Skip to main content University of Leeds homepage
Students home page

Postgraduate Research Annual Progress Reviews: Procedure

The Annual Progress Review helps postgraduate researchers reflect on their progress, identify support needs, and plan next steps toward successful thesis completion.

Scope

1. The arrangements described in this procedure relate to the annual progression processes for Postgraduate Research degree programmes and are aimed at postgraduate researchers and staff.

Purpose

2. Annual Progress Reviews (APRs) are a key element of the University’s procedural framework for the progression of Postgraduate Researchers as set out in the Code of Practice for Research Degree Candidatures: 

  • ‘Annually thereafter, there must be a meeting to review progress and a report of the meeting submitted. There are two models for the Annual Progress Review meeting. Model A involves a meeting between the PGR, supervisor and an individual independent of the supervisory team and Model B involves a meeting between the PGR and their supervisor, with independent oversight of the report arising from the meeting by a committee or equivalent body. Whichever model is adopted by the Faculty, a summary of annual review reports must be considered by the Faculty Graduate School Committee.’

3. They provide a structured opportunity to review a PGR's progress with input from individuals independent of the supervisory team. The process is intended to be developmental and supportive, enabling reflection on progress to date and the planning of next steps towards successful completion of the thesis. APR requirements should be proportionate and should not place an unnecessary burden on PGRs or detract from their research and thesis-writing activities.

Benefits of the APR include:

  • Supporting timely and successful completion of research degrees.
  • Promoting a consistent and equitable experience for PGRs across the University.
  • Providing an opportunity to identify and address concerns at an early stage.
  • Encouraging constructive reflection and forward planning.
  • Ensuring appropriate oversight of PGR progress and support needs.

Policies and documentation

4. PGR Annual Progress Reviews are carried out within a University governance framework which includes:

  • The Code of Practice for Research Degree Candidatures: This sets out the University’s quality assurance procedures for research degrees.  It includes formal progression monitoring milestones, including the Annual Progress Reviews process.
  • Programme of Study: Each research degree has a Programme of Study. This includes the timescales and expectations for the progression processes.  

5. The Graduate Board has delegated authority to the Progression and Examinations Group to implement University policy and procedures for the progression of research degree candidates, which includes the Annual Progress Reviews. The Group conducts regular reviews of procedures and all documentation associated with the progression and assessment of research degree candidates, including the procedure as set out in this document. 

6. Supporting guidance for staff on Annual Progress Review is provided by Doctoral College Operations and published on the Doctoral College SharePoint.

7. Supporting guidance for PGRs on Annual Progress Review is provided by Doctoral College Operations and published on the Doctoral College website. Faculties will provide PGRs with specific information about the material required for submission for the APR.

Principles

8. APRs should take place each year on or before the anniversary of the start date, until submission of the thesis.  For PGRs studying for doctoral awards, APRs should start after the transfer stage.

9. The PGR must provide a written, as defined by the Faculty, which may include a synopsis of the work already carried out, a sample chapter and other written or experimental work, along with: 

  • A planned schedule for completion of the thesis (e.g. a Gantt chart) 
  • Training Plan and record of training undertaken 
  • Information relating to ethics review 
  • Data Management Plan 
  • PGR-Supervisor Agreement

10. There are two models for Annual Progress Reviews. The PGR’s submission will be reviewed in accordance with the Model adopted by the Faculty for APRs:

  • Model A: Review by an Independent Assessor: Includes an APR meeting between the supervisor(s), PGR and an individual independent of the supervisory team.  
  • Model B: Review by the Supervisor with independent oversight: Includes an APR meeting between the supervisor(s) and the PGR – with oversight of the report emerging from that review by a Research Degrees Committee (or equivalent body, such as a sub-group of the FGSC or a School PGR Committee).

11. After the APR meeting, the Independent Assessor (Model A) or Supervisor (Model B) is required to complete a report. 

  • For Model A — Once the Independent Assessor has submitted the report, the process is complete and the report will be available to PGR and their Supervisors.
  • For Model B — The report must be considered on behalf of the Research Degrees Committee (or equivalent body), after which the APR is complete. At that point, the report will be available to PGR and their Supervisors.

12. Whichever model of Annual Progress Reviews is adopted by the Faculty, a summary of annual review reports must be considered by the Faculty Graduate School Committee.  

13. There is no requirement for a PGR to “pass” an Annual Progress Monitoring review to proceed to the next year of study. The University’s Progress Support Process (PSP) should be initiated in those cases where lack of progress is causing significant concern.  

14. For PGRs who are on suspension of study, at the point the APR is due, the APR should be postponed. It should then normally take place one or two months after return to study. The requirements for submission of work for the APR should be adjusted accordingly.  

15. In those cases where a PGR has been granted a short extension to the deadline for the submission of their thesis, an APR is not normally required in the final year if the supervisor(s) is confident that the PGR is on track to submit their thesis by the revised maximum time limit.   If, however, a further extension of study is anticipated, then an APR should be held. 

16. An APR would not normally be held whilst the PGR is within the Progress Support Process.

17. Where a PGR is receiving support from Disability Services, there should be consideration of any reasonable adjustments that may need to be made to the APR.

18. Re-registration for the next year of study is not dependent on the APR taking place and should be completed at the required time.  

19. Attendance at an annual review meeting is regarded as a contact point for attendance monitoring but does not replace the formal supervision meetings.

Roles and responsibilities

Role of the supervisor

20. For Model A, the role of the Supervisor includes:

  • ensuring that arrangements are made for the annual progress review within the timescale prescribed by the University;
  • identifying individuals to serve as the independent assessor 
  • completing the Supervisor annual progress review workflow prior to the annual progress meeting;
  • attending the annual progress review meeting with the PGR and independent assessor.

The supervisor(s) may ask questions of the PGR at the annual progress review meeting but should refrain from answering questions on behalf of the PGR.

21. For Model A, the PGR and the supervisor(s) should each be offered the opportunity to feedback to the Independent Assessor in the absence of the other party at the end of the meeting. 

22. For Model B, the role of the Supervisor includes:

  • ensuring that arrangements are made for the annual progress review within the timescale prescribed by the University;
  • conducting the annual progress review meeting with the PGR;
  • completing the annual progress review workflow after the meeting;
  • ensuring any concerns with progress are documented in the annual progress review report and, where appropriate.
  • reminding the PGR of the opportunity to meet with the Director of PGR Studies or Head of School, in the absence of the supervisors, to review progress, or to draw to their attention to any matters of concern.   

23. Whichever model of APR is used by the Faculty, if the supervisor has concerns about a PGR’s progress or engagement they are encouraged to raise this with the PGR and the Director of PGR Studies (DPGRS) at the earliest opportunity. Where appropriate the DPGRS may consider instigation of the Progress Support Process (PSP). 

Role of the Independent Assessor (Model A)

24. For Model A, the role of the Independent Assessor includes:

  • conducting the annual progress review meeting with the PGR;
  • completing the annual progress review workflow in GRAD after the meeting;
  • ensuring any concerns with progress are documented in the annual progress review report.

25. For Model A APRs, it is not necessary for the individual, independent of the supervisory team, to be an academic expert in the field of study.  It is acceptable for the supervisor to evaluate the academic work and the independent assessor (non-expert) to review the academic progress.  

Role of the Committee (Model B)

26. All Model B APR reports must be independently reviewed after the meeting between the PGR and the Supervisor by the Research Degrees Committee (or equivalent body). In practice, this will normally be undertaken by the Director of PGR Studies via Chair’s Action on behalf of the body as specified in the Code of Practice. 

27. It is expected that the Director of PGR Studies (or independent reviewer), on behalf of the relevant Committee/body will:

  • Maintain oversight of the Annual Review process within the Faculty/School.
  • Consider the content of each Annual Review report to ensure that it is clear and unambiguous and addresses the points required by the University/Faculty. Where appropriate reports will be referred back to the supervisor(s) for clarification.
  • Monitor the progress of individual PGRs.
  • Ensure parity of experience for PGRs.
  • Where progress is not satisfactory or significant issues have been raised to ensure that appropriate action has been/will be taken promptly and that any support is put in place. This may include instigation of the Progress Support Process.
  • With the support of the Graduate School, record any feedback from the independent review of the APR in GRAD so that this is available to the PGR and their Supervisors.
  • Identify any general themes emerging from the reports and to refer these to the relevant University/Faculty/School body. 

Role of the Director of PGR Studies 

28.  Directors of PGR Studies (DPGRSs) play an important role in the oversight of APRs and any resulting follow-up actions. Their responsibilities include:

  • For Model B, providing independent oversight of the report on behalf of the relevant committee.
  • Taking appropriate action where concerns are raised by the PGR, supervisor, or independent assessor. This may include initiating the Progress Support Process (PSP).
  • Identify any general themes emerging from the reports and to refer these to the relevant University/Faculty/School body. 
  • Ensuring that all PGRs are offered the opportunity, at least once each year, to meet in the absence of their supervisors.

Role of the Faculty Graduate School Committee 

29. As outlined in the Code of Practice for Research Degree Candidatures, whichever model of Annual Progress Reviews is adopted by the Faculty a summary of annual review reports must be considered by the Faculty Graduate School Committee.   

Document control

  • Procedure Title: Annual Progress Reviews for Postgraduate Researchers
  • Date Approved: August 2026
  • Approving Body: Progression and Examinations Group 
  • Implementation Date: 2026/27
  • Version: 1.0 
  • Supersedes N/A 
  • Next Review Date: July 2028 (unless required earlier)
  • Owner: Progression and Examinations Group 
  • Lead Contact: Doctoral College Operations
Studies