Review types explained
RD4 tests the proposal; RD5 tests work against the award standard; RD6 reflects on your progress, development and support. Their names come from the forms recording them.
| Review | What you prepare | What the review is for |
|---|---|---|
| RD4 proposal review | Completed formal proposal proforma | Check feasibility, resources, risks and support; agree RD5 expectations |
| RD5 confirmation review | Original work plus a detailed plan for the remaining degree | Assess whether you are working at the level of your target award |
| RD6 reflective review | Personal reflection on progress and experience | Understand your development and agree realistic support |
The process
- Prepare and circulate your work at least one week before the meeting.
- Meet the supervisory team and Independent Panel Chair, who chairs the review.
- Staff complete the review form recording discussion and recommendations.
- The School RDC considers the recommendations for approval.
The Director of Studies arranges the meeting and ensures the required paperwork is submitted. The framework’s general section assigns report completion to the IPC, while its RD4 section specifically assigns completion/submission to the DoS: staff should coordinate, not leave the student to resolve that wording.
Each review includes private discussion between IPC and student and between IPC and supervisors, followed by reconvening. The format must be explained in advance and consider your needs; discuss adjustments. Uploading review work to Turnitin is described as good practice, not a universal new mandatory submission rule.
Exception: PhD by Published Works has no RD4 or RD5; RD6 still applies. See RD4 and RD5 deadlines and RD6 reflective review.
Sources: Framework §§4.2–4.5, pp. 39–45. Read the source.