During the Doctoral Program, a systematic procedure is implemented to monitor the processes and outcomes related to the doctoral candidates’ teaching, research, and third-mission activities.

The Supervisory Committee plays a central role in overseeing the activities of doctoral candidates. They serve as the primary point of reference for the doctoral student within the program. The Supervisory Committee is responsible for supervising and guiding doctoral candidates throughout their research journey and is composed of at least three experts in the student’s specific research field: the main supervisor, the co-supervisor, and an independent member. One or more members of the Supervisory Committee are also members of the Program’s Faculty Board.

The Supervisory Committee works together with doctoral candidates to establish research objectives, define a work plan, and evaluate the results achieved. During periodic meetings with the students, the Supervisory Committee provides feedback and support to guide them in their research journey and ensure they meet their set goals.

Specifically, the Supervisory Committee:

(a) guides the student in identifying a research project that aligns with their interests and is feasible within the doctoral program, supporting them in defining the appropriate steps to develop it;

(b) assists the student in identifying their training needs and in designing a study plan that facilitates the acquisition and consolidation of the skills necessary to carry out the research project and address any existing knowledge gaps.

In general, the procedure for progressing from one year of the program to the next involves the following steps:

(a) the student presents their research activities to their Supervisory Committee during a seminar and an in-depth meeting held between August and September;

(b) the members of the Supervisory Committee, as well as the doctoral candidates, complete (separately) the Portfolio, in which they are asked to summarize and evaluate the work carried out during the year and provide feedback on the supervision process.

Attached you will find the 2025 Portfolio form. For 2026, however, a dedicated online form has been created that includes updated information. The student completes the form and uploads the research project in PDF format within it. The form also requires the student to confirm that all research outputs, including conference presentations, have been uploaded to IRIS. If a period abroad has already been organized, the student must also provide information about the host institution and the supervisor at that institution.

Once completed, the student generates the PDF output of the form and sends both the research project and this PDF to all members of their Supervisory Committee. The Supervisory Committee then completes its own form with evaluations and attaches the project as well. For students progressing to the second year, the Committee will also be asked to assess whether the minimum methodological skills listed in the methodological guide have been acquired. Finally, the Supervisory Committee generates the PDF output of their evaluation and shares it with the student, the Doctoral Office, and the Coordinator of the Doctoral Program.

During these year-to-year transitions, the Supervisory Committees evaluate the progress of doctoral candidates by reviewing their academic and research trajectory, including periods of research abroad, participation in conferences, and scientific output.

Admission to the second or third year is based on the assessment of the following aspects:

(a) the structure of the research project and any partial or final results, as presented in the student’s submitted Portfolio and/or during the end-of-year seminar/interview;

(b) regular attendance and successful completion of courses;

(c) any presentations at conferences or workshops and publications in scientific journals;

(d) any supplementary activities (outreach, teaching, event organization, etc.);

(e) participation in training activities not included in the study plan;

(f) completion of all doctoral program requirements for the first or second year.

The activities of the Supervisory Committees are themselves subject to review by the Executive Committee of the Program. This review involves analyzing the Portfolio and evaluating the feedback provided by all parties involved to ensure the adequacy of supervision and the overall effectiveness of the doctoral program. Through this analysis, the Executive Committee ensures that supervision is appropriate and that students are achieving the objectives set for each year of the program.

The year-to-year progression must then be approved by the Faculty Board as a whole. The Board may decide to approve admission to the next year, approve admission with conditions, or deny admission to the next year.

----------------------------------

Admission to the second year of the program is decided by the Faculty Board based on an evaluation provided by the Supervisory Committee. This evaluation is formulated on the basis of the following elements:

• successful completion of the training activities scheduled for the first year of the program, as described in the Study Plan;
• assessment of the Research Report, which describes the research project and the activities carried out, as well as the corresponding interview;
• evaluation form completed by the first-year supervisor regarding the achievement of the training objectives;
• publications and presentations at conferences or workshops;
• any participation in training activities not included in the Study Plan;
• acquisition of the minimum methodological and statistical skills listed in the Methodological Guide (for further details, please contact Massimo Stella).

Based on this evaluation, the Supervisory Committee may propose one of the following outcomes:

• admission to the second year
• admission to the second year with conditions
• non-admission to the second year

----------------------------------

Admission to the third year of the program is decided by the Faculty Board based on an evaluation provided by the Supervisory Committee, which is formulated on the basis of the following elements:

• successful completion of the training activities scheduled in the study plan for the second year;
• assessment of the progress of the research project, verified through a public presentation (Open Seminar: presentation + Q&A) and a meeting with the doctoral candidate, during which strengths and any critical issues are discussed. The meeting will also cover the planned actions for the third year, including their timeline and any expected outputs/results. These actions may concern research activities in the strict sense, as well as other activities aligned with the doctoral program’s training objectives;
• any presentations (at conferences or workshops) and/or publications;
• participation in additional training activities not included in the study plan;
• the evaluation form completed by the second-year supervisor regarding the achievement of training objectives.

Based on this evaluation, the Supervisory Committee may propose one of the following outcomes:

• admission to the third year
• admission to the third year with conditions
• non-admission to the third year

Instructions for Portfolio Submission and Supervisory Committee Evaluation

1. Portfolio submission by the student

The portfolio must be submitted through a Google Form.

Portfolio for the admission to the 2^nd year
Portfolio for the admission to the 23^rd year

The student must:

1. Complete the Google Form.
2. Attach the project in PDF format within the form.
3. Confirm in the form that all research outputs have been entered in IRIS, including any conference presentations.
4. If a period abroad has already been arranged, provide the required information, including:
   
   • the host institution;
   • the supervisor or contact person at the host institution;
   • any additional details requested in the form.

After completing the form, the student must generate the PDF of the completed form, that is, the final output PDF produced after submission.

The student must then send the following documents to all members of their Supervisory Committee (SC):

• the project PDF;
• the PDF output of the completed Google Form.

---

2. Evaluation by the Supervisory Committee

The Supervisory Committee must complete a separate Google Form for the evaluation.

The SC must:

1. Complete the evaluation form.
2. Attach the student’s project in PDF format.
3. Provide the evaluations required in the form.

During the first year, the SC is also required to assess whether the PhD student has achieved a set of minimum methodological and statistical competences.

These competences will be listed in the Methodological Guide. For further details, please contact Massimo Stella.

They are basic skills that all PhD students are expected to acquire, regardless of whether they will use them directly in their own research work.

---

3. Final sharing of the evaluation

Once the evaluation form has been completed, the Supervisory Committee must generate the PDF output of its evaluation.

This final evaluation PDF must be shared with:

• the student;
• the PhD Office;
• the PhD Programme Coordinator.