University of Zagreb

VR.08 Form for content evaluation of the doctoral study programme proposal

CLASS:
NUMBER:
VR.08 – FORM FOR CONTENT EVALUATION OF THE DOCTORAL STUDY PROGRAMME PROPOSAL
Reviewer information
First name and last name, title / Institution, country
Reviewer:
1.  General information
1.1. Name of the proposed study programme
1.2. Study programme provider
1.3. Implementer(s) of the study programme
2. Introduction – general information on the study programme
2.1. Are the reasons proposed for starting the doctoral study programme justified?
Yes No / Explanation:
2.2. Is the proposed doctoral study programme useful concerning scientific, technological and cultural needs?
Yes No I cannot determine / Explanation:
2.3. Is the proposed doctoral study programme useful concerning the possibilities of social and economic development?
Yes No I cannot determine / Explanation:
2.4. Is the proposed doctoral study programme based on competitive science/artistic research and competences?
Yes No / Explanation:
2.5. Is the proposed doctoral study programme innovative, that is, does it result in the creation of new and relevant knowledge or artistic practices?
Yes No / Explanation:
2.6. Do the proposers of the doctoral study programme have experience in conducting postgraduate doctoral studies, and are they internationally recognized in their scientific or artistic research, or artistic practice?
Yes No / Explanation:
3. Curriculum of the doctoral study programme
3.1. Is the proposed structure of the doctoral study programme functional?
Yes No / Explanation:
3.2. Is the central component of the proposed doctoral study programme scientific (or artistic) research and creation?
Yes No / Explanation:
3.3. Is the proposed doctoral study programme at the level of the most recent scientific insights, and knowledge and skills based on them?
Yes No / Explanation:
3.4. Is the proposed doctoral study programme comparable to programmes of renowned foreign institutions of higher education?
Yes No / Explanation:
3.5. Does the proposed curriculum facilitate acquisition of knowledge, experiences and skills that will allow doctoral students to solve complex scientific, social, cultural or economic problems?
Yes No / Explanation:
3.6. Does the proposed study programme ensure the training of doctoral students for independent, research-based and interdisciplinary approach to problems, for independent research, and for a critical evaluation of the work of others?
Yes No / Explanation:
3.7. Does the proposed study programme allow doctoral students to acquire job competences, including generic and transferable skills, which increase their future employability?
Yes No / Explanation:
3.8. Is the proposed doctoral study programme open to establishing research cooperation with other institutions of higher education, research institutes and private and public sectors?
Yes No / Explanation:
3.9. Does the proposed doctoral study programme adhere to recommendations by European and international professional organizations (if such exist)?
Yes No / Explanation:
3.10. Are the proposed methods of instruction adequate for a doctoral programme?
Yes No
3.11. Do you have any objections to the content of the courses proposed and the required literature?
Yes No / Explanation:
3.12. Are the courses and teaching modules mutually linked (coherent)?
Yes No / Explanation:
3.13. Is the ratio between teaching load and scientific/artistic research in the proposed doctoral study appropriate?
Yes No / Explanation:
3.14. Is the proposed doctoral study programme well designed as a whole?
Yes No / Explanation:
4. Teaching and scientific conditions for implementation of the doctoral study
4.1. Do the proposed teachers and researchers have adequate competences for implementing the programme? How would you evaluate their scientific/artistic output in the last five years according to international criteria in the given field?
Yes No / Explanation:
5. Monitoring the quality of the doctoral study
5.1. Do the procedures for monitoring and improving quality ensure the realization of the goals set by the proposed programme?
Yes No / Explanation
Concluding recommendation of the reviewer
Accept the proposed study programme without additional changes.
Accept the proposed study programme with minor changes recommended by the reviewer.
Minor changes required:
The proposed study programme may be reconsidered after major changes have been made meeting objections by the reviewers.
Required major changes:
The proposed study programme is to be rejected.
Reasons for rejecting the proposed study programme:
Note (as needed)
PLACE, DATE AND SIGNATURE OF REVIEWER
Place and date: First name and last name of reviewer:
______

VR.08 Form for content evaluation of the doctoral study programme proposal—to be filled in by reviewer

University of Zagreb, Trg Republike Hrvatske 14, Zagreb; Tel: 4564-111, Fax: 4830-602, Web: www.unizg.hr