the standards of good scientific practice.

Excellence

The Radboudumc and its researchers should strive for excellence when conducting research and aim to produce and disseminate work of the highest quality.

Honesty

The Radboudumc aims to create and maintain a culture of research that fosters and supports honesty in research. Scientists should be honest in relation to their own research and that of others. They should do their utmost to ensure the accuracy of data and results, acknowledge the contributions of others, and neither engage in misconduct nor conceal it.

Integrity

The Radboudumc and its scientists must comply with all legal and ethical requirements relevant to their field of study. They should declare any potential or actual conflicts of interest relating to research and where necessary take steps to resolve them.

Co-operation

The Radboudumc and its scientists should promote the open exchange of ideas, research methods, data and results and their discussion, scrutiny and debate, subject to any considerations of confidentiality.

Accountability

The Radboudumc and its scientists should recognise that in and through their work they are ultimately accountable to the general public and should act accordingly. They should ensure that any research undertaken complies with any agreements, terms and conditions relating to the project, and allows for proper governance and transparency.

Training and skills

The Radboudumc should provide training and opportunities for development for its researchers, and the necessary resources to enable them to conduct research to the required standards. The Radboudumc should support scientists in identifying unmet needs for training and development. Scientists should ensure that they have the necessary skills, training and resources to carry out research, in the proposed research team or through collaboration with specialists in relevant fields, and report and resolve any unmet needs identified.

Safety

The Radboudumc and its scientists should ensure the dignity, rights, safety and wellbeing of all involved in research and avoid unreasonable risk or harm to research subjects, patients, participants, researchers and others. They should report and address any concerns relating to the dignity, rights, safety and well-being of those involved in research. Research should be initiated and continued only if the anticipated benefits justify the risks involved.

General statement regarding misconduct in research

Any misconduct in research conducted at Radboudumc is unacceptable and should be reported to the contact person for scientific integrity issues. Scientists who are found to have committed misconduct in research will be subject to disciplinary proceedings. Scientists who are found not to have committed misconduct will be supported and appropriate steps taken to restore their reputation and that of any relevant research project.
 

Research code Radboudumc

Ten core qualities of research integrity. download code

Contact persons

Radboudumc has appointed three experienced scientists, as contact persons in the case of suspicion of scientific misconduct or related matters. see contact persons

PhD mentor


PhD mentor a quick guide

A mentor should be an associate or full professor from the Radboudumc, who does not work in the same department as the PhD candidate and who is not involved in the PhD project.

read more

PhD mentor a quick guide

The mentor will support and guide you as well as stimulate you to critically look at and reflect upon your learning objectives and outcomes. In the context of your personal and scientific development, your mentor should discuss career progress with regard to your specific goals (research and education), ambitions and interests. Your mentor can advise you regarding your choices for elective subjects and where necessary offer feedback on research project results, conclusions and ideas. Your mentor will also act as mediator should conflicts arise during any phase of your PhD. Confidentiality will be maintained at all times.

Also see institute specific information in the time line.


for candidates of RIHS and RIMLS

Tasks of the mentor

  1. Read the Training and Supervision Plan (TSP) at the start of the project, and comment on it if necessary at the first meeting between the candidate and the mentor.
  2. Have a meeting with the PhD candidate once a year to discuss the progress of the project, both in terms of scientific output, as well as training (competences and skills).
  3. Read the updated TSP and comment on it if necessary during the yearly meeting with the candidate.
  4. Be available throughout the year for independent advice in case a problem arises between the candidate and the supervisor(s). Note: The RIMLS and RIHS institutes have appointed two experienced scientists, as contact persons in the case of suspicion of scientific misconduct or related matters.
Confidentiality will be maintained at all times.

Guidelines for PhD mentor meetings

Every year, the PhD candidate needs to arrange a progress meeting with his/her mentor. Progress and scientific output are discussed. The attendance of the PhD training program components will also be assessed.

Although the content of the meetings will depend on the candidate's needs, several subjects need to be discussed in the meetings. This will help the PhD candidate to make the right choices in his/her individual program. These choices are described in the (updated) Training and Supervision Plan which is signed as ‘seen’ by the mentor.

Important questions during mentor meeting

  1. Is your PhD progressing as you had expected?
  2. How would you assess the interaction and communication between yourself and your (co)supervisor(s)?

In light of these two questions, the following example points may be raised

  • Reflection on expectations from the PhD project and from the supervisor(s)
  • Reflection on end-of-year assessment [jaargesprek] with supervisor
  • Reflection on personal ambition & interests
    • Combination work and personal life
    • Future career plans
  • Reflection on achievements in last year
  • Reflection on personal strengths and weaknesses (knowledge gaps, specific interests)
    • Elective courses and workshops followed to date. Outcome & relevance e.g. in the light of improving weaknesses, technical expertise, future plans etc
  • Reflection on Timeline for writing thesis: thesis chapter ideas > chapter titles > start writing.
  • Foreseen difficulties
  • Update Training and Supervision Plan


for candidates of DCMN

text