Framework for Ensuring Consistency in Research Work

Background and aims

The aim of this framework is to:

• Ensure that all research staff have consistent guidelines on the extent and type of input they should provide for the Thesis Preparation Assignment (TPA) and the thesis.
• Ensure that each trainee is aware of the extent and type of help which they can expect.
• Make explicit the programme’s expectations in terms of the trainees’ development in research skills.

Under normal circumstances the below details the standard amount of input that can be provided by a supervisor. However, individual training plans (ITPs) may detail appropriate adjustments in the form of specific additional support to be provided to individual trainees.

NB It is up to trainees to decide whether or not to accept their supervisors’ advice and, whether or not they do, they must be able to defend and justify all decisions taken in relation to their work.

Level and type of input

Support for trainees with regard to the TPA and thesis come in three forms:

1. Supervision meetings and other contacts to discuss the work
2. Draft reads
3. Additional support from other sources (see learning structures outside formal teaching)

It should be noted that trainees need to take a lead in their thesis work, whilst being mindful that their academic supervisor often retains the role of chief investigator in their empirical research. This means that trainees should strike a balance between keeping supervisors informed regularly about the progress of their thesis work and checking out any significant decisions relating to the empirical work before implementing these, whilst ensuring that they also focus their requests for help and feedback where these are likely to of most benefit. Trainees are responsible for the quality of all submitted work.

Trainees are expected to complete and submit their thesis by the deadline established for their cohort and pathway (full time or part time) and to complete their viva voce examination and any required changes by the end of their employment contract. Exceptions to this should only be made in extraordinary circumstances.

1. Supervision meetings

NB meetings may take place in person, by phone or online. The kind of support and advice that can be provided in such meetings is detailed in appendix 1.

TPA

Once trainees are allocated a supervisor from the research team and begin work on their TPA assignment then they may expect to meet with their supervisor on up to a maximum of five occasions to discuss their choice of topic and progress on the assignment.

Thesis

• • A thesis contract / action plan meeting should take place between all supervisors and the trainee to establish responsibilities and working arrangements as early as possible following the submission of the TPA assignment, and ALWAYS before a submission for ethical approval is made.
  • The core of support from supervisors comes from monthly meetings of 30-60 minutes. Once the TPA assignment has been submitted, trainees should schedule such meetings en bloc to take place once per month through the life of the project with their primary supervisor (and others as appropriate). Specific meetings can subsequently be re-scheduled if necessary to take account of leave etc.
  • It is anticipated that these meetings will be supplemented on a few occasions during the life of the thesis work by other meetings with the supervisor(s) to consider specific issues such as data analysis. It is also anticipated that trainees will have email contact with supervisors when significant queries arise which cannot wait until the next supervision meetings.
  • Contact with the project supervisor(s) will be supplemented by attendance at peer supervision meetings scheduled into the teaching timetable where progress is reviewed and common issues arising from conducting the thesis can be addressed.

2. Draft reading

Below are lists detailing the TOTAL number of drafts that will be read across all supervisors (these may be read by the academic supervisor or another member of the supervisory team – this can be detailed in the thesis contract and action plan). Details of the focus of drafts reads and feedback is provided in appendix 2, below.

TPA

Thesis

Scheduling draft reads

Drafts must be submitted by a date agreed in advance with the draft reader. When submitted as agreed, comments should be returned to the trainee within one week. Once trainees have reviewed the feedback, they will also have the opportunity to have a conversation with the draft reader to talk through anything they are unclear about.

We understand that schedules do not always go according to plan and that sometimes draft reading deadlines may need to be changed. However changing submission deadlines at short notice is very disruptive for the draft reader, and could be deemed unprofessional behaviour on the part of the trainee. It can also contribute to substantial delays in completing thesis work due to supervisor availability. For this reason

1. Trainees should give notice a to a draft reader as early as possible (at least a week prior to the deadline) if they wish to change the agreed draft submission date. Except in exceptional circumstances such as illness, if this period of notice is not given then it will not be possible to re-arrange the deadline.
2. It is also the trainee’s responsibility to provide a full draft of the agreed papers or sections that is within the word limit to the draft reader. Overly long drafts will be returned unread, and incomplete drafts will be read as if they were a full draft. Trainees should note that reading an incomplete draft significantly reduces the reader’s ability to provide the most helpful feedback.

Appendix 1: Remit of supervision meetings

Thesis Preparation Assignment Literature Review

The trainee can expect:

• Advice on the appropriateness of the subject area under consideration for the review and research proposal.
• Guidance on seeking appropriate literature for the review section which will help provide justification for the research proposed for the thesis.
• Advice will include: general guidance on the content, format and clarity of argument. Major issues will be highlighted for attention.

Thesis Proposal & Thesis

• Advice on the general suitability of the proposed research project and its methodology before completion of the proposal section.
• Discussion of research governance, local NHS R&D procedures and other ethical considerations.
• Advice on the type and scope of systematic review being considered.
• Advice on a power calculation, if applicable, although the trainee will be expected to have attempted this previously.
• Advice on the suitability of the trainee’s proposed analysis.
• Advice on the appropriateness of target journals identified by the trainee for thesis papers.
• For trainees carrying out a quantitative project, advice on a power calculation, giving guidance on the analysis, and reviewing of the output of the analysis can be provided.
• For trainees carrying out a qualitative project, then it is reasonable to expect one/both of the research supervisors to look at a transcript with the trainee to discuss coding etc. Supervisors at their discretion may also expect to review the recording of an initial interview to provide feedback on interview technique etc.
• Supervisors may request to further review the data and analysis with trainees if necessary.

Appendix 2: Remit of draft reading

The draft reader will comment on:

• The structure of drafts.
• The consideration of conceptual and contextual issues.
• The consideration of practical issues relating to research design, procedure and analysis.
•  Broad issues relating to the clarity of written communication.
• The degree and nature of general critical engagement within the drafts.

Research staff will try to provide as comprehensive feedback as possible on the above. Trainees should expect feedback to take the form of specific tracked changes an overall summary of feedback within a draft. The opportunity to meet with the draft reader to discuss the feedback will also be offered.

It is not within the remit of the draft read to provide the following:

• Advice on the comprehensiveness of the material covered or the accuracy of the trainee’s understanding of that material (although if the reader identifies obvious errors or omissions, these can be indicated).
• Proof reading (checking of spelling, grammatical, punctuation or typographical errors) although the reader might want to indicate should they feel this is still an outstanding issue.
• Coaching in developing academic writing style (although readers may wish to highlight this if it appears to be an area requiring development). Trainees who need to further develop their skills in this area to achieve the standard necessary for doctoral level work are expected to do so independently by making use of the support available from Student Services and elsewhere.
• Correcting the trainee’s work to make it conform to the appropriate journal style.
• Checks on whether previously advised corrections have been made.
• Draft readers will not complete missing sections of any draft.

Background and aims

The aim of this framework is to:

• Ensure that all research staff have consistent guidelines on the extent and type of input they should provide for the Thesis Preparation Assignment (TPA) and the thesis.
• Ensure that each trainee is aware of the extent and type of help which they can expect.
• Make explicit the programme’s expectations in terms of the trainees’ development in research skills.

Under normal circumstances the below details the standard amount of input that can be provided by a supervisor. However, individual training plans (ITPs) may detail appropriate adjustments in the form of specific additional support to be provided to individual trainees.

NB It is up to trainees to decide whether or not to accept their supervisors’ advice and, whether or not they do, they must be able to defend and justify all decisions taken in relation to their work.

Level and type of input

Support for trainees with regard to the TPA and thesis come in three forms:

1. Supervision meetings and other contacts to discuss the work
2. Draft reads
3. Additional support from other sources (see learning structures outside formal teaching)

It should be noted that trainees need to take a lead in their thesis work, whilst being mindful that their academic supervisor often retains the role of chief investigator in their empirical research. This means that trainees should strike a balance between keeping supervisors informed regularly about the progress of their thesis work and checking out any significant decisions relating to the empirical work before implementing these, whilst ensuring that they also focus their requests for help and feedback where these are likely to of most benefit. Trainees are responsible for the quality of all submitted work.

Trainees are expected to complete and submit their thesis by the deadline established for their cohort and pathway (full time or part time) and to complete their viva voce examination and any required changes by the end of their employment contract. Exceptions to this should only be made in extraordinary circumstances.

1. Supervision meetings

NB meetings may take place in person, by phone or online. The kind of support and advice that can be provided in such meetings is detailed in appendix 1.

TPA

Once trainees are allocated a supervisor from the research team and begin work on their TPA assignment then they may expect to meet with their supervisor on up to a maximum of five occasions to discuss their choice of topic and progress on the assignment.

Thesis

• • A thesis contract / action plan meeting should take place between all supervisors and the trainee to establish responsibilities and working arrangements as early as possible following the submission of the TPA assignment, and ALWAYS before a submission for ethical approval is made.
  • The core of support from supervisors comes from monthly meetings of 45-60 minutes. Once the TPA assignment has been submitted, trainees should schedule such meetings en bloc to take place once per month through the life of the project with their primary supervisor (and others as appropriate). Specific meetings can subsequently be re-scheduled if necessary to take account of leave etc.
  • It is anticipated that these meetings will be supplemented on a few occasions during the life of the thesis work by other meetings with the supervisor(s) to consider specific issues such as data analysis. It is also anticipated that trainees will have email contact with supervisors when significant queries arise which cannot wait until the next supervision meetings.
  • Contact with the project supervisor(s) will be supplemented by attendance at peer supervision meetings scheduled into the teaching timetable where progress is reviewed and common issues arising from conducting the thesis can be addressed.

2. Draft reading

Below are lists detailing the TOTAL number of drafts that will be read across all supervisors (these may be read by the academic supervisor or another member of the supervisory team – this can be detailed in the thesis contract and action plan). Details of the focus of drafts reads and feedback is provided in appendix 2, below.

TPA

Thesis

Scheduling draft reads

Drafts must be submitted by a date agreed in advance with the draft reader. When submitted as agreed, comments will be returned to the trainee within one week. Once trainees have reviewed the feedback, they will also have the opportunity to have a conversation with the draft reader to talk through anything they are unclear about.

We understand that schedules do not always go according to plan and that sometimes draft reading deadlines may need to be changed. However changing submission deadlines at short notice is very disruptive for the draft reader, and could be deemed unprofessional behaviour on the part of the trainee. It can also contribute to substantial delays in completing thesis work due to supervisor availability. For this reason

1. Trainees should give notice a to a draft reader as early as possible (at least a week prior to the deadline) if they wish to change the agreed draft submission date. Except in exceptional circumstances such as illness, if this period of notice is not given then it will not be possible to re-arrange the deadline.
2. It is also the trainee’s responsibility to provide a full draft of the agreed papers or sections that is within the word limit to the draft reader. Overly long drafts will be returned unread, and incomplete drafts will be read as if they were a full draft. Trainees should note that reading an incomplete draft significantly reduces the reader’s ability to provide the most helpful feedback.

Appendix 1: Remit of supervision meetings

Thesis Preparation Assignment Literature Review

The trainee can expect:

• Advice on the appropriateness of the subject area under consideration for the review and research proposal.
• Guidance on seeking appropriate literature for the review section which will help provide justification for the research proposed for the thesis.
• Advice will include: general guidance on the content, format and clarity of argument. Major issues will be highlighted for attention.

Thesis Proposal & Thesis

• Advice on the general suitability of the proposed research project and its methodology before completion of the proposal section.
• Discussion of research governance, local NHS R&D procedures and other ethical considerations.
• Advice on the type and scope of systematic review being considered.
• Advice on a power calculation, if applicable, although the trainee will be expected to have attempted this previously.
• Advice on the suitability of the trainee’s proposed analysis.
• Advice on the appropriateness of target journals identified by the trainee for thesis papers.
• For trainees carrying out a quantitative project, advice on a power calculation, giving guidance on the analysis, and reviewing of the output of the analysis can be provided.
• For trainees carrying out a qualitative project, then it is reasonable to expect one/both of the research supervisors to look at a transcript with the trainee to discuss coding etc. Supervisors at their discretion may also expect to review the recording of an initial interview to provide feedback on interview technique etc.
• Supervisors may request to further review the data and analysis with trainees if necessary.

Appendix 2: Remit of draft reading

The draft reader will comment on:

• The structure of drafts.
• The consideration of conceptual and contextual issues.
• The consideration of practical issues relating to research design, procedure and analysis.
•  Broad issues relating to the clarity of written communication.
• The degree and nature of general critical engagement within the drafts.

Research staff will try to provide as comprehensive feedback as possible on the above. Trainees should expect feedback to take the form of specific tracked changes an overall summary of feedback within a draft. The opportunity to meet with the draft reader to discuss the feedback will also be offered.

It is not within the remit of the draft read to provide the following:

• Advice on the comprehensiveness of the material covered or the accuracy of the trainee’s understanding of that material (although if the reader identifies obvious errors or omissions, these can be indicated).
• Proof reading (checking of spelling, grammatical, punctuation or typographical errors) although the reader might want to indicate should they feel this is still an outstanding issue.
• Coaching in developing academic writing style (although readers may wish to highlight this if it appears to be an area requiring development). Trainees who need to further develop their skills in this area to achieve the standard necessary for doctoral level work are expected to do so independently by making use of the support available from Student Services and elsewhere.
• Correcting the trainee’s work to make it conform to the appropriate journal style.
• Checks on whether previously advised corrections have been made.
• Draft readers will not complete missing sections of any draft.

Background and aims

The numbers of trainees and research staff working on the DClinPsy Programme have highlighted the need to produce a consistency framework for the assessment and management of the research component of the course. The aim of such a framework is to:

• Ensure that all research staff have consistent guidelines on the extent and type of input they should provide for every item of assessed work
• Ensure that each trainee is aware of the extent and type of help which they can expect with each item of assessed work
• Make explicit the programme’s expectations in terms of the trainees’ development in research skills.

It should also be noted that individual training plans (ITPs) may offer additional support to that outlined here. The programme also supports the importance of trainees recognising their own developmental needs, raising them and seeking ways to meet those needs.

Level and type of input for each piece of assessed work

This specification is for trainees following the conventional three year training pathway. For trainees on different pathways, then the same support per academic assignment is available but focused on the specific assignment as opposed to its position in the training year.

Thesis Preparation Assignment

The trainee can expect:

• Advice on the appropriateness of the subject area under consideration for the review and research proposal with guidance on matching to supervisors’ expertise
• Guidance on seeking appropriate literature for the review section and putting together the justification for the research.
• Advice will include: general guidance on the content, format and clarity of argument. Major issues will be highlighted for attention.
• Advice on the general suitability of the proposed research project and its methodology before completion of the proposal section.
• Discussion of research governance, local NHS R&D procedures and other ethical considerations.
• Advice on a power calculation, if applicable, although the trainee will be expected to have attempted this previously.
• Advice on the suitability of the trainee’s proposed analysis.

The thesis

Given that the thesis comprises several sections, these will be considered in turn. It should also be noted that where research staff are supervisors on projects which are not part of their own core research areas, trainees cannot expect more detailed feedback on specific areas or aspects of the relevant literature.

• Ethics proposal: comments will be made on one completed proposal and research protocol per ethics committee. If the initial proposals need multiple corrections then these can be checked. Arrangements for submission must be managed by the trainee and this includes finding out relevant ethics committee dates and the logistic arrangements (e.g., when copies need to be submitted by). The trainee should not use their academic supervisor as a proof reader. All NHS ethics applications need to be signed off by the Pro VC for Research who acts as the university’s representative regarding research governance issues.
• Literature review: a draft of the structure of the literature review (1-2 sides of A4) can be submitted during the second year. This can include the type and scope of review being considered. The academic supervisor will comment on this structure. At the same time as the draft structure, the trainee should also submit the name of the target journal (with notes for contributors) for the literature review and the suitability of this will be assessed. The reader will provide detailed comments on one full draft of the literature review, including title page, abstract, literature review, tables and references. Although it is not the reader’s responsibility to advise on the comprehensiveness of the material covered or the accuracy of the trainee’s understanding of that material, should the reader uncover obvious errors or omissions, these can be indicated. Minor errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar can be highlighted and corrections made. If the work contains too many errors for the reader to correct, this will be brought to the attention of the trainee. A second draft may be considered, although it is not the reader’s responsibility to make sure that the advised corrections have been made. Comments at this stage are at a more general level on any outstanding issues. At this stage detailed corrections of spelling etc. will not be made although the reader might want to indicate should they feel this is still an outstanding issue. It is not the reader’s responsibility to correct the trainee’s work to make it conform to the appropriate journal style.
• Thesis research project: the trainee will be given guidance from both supervisors in relation to the completion of the thesis proposal form which should be formally submitted in the first half of the first year. The proposal must be complete and, while not being definitive, must provide an indication that serious consideration has been given to every aspect of the study. Research staff will not complete missing sections, e.g., on the proposed data analysis, although advice will be given if aspects of the method are not considered appropriate (see TPA). Feedback will be given on the proposal which will be communicated to the trainee. By January of the third year, the trainee will have submitted the name of the target journal for the research paper and the research team will advise on the appropriateness of this. The final choice of journal is the trainee’s responsibility.
• For trainees carrying out a quantitative project, the output of the analysis can be checked. For trainees carrying out a qualitative project, then it is reasonable to expect one/both of the research supervisors to look at a selected number of transcripts with the trainee to discuss coding etc.
• The research team will provide comments on the introduction and method at a time negotiated in advance with the research team member. It is reasonable to expect detailed comments at this stage on general structural and conceptual issues. Minor errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar can be highlighted and corrections made. If the work contains too many errors for the reader to correct, this will be brought to the attention of the trainee. However, trainees should not assume that the absence of corrections indicates a flawless piece of work.
• The research team will also provide comments on the results and discussion section separately, if submitted at an agreed time. Again, given the more provisional nature of this draft, comments are likely to be of a more ‘broad-brush’ nature.
• A complete and final draft of the research paper should be submitted at a time negotiated in advance. The research team will provide comments on the clarity of all sections and the appendices. However, references will not be edited, checked for completeness or assessed on whether they conform to the specific journal’s house style. Minor errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar can be highlighted and corrections made. If the work contains too many errors for the reader to correct, this will be brought to the attention of the trainee. However, trainees should not assume that the absence of corrections indicates a flawless piece of work. Ultimately it is the trainee’s decision as to what advice they decide to take on board.
• Critical appraisal section: If the first draft of this is submitted at a time negotiated with the research team member, comments will be made on its content, structure and clarity. Although it is not the responsibility of the reader to consider all possible methodological issues in the research, should these occur to the reader, these can be indicated. Minor errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar can be highlighted and corrections made. If the work contains too many errors for the reader to correct, this will be brought to the attention of the trainee. However, trainees should not assume that the absence of corrections indicates a flawless piece of work. Ultimately it is the trainee’s decision as to what advice they decide to take on board.

In order to provide some consistency to trainees in the level of feedback from research staff, the following criteria have also been agreed:

• If trainees submit an unfinished piece of work for a draft deadline this may be considered to be a full draft.
• If work is submitted on the agreed date, it will be returned within one to two working weeks, unless alternatives arrangements are agreed. The standard of one to two week turnaround has been agreed by all the research team. Trainees are often asked to agree a meeting date at which feedback can be discussed.
• Work submitted outside agreed dates will be returned within a maximum of one month. Trainees are asked to note that during the three months prior to thesis submission, research staff are extremely busy and will have to pencil work in their diaries (often drafts from other trainees) to make sure that all drafts are read. If a trainee misses his or her agreed deadline then the time set aside to read the draft will have gone. The research team staff will then have to find another time to read the draft; at busy times this can be very difficult.
• Research staff will try to provide as comprehensive feedback as possible, but within the guidelines outlined above. Trainees are responsible for the quality of all submitted work. It is up to trainees to decide whether or not to accept their supervisors’ advice and, if they do, they must be able to defend and justify all decisions taken in relation to their work.

Background and aims

The year on year increase in the number of trainees admitted onto the Lancaster DClinPsy and the growing number of research staff have highlighted the need to produce a consistency framework for the assessment and management of the research component of the course. The aim of such a framework is to:

• Ensure that all research staff have consistent guidelines on the extent and type of input they should be providing for every item of assessed work
• Ensure that each trainee is aware of the extent and type of help which they can expect with each item of assessed work
• Make explicit the programme’s expectations in terms of the trainees’ development in research skills.

It should also be noted that individual training plans (ITPs) may offer additional support to that outlined here. The programme also supports the importance of trainees recognising their own developmental needs, raising them and seeking ways to meet those needs.

Level and type of input for each piece of assessed work

This specification is for trainees following the conventional three year training pathway. For trainees on different pathways, then the same support per academic assignment is available but focused on the specific assignment as opposed to its position in the training year. If trainees submit an unfinished piece of work for a draft deadline this may be considered to be a full draft.

Systematic literature review – first year

The trainee can expect:

• Advice on the appropriateness of the subject area under consideration for the systematic literature review. A formal decision on this will be made by the Chair of the Examination Board. Deadlines to get your systematic literature review topic area to the Chair of the Exam Board will be given in the systematic literature review teaching.
• Comments on one completed draft. Multiple drafts containing different sections will not be looked at. Comments will include: general advice on the content, format and clarity of the draft. Minor errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar can be highlighted and may be corrected. More major errors will be highlighted for attention. It is not the reader’s responsibility to advise on the comprehensiveness of the material covered or the accuracy of the trainee’s understanding of that material. It is not the reader’s responsibility to correct the trainee’s work to make it conform to the guidelines of the chosen peer reviewed journal.

SRP – first year and first half of the second year

The trainee can expect:

• Advice on the general suitability of the proposed research project and its methodology before completion of the initial proposal.
• Guidance from the research tutor on topics for research to aid trainees in the completion of the topic form which is submitted by mid October. Trainees are then allocated an academic supervisor from the research team.advice on the general suitability of the proposed research project and its methodology before completion of the initial proposal.
• Detailed comments on all sections of the initial proposal.
• Advice on a power calculation, if applicable, although the trainee will be expected to have attempted this previously.
• Feedback from the coordinator of the SRP and the Research Director in relation to the proposal form.
• Clarification and modification of the proposal should then be discussed with their academic supervisor.
• Discussion of research governance, local NHS R&D procedures and other ethical considerations. Comments will be made on one completed proposal and research protocol per ethics committee. If the initial submission needs multiple amendments then these can also be discussed and checked by the academic supervisor. Arrangements for submission must be managed by the trainee and this includes finding out relevant ethics committee dates and the logistics (e.g., number of copies) for submission. The trainee should not use their academic supervisor as a proof reader. All NHS ethics applications need to be signed off by the Pro VC for Research who acts as the university’s representative regarding research governance issues.
• Advice on the suitability of input, where appropriate, on a data analysis programme (SPSS, Atlas TI etc)
• Advice on the suitability of the trainee’s proposed analysis. The supervisor may also check, on the basis of the documentation provided, that the analysis seems to have been performed correctly
• Detailed comments on one working draft. Comments will include: general advice on the content, format and clarity of the draft. Errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar can be highlighted and suggested corrections made. However, the advice at this stage is very much as if the draft is a ‘work in progress’ with comments aimed at more the basic, structural elements of the work. Although it is not the reader’s responsibility to advise on the comprehensiveness of the material covered or the accuracy of the trainee’s understanding of that material, should the reader uncover obvious errors, these can be indicated.
• A second draft can also be considered if this is submitted in time although it is not the reader’s responsibility to make sure that the advised corrections have been made. Comments at this stage are at a more general level but may include attention to punctuation, stylistic issues and expression. It is not the reader’s responsibility to correct the trainee’s work to make it conform to APA style. Ultimately it is the trainee’s decision as to what advice they decide to take on board.

The thesis: second year and, in particular, the third year

Given that the thesis comprises several sections, these will be considered in turn. It should also be noted that where research staff are supervisors on projects which are not part of their own core research areas, trainees cannot expect more detailed feedback on specific areas or aspects of the relevant literature.

• Ethics proposal: comments will be made on one completed proposal and research protocol per ethics committee. If the initial proposals need multiple corrections then these can be checked. Arrangements for submission must be managed by the trainee and this includes finding out relevant ethics committee dates and the logistic arrangements (e.g., when copies need to be submitted by). The trainee should not use their academic supervisor as a proof reader. All NHS ethics applications need to be signed off by the Pro VC for Research who acts as the university’s representative regarding research governance issues.
• Literature review: a draft of the structure of the literature review (1-2 sides of A4) can be submitted at the beginning of the third year. This can include the type and scope of review being considered. The academic supervisor will comment on this structure. At the same time as the draft structure, the trainee should also submit the name of the target journal (with notes for contributors) for the literature review and the suitability of this will be assessed. The reader will provide detailed comments on one full draft of the literature review, including title page, abstract, literature review, tables and references. Although it is not the reader’s responsibility to advise on the comprehensiveness of the material covered or the accuracy of the trainee’s understanding of that material, should the reader uncover obvious errors or omissions, these can be indicated. Minor errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar can be highlighted and corrections made. If the work contains too many errors for the reader to correct, this will be brought to the attention of the trainee. A second draft may be considered, although it is not the reader’s responsibility to make sure that the advised corrections have been made. Comments at this stage are at a more general level on any outstanding issues. At this stage detailed corrections of spelling etc. will not be made although the reader might want to indicate should they feel this is still an outstanding issue. It is not the reader’s responsibility to correct the trainee’s work to make it conform to the appropriate journal style.
• Thesis research project: the trainee will be given guidance from both supervisors in relation to the completion of the thesis proposal form which should be formally submitted in the first part of the second year. The proposal must be complete and, while not being definitive, must provide an indication that serious consideration has been given to every aspect of the study. Research staff will not complete missing sections, e.g., on the proposed data analysis, although advice will be given if aspects of the method are not considered appropriate. Feedback will be given on the proposal which will be communicated to the trainee. By January of the third year, the trainee will have submitted the name of the target journal for the research paper and the research team will advise on the appropriateness of this. The final choice of journal is the trainee’s responsibility.
• For trainees carrying out a quantitative project, the output of the analysis can be checked. For trainees carrying out a qualitative project, then it is reasonable to expect one/both of the research supervisors to look at a selected number of transcripts with the trainee to discuss coding etc.
• The research team will provide comments on the introduction and method at a time negotiated in advance with the research team member. It is reasonable to expect detailed comments at this stage on general structural and conceptual issues. Minor errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar can be highlighted and corrections made. If the work contains too many errors for the reader to correct, this will be brought to the attention of the trainee. However, trainees should not assume that the absence of corrections indicates a flawless piece of work.
• The research team will also provide comments on the results and discussion section separately, if submitted at an agreed time. Again, given the more provisional nature of this draft, comments are likely to be of a more ‘broad-brush’ nature.
• A complete and final draft of the research paper should be submitted at a time negotiated in advance. The research team will provide comments on the clarity of all sections and the appendices. However, references will not be edited, checked for completeness or assessed on whether they conform to the specific journal’s house style. Minor errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar can be highlighted and corrections made. If the work contains too many errors for the reader to correct, this will be brought to the attention of the trainee. However, trainees should not assume that the absence of corrections indicates a flawless piece of work. Ultimately it is the trainee’s decision as to what advice they decide to take on board.
• Critical appraisal section: If the first draft of this is submitted at a time negotiated with the research team member, comments will be made on its content, structure and clarity. Although it is not the responsibility of the reader to consider all possible methodological issues in the research, should these occur to the reader, these can be indicated. Minor errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar can be highlighted and corrections made. If the work contains too many errors for the reader to correct, this will be brought to the attention of the trainee. However, trainees should not assume that the absence of corrections indicates a flawless piece of work. Ultimately it is the trainee’s decision as to what advice they decide to take on board.

In order to provide some consistency to trainees in the level of feedback from research staff, the following criteria have also been agreed:

• If work is submitted on the agreed date, it will be returned within one to two working weeks, unless alternatives arrangements are agreed. The standard of one to two week turnaround has been agreed by all the research team. Trainees are often asked to agree a meeting date at which feedback can be discussed.
• Work submitted outside agreed dates will be returned within a maximum of one month. Trainees are asked to note that during the three months prior to thesis submission, research staff are extremely busy and will have to pencil work in their diaries (often drafts from other trainees) to make sure that all drafts are read. If a trainee misses his or her agreed deadline then the time set aside to read the draft will have gone. The research team staff will then have to find another time to read the draft; at busy times this can be very difficult.
• Research staff will try to provide as comprehensive feedback as possible, but within the guidelines outlined above. Trainees are responsible for the quality of all submitted work. It is up to trainees to decide whether or not to accept their supervisors’ advice and, if they do, they must be able to defend and justify all decisions taken in relation to their work.