The Mid-Candidature Review is a key milestone for graduate research students completing a PhD or a Master of Philosophy. It takes place during September and October in the year(s) following your initial enrolment, unless your Completion Review is scheduled around the same time.
What to expect from the review
The Mid-Candidature Review assesses your progress based on the quality and quantity of work completed so far and what is needed for timely submission of your thesis. It is also a chance to identify and resolve any issues, set clear goals with your supervisory panel, and reflect on your achievements. Many graduate research students underestimate their progress - this review helps you recognise how far you have come in both your research and professional development.
Whether you are actively enrolled or on approved leave, the review must be completed by all parties by 31 October.
Your re-enrolment and scholarship continuation (if applicable) depend on satisfactory progress over the past 12 months or since your last progress review.
Before starting the review form, meet with your supervisors and meet separately with your Graduate Research Coordinator to discuss your progress and any concerns. If you have experienced issues beyond your control that have affected your progress, document them in the review form. These may be considered if you apply for a future extension of candidature.
If your School has concerns about your progress, the review form is your opportunity to respond. The GRC can also organise a meeting with you and your supervisors to discuss your progress. You may bring a support person, such as an Education and Welfare Officer, to this and any follow-up meetings.
The online review form is usually available from mid-August and will be available via the Graduate research student forms page. Complete it as soon as possible once it is open, which will be communicated widely.
Key requirements
To complete the Mid-Candidature Review:
You must submit the online review form, evaluating your progress and setting goals for the next year
Your supervisor must then complete their relevant section before it goes to the GRC for recommendation
There are no requirements for a panel meeting or a presentation. You may be asked to complete other activities as required by the School or Institute to confirm your progress.
Before you start
Log in to myAdelaide and check:
- your personal details are up to date
- your supervisory panel is correctly listed, including roles and responsibilities
- your candidature details (e.g. research topic, attendance mode) are accurate and submit any changes to the Graduate Research School before starting the review.
Review process
Step 1 – Graduate Research Student
As soon as the Mid-Candidature Review Form is available, arrange a meeting with your supervisory panel, your Graduate Research Coordinator (GRC) and an independent expert, if applicable, to:
- review your progress during the previous 12 months or since your last progress review
- discuss and establish a research/work plan for the next 12 months
- discuss and establish GRIT milestones or goals for the next 12 months
- review your ethics/compliance, IP, resource and supervision needs
- identify any concerns/problems/grievances that may have interrupted/delayed your progress and their impact on your progress in terms of the number of research days lost.
If your GRC is on your supervisory panel, another senior academic will be nominated, such as the Dean of School, to attend the Mid-Candidature Review.
Complete the online form, certify it, and submit it to your Principal Supervisor.
Step 2 – Supervisors and School Approver Review
Your supervisory panel will assess your progress. Your Principal Supervisor will comment on your review and provide an assessment. They will nominate a School approver to authorise the review on behalf of the School.
Once the supervisor section is complete, the form goes to the School approver for review and certification. It will then be returned to you for final review.
Step 3 – Graduate Research Student Review
You will receive an email when the form is ready for your final review. You will be asked to acknowledge the School’s assessment and any conditions (if applicable).
If you disagree or have unresolved concerns, you can submit a confidential report to the Pro Vice Chancellor – Graduate Research Training. This report won’t be visible to your supervisors, your GRC or School.
Submit the final review to the Adelaide University Graduate Research School (AUGRS).
Tracking your review
It is your responsibility to track progress. After submitting your section, check the dashboard regularly to ensure timely approvals. If there is a delay, follow up with your supervisor or approver.
If you can’t meet the deadline, ask your Principal Supervisor to request an extension from the AUGRS before 31 October. Extensions are limited to one month.
Don’t assume others have submitted your review - confirm with your supervisor or GRC. You are responsible for ensuring it is submitted on time.
Review outcomes
Your School will assess your progress as:
- satisfactory
- satisfactory, with concerns
- unsatisfactory upgraded to satisfactory progress with concerns
- unsatisfactory progress: progress issues have not been resolved.
If you disagree with comments or have sensitive matters to raise, you can submit a confidential statement to the Pro Vice Chancellor – Graduate Research Training. This is not a formal complaint – it is a way to seek advice or support.
The Pro Vice Chancellor – Graduate Research Training checks that you have been advised of progress concerns and that any extenuating circumstances have been considered but does not re-evaluate academic judgement.
If your progress is unsatisfactory, a period of conditional enrolment is normally recommended. You will work with your School to set achievable milestones. At the end of this period, a further review will determine whether your conditional enrolment is lifted, transferred to the MPhil program (if applicable), or your candidature is terminated. Please refer to the detailed information on unsatisfactory progress provided in the Graduate Research Handbook.
