• “”In agreement with their thesis supervisor, doctoral students submit the composition of their CSI committee to the ED (Proposal for CSI committee members). Departments validate these committees. If the committee changes, D2s, D3s, etc. must submit their new committees via the same link.
• The CSI comprises a minimum of two members, who must be from outside the doctoral student’s institute and hold an HDR. They must not have signed any articles with the doctoral student’s host team in the previous 5 years.
  • a member specialized in the discipline or related to the field of the thesis;
  • one non-specialist member from outside the thesis research field.
• One of the members must be a BioSPC HDR (outside the doctoral student’s institute) and a BioSPC member. The list of BioSPC HDRs is available here :  https://edbiospc.fr/
• One of the members is from outside UPC and Institut Pasteur. 
• An additional – OPTIONAL – ‘expert’ member may be invited in the first year, but do not need to hold an HDR. He/she may change during the course of the thesis. He/she may be a member of the institute, but will not sign the CSI minutes or take part in phases II and III of the meeting (see §3 below).
• Emeritus professors and researchers can be members.
• Members of the individual monitoring committee cannot be “rapporteurs”, but they can be examiners or chairmen (except for emeritus members) during the defense.
• The CSI coordinators at each institute (below) can provide advice on setting up these committees.

List of referrers sorted by site:

• Doctoral students will be notified by e-mail of the validity of their committee.
• Doctoral students will then be invited to arrange a meeting with their committee.
• They are responsible for finding a date that suits their committee members and supervisor, and for informing all CSI participants of the date and venue.
• They book a room for the meeting. The length of these meetings is left to their discretion, but we recommend that they last at least 45 minutes (see §3).
• Doctoral students fill in the section concerning them on the ED form (link to come) and send it to their committee at least 48 hours before the interview. This form will include all the information needed to guide the committee members.

They are organized once a year in the form of three distinct stages (in total, at least 45 min) :

• I – Presentation of work progress and discussions: doctoral students are strongly encouraged to use the presentation templates.
• II – Interview with the doctoral student without the thesis supervisor
  III – Interview with the thesis supervisor without the doctoral student

We ask that you give preference to on-site interviews. Doctoral students and/or their supervisors will be responsible for setting up a videoconference link if some committee members need to attend the interview remotely.

Committee members can be contacted if necessary outside the annual CSI meeting.

• The members of the CSI committee – without the additional expert – write up the report at the end of the interview (include this writing time in the committee’s schedule, in addition to the recommended minimum of 45 minutes) on the pre-filled CSI form sent by the doctoral students.
• The committee makes recommendations on re-registration and gives its opinion on the progress of the doctoral student’s work and training.

• CSI reports are forwarded to the ED (procedure indicated on the form).
• Committee members are expressly asked not to forward their reports to doctoral students or thesis supervisors.
• If the committee observes any difficulties, it should point them out in the CR sent to the ED.

• D1 and D2: October 15 ;
• D3 applying for a 4th year with a new type of financing: End of July to ensure payment of salary in October;
• D1, D2, D3 applying for VISA renewal: End of July, as procedures at the prefecture can be very lengthy.

NB: these deadlines should be used as a guide to determine the date on which interviews are organized.

• If no issues are reported, the final reports are sent by the doctoral school (ED) to the doctoral students and the thesis directors.

• If a problem is detected, the ED will take any necessary measures concerning the situation of the doctoral student and the progress of his/her doctorate. More specifically, the department directors will organize a hearing with the doctoral student and thesis director to determine whether the problem is :
  • an incident with no serious consequences (e.g. difficult dialogue between supervisor and supervisee) that can be resolved with a short follow-up (<2 months).
  • a deeper problem that requires mediation.

• • • In the case of more serious problems, or those that cannot be resolved by a short follow-up, the department directors must set up a mediation committee made up of at least two people chosen from among the department directors or members of the department office. The department must ensure that there is no conflict of interest between the mediation committee, the doctoral student, the thesis director or the research team.
    • If, during the examination of the files, it emerges that the problems relate to scientific integrity, discrimination or violence, they will be forwarded to the ad hoc units of the establishments on which the host laboratories depend. These units will keep the ED informed of the progress of the files. These files are considered to be ‘in mediation’, even if they are not being handled by BioSPC members.

In these 2 cases, the files are considered to be ‘In mediation’.

• The ED College (CED) can be informed by the ED management and can take up cases it considers to be more serious. Otherwise, the department directors will call on the members of their office or investigate the case directly.

 NB : If one of the department heads is in the doctoral student’s institute, he or she will relinquish responsibility for the case and pass it on to a member of his or her office.

• If, despite the difficulties encountered, the CSI committee recommends re-registration, the report sent by the doctoral school to doctoral students and thesis directors will not mention the nature and details of these malfunctions, or how they came to its attention. The report will mention that the committee has noted the malfunctions and alerted the doctoral school.
• A specific follow-up procedure is set up if the CSI committee does not recommend re-registration. The CSI CR is not sent in such cases.

• The CSI referents of each site will receive the CSI CRs of doctoral students authorized to re-register.