When preparing information on this subject, entities must remember that the evaluation team conducts the evaluation according to the following detailed evaluation criteria that are specified in §2.6 of the ordinance of the Polish Minister of Education and Science of 27 September 2021 on the evaluation of the quality of education at doctoral schools:

  1. the selection of criteria and objective rules for conducting the evaluation, and the accessibility and unequivocalness of such criteria and rules;
  2. the composition and competencies of the evaluation committee;
  3. the timeliness and methodology of the evaluation;
  4. the reliability of actions taken by entities to enhance the evaluation procedure.

Entities should comprehensively outline the system of midterm evaluation of students at their doctoral schools. Entities are required first to specify their understanding of the midterm evaluation instrument and to provide a general overview of the rules, criteria, and procedures applicable to the evaluation. Entities must also indicate when, to what extent, and how the information described above is made available to doctoral students and other interested individuals.

Reports must describe and justify the method of appointing committee members, indicating the size of the committee and the rules for its members’ selection, particularly those from outside the entity responsible for the doctoral school. It should also explain how the entity attests the competencies of the committee members.

Another aspect of the midterm evaluation process is the timeliness of evaluation. Reports should state whether all evaluations were conducted within the timeframe specified by law, and provide explanations in the case of deviations. They must also outline the measures taken by the evaluated entity to ensure transparency, impartiality, and objectivity in the midterm evaluation.

The method of communicating the results of the midterm evaluation (including an explanation of how the evaluated entity adheres to sentence two of Article 202(3) of the Act, mandating the public availability of the midterm evaluation results and their justification) must be described, as well as the procedure for handling objections to the results of the evaluation. Entities must provide information on the numbers and validity of appeals. It is also advisable that they summarise and compare the midterm evaluation processes during the years covered by the evaluation. This summary should describe the progress made by doctoral students in their individual research plans, provide an overall assessment of the success of the first half of the educational process, and project the effectiveness of education based on the evaluation.

Reports must specify how entities identify ineffective aspects of the midterm evaluation process and detail any measures taken to enhance it.

Entities should substantiate their information with quantitative data and appropriate commentaries, focusing on aspects such as the midterm evaluation results and objections to those results. Entities may provide other information that they deem relevant to the reliability of the midterm evaluation.

The entities’ descriptions should conclude with self-evaluations.

Internal regulations that pertain to the midterm evaluation prepared by relevant entities, such as evaluation rules and criteria, should be provided as suitably labelled PDF attachments. The files must be submitted in both the Polish and English languages.