At the beginning of the first year, each student admitted to the PhD programme is required to present their research project to the Board. The project must be framed within a broad thematic area and supported by the most up-to-date bibliography relevant to the scientific field of study. The project shall be approved by the Board of Faculty Members following an in-depth discussion of its general objectives and methodological aspects.
After the presentation and discussion of the research project, each student is assigned to one of the methodological panels identified among the Board members. Each methodological panel, which may include external experts approved by the Board plenary, is responsible for examining in detail all aspects related to samples, data, and analytical techniques, providing continuous support to the student and annually assessing the progress of the research activities and the above-mentioned aspects.
Admission to the second year is decided by the Board of Faculty Members after the student’s presentation, the review of Sections 1 and 2 of the Evaluation Form, and the completion of Section 3 (Evaluation of the Board Plenary).
Admission to the third year is decided by the plenary of the Board of Faculty Members following the student’s presentation, the assessment of Sections 1 and 2, and the completion of Section 3 (Evaluation of the Board Plenary).
During the third year, each student again interacts with and is evaluated by their designated methodological panel, which updates and supplements Section 1 (Evaluation of the Methodological Panel/s) and oversees the completion of Section 2 (Self-Evaluation). The student submits the documentation to the Board and presents the progress of their research activities by the end of the third year.
On this occasion, each student presents the final results of their research and the structure of the doctoral thesis, illustrating which aspects of the initial research project have been successfully achieved.
Final Examination
Admission to the final examination is decided by the Board of Faculty Members following the student’s presentation, the evaluation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Evaluation Form, and the completion of Section 3. Admission of doctoral theses to the final evaluation by external reviewers and subsequently by the Examination Committee is subject to the fulfilment of the following requirements:
a) An original scientific paper authored as first author, bearing affiliation to the PhD Programme, published, accepted for publication, or in press in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Only in exceptional cases may the Board of Faculty Members grant an exemption from this requirement;
b) Final presentation and discussion of the doctoral thesis before the Board of Faculty Members;
c) Positive final evaluation by the Board of Faculty Members, based on the quality of the candidate’s oral and written presentation and on the scientific output produced during the doctoral programme;
d) Positive evaluations by two external reviewers.
The doctoral thesis, together with a written report by the doctoral candidate describing the activities carried out during the PhD programme and any publications (which may be written in a foreign language), shall be evaluated by at least two highly qualified reviewers, who may also be affiliated with foreign institutions. The reviewers must not be members of the Board of Faculty Members, the University, or Universities or Research Institutions associated with the PhD Programme. The reviewers are appointed by the Board of Faculty Members. In the case of cotutelle theses or theses submitted for the European PhD Label, the reviewers may coincide with the supervisors from the partner foreign institutions.
The two reviewers shall submit to the Board of Faculty Members a written analytical report proposing either admission or non-admission of the candidate to the public defence, or a postponement of up to six months if significant revisions or additions to the thesis are deemed necessary.
In the event of postponement, once the six-month period has elapsed, the thesis may nevertheless be admitted to the public defence, provided that it is accompanied by a new written evaluation by the same reviewers, reflecting the corrections or additions made.
At the conclusion of the public defence, the thesis shall be either approved or rejected by the Examination Committee through a reasoned collective judgement.
By unanimous vote, the Examination Committee may award distinction (lode) in the presence of results of outstanding scientific significance.
The thesis must be submitted in PDF format to the PhD Programme Coordinator, who will communicate the submission deadline and forward the thesis to the two reviewers. Once the reviewers’ reports have been received, the Coordinator shall convene the Board of Faculty Members to decide on admission to the final examination in the case of a positive evaluation, or on postponement for a maximum of six months if revisions or corrections are required.
The Coordinator shall organise the final examination, which must take place within six months of the end of the PhD programme.
In the event of non-admission to the final examination, the Board of Faculty Members may propose termination from the PhD programme.
Following approval by the Board, the PhD Programme Coordinator—who oversees the organisation of the final examination—shall inform the doctoral candidates of the procedures for submitting the thesis to the members of the Examination Committee (three copies for the Committee members and one for the Coordinator if not serving on the Committee), as well as the names of the Examination Committee members, their postal addresses, and the date and location of the examination.
The thesis may be uploaded to the system only once; therefore, the definitive version corresponding to that positively evaluated by the reviewers and approved by the Board of Faculty Members must be submitted.