Keeping on track for current PhD candidates

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:

• TSP: registration form
• TSP: progress form
• Exit form
• Hora est Training and Supervision - Quick start supervisor guide
• Hora est Training and Supervision - Quick start user guide

DCMN PhD candidates can download the TSP format from the Donders Graduate School intranet pages (z number inlog).

Useful documents

• PhD SMART Objectives
• Guidelines for European credits

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

March 2016

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

• 1. Definitions

  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.

• 2. Scope

  This regulation applies to researchers in training, as referred to in Article 1 of this regulation. This regulation will also apply by analogy as far as possible to employees who are enrolled in a PhD track but are not employed by Radboud university medical center as researcher in training.

• 3. Doctorate Regulations of Radboud University

  The prevailing Doctorate Regulations and all associated guidelines shall apply during the PhD program.

• 4. Employment

  1. Based on Article 2.4.4 of the CLA, Radboud university medical center will offer the researcher in training a fixed employment contract for the duration of the PhD track.
  2. The duration of the PhD track as determined by the Training and Supervision Plan constitutes a maximum of four years based on full-time employment.
  3. lf the researcher in training receives pregnancy, maternity or parental leave during the PhD program, the program may be extended by the duration of the received leave period.
  4. The PhD track can be extended by up to six months in the event of illness lasting eight consecutive weeks or more. This extension will only be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe that it will contribute to the successful completion of the PhD track, as determined by the doctoral thesis supervisor.
  5. lf the PhD track is not completed within four years or after the extension period referred to in sections 3 and 4 of this Article, the program may be extended by up to one additional year. This extension is only possible on the recommendation of the doctoral thesis supervisor, based on a plan to complete the track as discussed by the researcher in training and the director. Such an extension will only be granted pending sufficient funding. The decision to extend the PhD track will be made by the director and documented in the Training and Supervision Plan which will also be determined by the director.

• 5. Training and Supervision Committee

  1. Each Graduate school at Radboud university medical center has their own Training and Supervision Committee.
  2. The Training & Supervision Committee is responsible for:
     1. advising the candidate about the proposed activities based on the candidate's resumé and the project description;
     2. approval and evaluating the Training and Supervision Plan for the researcher in training;
     3. appointing a mentor for the researcher in training;
     4. monitoring the progress of the PhD track and the quality of the supervision and advising the director as necessary.
  3. The director is responsible for the composition and operation of the Training and Supervision Committee.
  4. The Training and Supervision Committee reports all conclusions, recommendations and other matters to the director after each meeting.

• 6. Training and Supervision Plan

  1. Within three months of commencing employment, the researcher in training must draft a Training and Supervision Plan in consultation with the (daily) supervisor. This plan will be discussed with and finalized by the Training and Supervision Committee.
  2. The Training and Supervision Committee will discuss the plan twice during the PhD program (at the three month mark and the two year mark). lf necessary it will be revised.
  3. The Training and Supervision Plan template as established by the Radboud university medical center must be used.
  4. The Training and Supervision Plan must include the following:
     • the duration of the PhD track;
     • a brief description of the research project;
     • the doctoral thesis supervisor's name;
     • the mentor's name and tasks;
     • the daily supervisor acting on behalf of the researcher in training (i.e. the individual tasked with supervising and directing the researcher in training);
     • if the daily supervisor does not act as the doctoral thesis supervisor, the researcher in training must be given the opportunity to meet with the doctoral thesis supervisor at the start of the PhD track and during key moments of importance to the research progress at least twice a year to discuss the PhD research;
     • the knowledge and skills the researcher in training is expected to acquire and how these should be acquired;
     • the number of teaching hours the researcher in training will conduct;
     • the possibility of terminating the training prematurely;
     • the way the researcher in training is assessed and the criteria on which this assessment is based.
  5. The research mandate is at least 75% of the average number of working hours ascribed to the researcher in training. The research results will be incorporated in the dissertation. The researcher in training may also be expected to use his or her research results as the basis for scientific publications.
  6. Researchers in training shall devote no more than 25% of their annual working hours to teaching and education. ln general, years one and two will be reserved for following classes and years three and four will be reserved for teaching. Researchers in training must teach classes that align with their own research topic (e.g. by participating in classes offered by the daily supervisor or the department). This may include tutorials, seminars, laboratory work, practical/skills training sessions or colloquia. Researchers in training may also opt to supervise students during the dissertation process, provided the subject matter is in line with their own research topic.

• 7. Progress meetings and performance reviews

  1. During the training, progress meetings will be held with the doctoral thesis supervisor, the daily supervisor and the researcher in training. The frequency of these meetings will be determined in the Training and Supervision Plan.
  2. During the progress meetings, the doctoral thesis supervisor and the researcher in training shall discuss and document the topics referred to in Article 3.6.1.1 of the CLA at least once per year.
  3. Progress meetings will be held with the doctoral thesis supervisor, the daily supervisor and the researcher in training throughout the program. The first meeting will take place nine months after the start of employment.
  4. During these meetings, the doctoral thesis supervisor will evaluate the researcher in training based on the criteria outlined in the Training and Supervision Plan.
  5. The doctoral thesis supervisor and the daily supervisor will determine whether the researcher in training is capable of completing the training within the timeframe specified in the Training and Supervision Plan, taking into account any extensions as referred to in Article 4 of this regulation. Should the doctoral thesis supervisor find that the researcher in training is unable to complete the training in time, s/he will terminate the program prematurely. This will also terminate the employment contract, pursuant to the provisions outlined in Article 17.5 (1) of the CLA. Should the doctoral thesis supervisor reach this conclusion, s/he will document his or her findings in writing.

• 8. Mentor

  1. All researchers in training are assigned a mentor by the Training and Supervision Committee. Researchers in training may submit their preference for a mentor in advance to the Training and Supervision Committee. The mentor is responsible for:
     1. helping the researcher in training develop a critical attitude in terms of results and personal and scientific development during the PhD track;
     2. mediating between the researcher in training and the doctoral thesis supervisor/daily supervisor should disputes arise regarding the training, the supervision or the assessment.

• 9. Printing costs

  1. The researcher in training may be entitled to receive compensation for layout and printing costs.
  2. This compensation amounts to a maximum of €2200,-
  3. In order to qualify, the researcher in training must request compensation from the head of the department within three months of incurring the costs.
  4. The following documents must be submitted along with the compensation request:
     • the final invoice made out to Radboud university medical center, which specifies the layout and/or printing costs;
     • a statement signed by the registrar, confirming that s/he received the required number of dissertation copies.

• 10. Disputes

  1. Should a dispute arise between the researcher in training and the doctoral thesis supervisor regarding the training, the supervision or the assessment, both parties will first attempt to resolve the issue with the help of the mentor. lf no solution can be reached through mediation, the researcher in training can present the dispute to the director.
  2. After hearing both parties, the director will submit a substantiated decision in writing within four weeks of first hearing the dispute.
  3. The researcher in training may appeal the director's decision, as described in point 2 above, by submitting an objection to the Executive Committee in accordance with the procedure outlined in Article la.12 of the CLA.

• 11. Closing provisions

  1. This regulation shall enter into force at 1 March 2016 and will replace all previous regulations for researchers in training adopted by the Executive Committee or the departments.
  2. This regulation applies to all PhD tracks that commence after the date this regulation entered into force. Existing individual agreements will not be affected by this regulation.
  3. This regulation may also be applied on a voluntary basis to on-going PhD tracks.
  4. The doctoral thesis supervisor has the authority to decide on all issues not covered in this regulation or the individual training plan.
  5. This document is referred to as: Training regulation for researchers in training at Radboud university medical center.
  6. This regulation will be published on Radboud university medical center's intranet site. All of the officials mentioned in this regulation will receive a copy of this document upon appointment and a revised version as applicable.

• UMC CAO

  Radboudumc Training regulation is an addendum of the UMC CAO.

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.

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

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.
 

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