phd review board

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Institutional Review Boards

Institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees provide a core protection for human research participants through advance and periodic independent review of the ethical acceptability of proposals for human research. IRBs were codified in US regulation just over three decades ago and are widely required by law or regulation in jurisdictions globally. Since the inception of IRBs, the research landscape has grown and evolved, as has the system of IRB review and oversight. Evidence of inconsistencies in IRB review and in application of federal regulations has fueled dissatisfaction with the IRB system. Some complain that IRB review is time-consuming and burdensome without clear evidence of effectiveness at protecting human subjects. Multiple proposals have been offered to reform or update the current IRB system, and many alternative models are currently being tried. Current focus on centralizing and sharing reviews requires more attention and evidence. Proposed changes to the US federal regulations may bring more changes. Data and resourcefulness are needed to further develop and test review and oversight models that provide adequate and respectful protections of participant rights and welfare and that are appropriate, efficient, and adaptable for current and future research.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) or equivalent bodies provide a core protection for human participants in biomedical and behavioral research in the United States and > 80 other countries around the world. 1 IRBs are charged with providing an independent evaluation that proposed research is ethically acceptable, checking clinical investigators’ potential biases, and evaluating compliance with regulations and laws designed to protect human subjects.

Independent review of clinical research by an IRB is required for US studies funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and other US federal agencies, as well as for research testing interventions—such as drugs, biologics, and devices—that are under the jurisdiction of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ( Table 1 2 , 3 ). US research institutions can and often do extend federal regulatory requirements to all of their human subjects research. Research conducted outside of the United States but funded by the US government is subject to the same US federal regulations and so requires IRB review or equivalent protections. 4 Research conducted outside of the United States, not under an investigational new drug that submits data to the FDA for a new drug or biologic license application, must comply with Good Clinical Practice guidelines, which include review and approval by an independent review committee and informed consent. 5 Regulations and laws in many other jurisdictions around the world also require review by an independent research ethics committee or IRB. 6 Regulatory bodies in the European Union, Japan, United States, Canada, Australia, and Nordic countries, among others, follow Good Clinical Practice guidelines such as those delineated by the International Conference on Harmonisation, which require approval by an independent ethics committee or IRB. 7 IRBs or research ethics committees, composed of a group of people independent of the specific research, review proposed research plans and related documents before a study can begin and then periodically (usually annually) for the study duration. The goal of IRB review is to assure that the rights and welfare of participating research subjects will be adequately protected in the pursuit of the proposed research study. To be ethically acceptable and comply with regulatory requirements, the IRB determines that risks to subjects are minimized and reasonable in relation to the importance of the knowledge the study is expected to produce, that the process and outcomes of subject selection are fair (including delineated inclusion and exclusion criteria), and that there are adequate plans for obtaining informed consent.

TABLE 1 ] 

Selected US Regulatory Requirements for IRBs (Paraphrased)

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; IRB = institutional review board.

History of IRBs in the United States

Recognizing that review by impartial others might mitigate conflicting differences in the ethical responsibilities of physician-investigators to research subjects from those of physicians to their patients and, thus, help to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects, James Shannon, MD, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in 1965 proposed that all NIH research involving human subjects be evaluated by an impartial panel of peers to ensure its ethical integrity. His idea derived, at least in part, from a model that began at the NIH Clinical Center when it opened in 1953, which was a model of group peer review for research involving healthy volunteers. 1 In 1966, US Public Health Service policy requirements for ethical review, which were expanded to all Department of Health Education and Welfare (the DHHS predecessor) research by 1971, were not well enforced. 1 Regulations for the protection of human subjects for DHHS, published in 1974 (45CFR.46), included a requirement for group ethics review and the term “institutional review board” was introduced. The World Medical Association also introduced review by an independent committee for oversight of science and ethics into the 1975 revision of the Declaration of Helsinki. 8 The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, established by the US Congress after revelations of the US Public Health Service syphilis studies at Tuskegee, authored the Belmont Report which explicated ethical principles underlying the conduct of human subjects research. 9 The Commission’s contributions, including integration of the Belmont principles, were incorporated into updated US regulations in 1981. The 1981 DHHS regulations were subsequently adopted by 16 federal agencies (not including the FDA) in 1991 as the Common Rule. The FDA required an IRB beginning in 1981 (Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations, part 56), although some investigators funded by pharmaceutical companies already used oversight committees. 10 The most extensive proposed changes to the Common Rule since 1991 were issued by the DHHS in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making in 2011 in an effort to enhance protections and efficiency. 11 , 12 Public comments were solicited and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is under development, but as of this writing has not been published ( Fig 1 ).

Timeline of regulations and guidance regarding IRB review. ANPRM = Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making; DHEW = US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; DHHS = Department of Health and Human Services; FDA = US Food and Drug Administration; IRB = institutional review board; NIH = National Institutes of Health.

US regulations at 45CFR.46 subpart E and 21CFR.56.106 require IRBs to be registered with the DHHS Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP), which is responsible for monitoring compliance with the Common Rule. Research institutions that receive DHHS funds file with OHRP an assurance that the institution will comply with federal regulations, called a Federal Wide Assurance. 13 Each assurance has to include at least one internal or external IRB registered with OHRP. The FDA requires registration of IRBs but does not require prospective assurances of compliance; sponsors and investigators include evidence of IRB review when they submit data to the FDA.

Changes to Research

At the time that IRBs were codified in regulation, single-site clinical research was the predominant paradigm. Advances in knowledge, technology, and resources over the subsequent decades have significantly changed the face of research. Growth in public and private spending 14 , 15 as well as evolving scientific opportunities have created novel challenges for IRBs. The majority of clinical trials are now multisite, and some include > 100 sites, often with sites in multiple countries. 16 In addition to multicenter and multinational research, IRBs review, for example, proposals for research with stored samples and data, cell-based and stem cell therapies, emergency research, social science research, and community-based research. IRBs operate under the same regulatory structure and use similar procedures despite a wide range of types of research posing disparate risks to subjects’ rights and welfare. Furthermore, the complexity of oversight has changed with the development of new entities involved in clinical research, such as contract research organizations, data and safety monitoring committees, clinical trial coordinating centers, accrediting associations, and commercial IRBs, among others.

Changes to IRBs

Concurrently, the number of, investment in, and responsibilities of IRBs have continued to increase. Most research institutions, universities, and health-care facilities have at least one IRB, and the majority has more than one. 17 In addition, there are a number of independent or commercial IRBs. 18 Increasingly, IRBs are tasked with responsibilities beyond those required by federal regulation, including, for example, review of conflicts of interest, compliance with privacy regulations, training of investigators, scientific review, and monitoring of clinical trial registration, among others. IRBs do indeed have responsibility for reviewing the science to assess the soundness of the design and the risks and benefits of the proposed research, however, many institutions have a separate scientific review process that precedes and complements IRB review.

Dissatisfaction and concern about what is perceived as an expansive mission and bureaucracy of IRBs has also mounted. Investigators and others criticize the IRB system as dysfunctional and “more concerned with protecting the institution than research participants.” 19 Some claim that IRBs are overburdened 20 and overreaching. Researchers, institutions, and some IRB members complain about burden: excessive paperwork, inflexible interpretation of regulatory requirements, attention to inconsequential details, and “mission creep”—the expanding obligations of IRBs that seem to have little to do with protection of research participants. 21 Fear of regulatory admonition has fueled a focus on compliance with regulations. 22 Some perceive the excessive or “hyper” regulation as seriously affecting or stifling research productivity and adding cost without adding meaningful protections for participants. 23 , 24 Clinical investigators complain that the IRB review process is inefficient and delays their research for what seem like minor modifications. 25 The public hears about problems and fears that research might be unsafe and existing protections ineffective or inadequate. 26 , 27

Charles McCarthy, the first director of the US Office for Protection from Research Risks (the OHRP predecessor) noted, “[IRBs] have become more insightful and sophisticated…But unless [the Human Research Protection System] is considered to be an evolving and expanding mechanism, adapting to the problems of each period of history, it is in danger of becoming fossilized and ineffective.” 28 Flexibility and adaptability are important characteristics not usually attributed to IRBs. The challenge is how to evolve, expand, and adapt IRBs to the current exigencies of research in a rational and meaningful way. As noted by Cohen and Lynch, 29 the system is “ripe for a major course correction.”

Reform: Needs, Attempts, and Challenges

Recognition of the need for a robust system of protecting human research subjects within the changing research landscape has led to various proposals for reform and suggestions for alternative models. 30 ‐ 35

Reform proposals offer changes to address some of the various factors that are problematic for IRBs and for those who use them. Yet, reform efforts have been somewhat paralyzed by the tension between those who find the current system inadequate and those who find it too overreaching. 36 , 37 Nonetheless, many grant that multiple reviews for a single study are duplicative, lead to significant delays in research without adding meaningful protections, and can result in inconsistencies that bias the science. 38 , 39 Additional reasons for considering reform of the current oversight system include inherent conflicts of interest, inadequate resources, the emergence of new research methodologies, and insufficient expertise of members, among others. 40 IRBs also grapple with how to respond to evolving research methods, and high profile cases in which regulators disagree with or disapprove of IRB decisions can fuel uncertainty and anxiety. 41 , 42

Various systems of pre-IRB review have gained traction as a way to improve IRB efficiency: Major issues and gaps can be identified and corrected through prereview before an IRB sees the proposal. Institutions are also adopting a framework that more explicitly recognizes the essential roles of the institution, investigators, and research teams in addition to IRBs in protecting human subjects. 43 Several alternatives to the traditional model of single IRB review or review at each site of a multisite study have been developed and tried ( Table 2 ). 44 ‐ 53 Proposed revisions to the Common Rule include a recommendation for a single IRB of record for domestic multisite trials. 9 More recently, the NIH called for comments on a draft proposal for a single IRB review for NIH-funded multisite trials. 54 NIH is also currently funding several empirical studies of central IRBs with the goal of informing policy development relevant to central IRBs. 55 Despite these significant efforts, many challenges remain in changing the process of IRB review, including questions of liability, cost structures, and incentives, and uncertainty about the relative merits of proposed models. 56

TABLE 2 ] 

Alternative Models for IRB Review

CHOP = Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia; NIAID = National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; NICHD = National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; NIH = National Institutes of Health; NINDS = National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; PHERRB = Public Health Emergency Research Review Board. See Table 1 legend for expansion of other abbreviation. (Adapted from the Alternative Models Table in “Summary of the 2006 National Conference on Alternative IRB Models: Optimizing Human Subject Protection.” 31 )

Need for Evidence

Reform proposals often recognize the need for data about what works and for creative and testable ways of achieving the appropriate combination of protecting the rights and welfare of participants with meaningful and efficient IRB review that promotes high quality, relevant, and timely research. Evidence about how well IRBs are functioning, how effective they are, and how they could be more efficient would provide useful guidance for reform efforts. 57 Existing studies describe IRB structure, process, or outcomes and show that IRB judgments are inconsistent, as is their application of a standard set of regulations. 58 , 59 Practices and decisions vary between and within IRBs often without justification, including determinations about risk level, inclusion criteria, and the appropriateness of methods of recruitment and consent. 55 , 60 Despite complaints about inconsistency, independence and local evaluation make some IRB variation inevitable. Moreover, it is difficult to find a study or to identify metrics able to measure how effective IRBs are at ensuring the ethical conduct of research or protecting research participants. 61 Improving effectiveness requires clear and measurable goals for IRBs and ethical justification for regulatory requirements. 62

Many of these factors converge for critics of the IRB system: growing requirements and costs, 63 , 64 bureaucratic burden, vague goals, and limited evidence of effectiveness.

“The available evidence indicates that there are substantial direct and indirect costs associated with IRB oversight of research. IRBs also operate inconsistently and inefficiently, and focus their attention on paperwork and bureaucratic compliance. Despite their prevalence, there is no empirical evidence that IRB oversight has any benefit whatsoever—let alone benefit that exceeds the cost.” 65

Both normative analysis and empirical evidence are needed to understand how to improve the current system and optimize protections for contemporary research. If the goal is primarily to protect research participants from risk, for example, then more analysis of what risks count and more empirical evidence about research risks would provide direction for how we are doing and where the gaps are. As Taylor 66 notes, “whether and how to protect is inescapably normative and inescapably empirical.” In its 2011 report Moral Science: Protecting Human Participants in Human Subjects Research , the President’s Commission recommended that federal agencies involved in the funding of human subjects research “develop systematic approaches to assess the effectiveness of human subject protections and expand support for research related to the ethical and social considerations of human subject protections.” 67

Centralizing IRB Review

Primarily driven by concerns about redundant review, burden, and delay, much attention has been given to the idea of single or central IRB review for multisite studies as an alternative to local IRB review at each site. Multiple reviews also have the possibility of jeopardizing the science by introducing bias. 37 Institutions participating in multisite studies are permitted by federal regulations 68 to use arrangements that centralize or share reviews, yet relatively few employ these options. Many proposals for reforming or updating guidance and regulations have recommended single or central review for multisite studies. 10 , 28 ‐ 31 , 35 Lingering resistance to adopting central or single review for multisite trials appears to be based on concerns about the importance of local context, local accountability and liability, discomfort with relinquishing control over the review, uncertainty about the quality of review by other IRBs, and logistical concerns such as cost-sharing. 30 , 54 There is a paucity of data evaluating how single or central review compares to review at local sites regarding quality of review, satisfaction, resource use, or efficiency.

Conclusions

IRBs have an important role in protecting human research participants from possible harm and exploitation. Independent review by an IRB or equivalent is an important part of a system of protections aiming to ensure that ethical principles are followed and that adequate and appropriate safeguards are in place to protect subjects’ rights and welfare while they contribute to ethically and scientifically rigorous research. Over the four decades since IRBs were codified into regulations, IRB review and oversight has developed and matured as part of a robust system that provides “substantial protections for the health, rights, and welfare of research subjects.” 69 However, during that same period, research methods and opportunities have evolved, the domains of oversight have expanded, and the research enterprise has grown and diversified. The rules, norms, procedures, and even articulation of the goals of IRB review have not kept pace. Although ethical principles underlying research with human subjects have not changed, their implementation and actualization requires refinement and adaptation to respond to changing scientific and social contexts. Data, creativity, regulatory flexibility, and continued dialogue are needed to optimize the implementation of principles and to help shape the future structure, organization, processes, and outcomes of review and oversight by IRBs and related players. These efforts will support progress in clinical research, public trust in the enterprise, and protection of the participants that make research possible.

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest: None declared.

Role of sponsors: The sponsor had no role in the design of the study, the collection and analysis of the data, or the preparation of the manuscript.

Other contributions: Views expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily represent those of the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Health and Human Services. The author is grateful for the review and helpful suggestions of Scott Kim, MD, PhD, and Charlotte Holden, JD.

ABBREVIATIONS

FUNDING/SUPPORT: Work on this article was supported by the Clinical Center, Department of Bioethics, in the National Institutes of Health Intramural Research Program.

Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permission from the American College of Chest Physicians. See online for more details.

Doctoral Dissertation Research and the IRB

Doctoral students submitting a research protocol (including their dissertation) to tc irb may consult this article for advice and information about the irb process..

Doctoral dissertation research is the culmination of a graduate student’s scholarly work and contributes to partial completion of the requirements for a doctoral degree. An accomplished researcher familiarizes themselves with the expectations of systematic investigations , human subjects research, and IRB regulations . With this in mind, all doctoral students must submit their dissertation research to the IRB for review and approval post-proposal hearing. The IRB will make the final determination of the IRB review category, or if the dissertation research does not involve human subjects. Students may also submit pilot studies, but only on a case-by-case basis, as it relates to human subjects research. 

This article serves as a guide for submitting dissertation research through the Teachers College (TC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) online system and includes the following sections:

Timeline: When to Submit Dissertation Research for Review by the IRB

How to prepare for the irb process, irb protocol submission overview, expected timeline.

• Modifications and Study Terminations

While working on your dissertation, you may wish to submit your pre-dissertation research (typically referred to as a pilot study) to the IRB  prior to your proposal hearing, as it may be necessary to collect human subjects data in order to develop your dissertation plan.  Pre-dissertation research can be submitted at any time for IRB review ( or following the deadlines posted on our website if the study is a Full Board review ).

Depending on your study design, the pre-dissertation research may or may not need IRB review and approval. For instance, a pilot study or pre-dissertation study requires submission to the IRB if it meets the definition of “research with human subjects.” Additionally, if any of the results from your pre-dissertation research may be included in the final dissertation, you should plan to submit the research to the IRB for review.

An IRB approval letter for pre-dissertation research will not satisfy the  Office of Doctoral Studies (ODS) requirement for graduation. A post-proposal hearing IRB approval letter will satisfy ODS's requirements. 

All dissertation research must be submitted to the IRB after successful completion of the proposal hearing . Once the IRB has reviewed and approved the research, you will be issued an IRB approval or acknowledgment letter. This letter will be submitted to the ODS in the graduation packet as partial completion of your doctoral degree. Human subjects research may not commence until after the researcher has received IRB approval. 

General Timeline for Successful Research Accessible Version

An IRB review is still required for post-proposal hearing dissertation research even if it does not involve human subjects, as that review is part of ODS requirements for graduation.

• Internal studies  (e.g., office procedure evaluations, teaching evaluations, or customer service surveys).
• Information-gathering interviews  (e.g., when individuals ask professionals product description questions, conduct office policy inquiries, or gain information from teacher-trainers about their upcoming workshop plans).
• Course-related activities  designed specifically  for   educational or teaching purposes  (e.g., instruction on research methods and techniques).
• Case histories  (e.g., a 38-year-old adult female complained of chronic left ankle pain which led to a new joint stress-relieving physical therapy method).
• Publicly available data  (e.g., census data, labor statistics).

For a comprehensive exemplification of studies that would not be considered human subjects research, please visit our  What is Human Subjects Research?  guide.

Reminders:  

• The IRB will review your pre-dissertation research (or pilot study with human subjects) after it has been approved by your faculty sponsor .
• To meet ODS requirements for dissertation research, an IRB approval letter must be dated post-proposal hearing. 

The doctoral dissertation research process begins long before embarking on your journey with TC IRB. As part of this initial research process, you will first need to verify that you have an up-to-date CITI training certificate (within the last three years) affiliated with Teachers College. If you have an affiliation with a different institution, please initiate the TC affiliation requirement by contacting CITI support and updating your user profile on CITI's website. All TC researchers must complete CITI’s "IRB Social And Behavioral Research - Basic Course." 

• History and Ethical Principles – Social Behavioral & Educational 
• Defining Research with Human Subjects
• The Federal Regulations 
• Assessing Risk 
• Informed Consent 
• Privacy and Confidentiality
• And other topics...

Visit our Training & Certification page for information on how to update your CITI certification.

The next step is to secure a faculty sponsor who will guide you through the IRB process. In most cases, this will be your faculty mentor or a faculty member on your dissertation panel. This individual should review your IRB documentation prior to IRB submission . Make sure your faculty sponsor is aware of your intent to submit to the IRB, as they will be required to “accept” your protocol in Mentor IRB before it is reviewed by the IRB.

It is highly recommended that you set aside sufficient time to complete the application and all other  submission materials  (e.g., ,  Informed Consent Form Template   recruitment materials ) prior to your proposed research start date. These documents can be downloaded from TC IRB’s website, or from TC Mentor IRB from the Documentation list. Researchers can consult the  Writing for an IRB Review  guide and the  IRB Reviewer Checklist . For support with developing your application or consent form, set up an appointment with the  Graduate Writing Center .

Familiarize yourself with the IRB  review categories  and consider the risk to participants as it relates to the research project you are undertaking. You should decide which review category best fits your research, but remember that the IRB reviewer will make the final determination regarding your protocol submission. You can review TC IRB’s Get to Know a Review Category series  for detailed information about these review categories.

After consulting your faculty sponsor, addressing your study’s review category, and reviewing research materials, you can engage in the IRB submission process . All IRB protocols must have a completed  , even if the research is not with human subjects.  

To commence the IRB application, locate TC Mentor IRB under the “Research Resources” in the Student Resources tab of your TC portal. When you are ready to upload your study, click on the  My Protocols  sidebar on the left navigation menu and select the  Create New Protocol Option . For a detailed walk-through on how to submit a new protocol, please download the  How to Submit a New Protocol  guide. If you will be recruiting new human subjects, you must include recruitment materials, consent forms ( Assent Form Template ,  Parental Permission Form Template , etc.), and site permission forms (if applicable).

In accordance with IRB submission requirements, you should also upload a signed copy of your post-proposal hearing report as “Additional Documentation” in Mentor IRB  as proof of your completed proposal hearing. 

If you need additional help reviewing your protocol, please reference our IRB Reviewer Questions . Templates for most materials are available in TC Mentor IRB/Documentation.

After you have successfully submitted your IRB protocol in Mentor IRB, you can expect to undergo multiple rounds of revisions. It is very rare that research will be approved after the first submission. Remember you cannot commence any interactions with human subjects (including recruitment or data collection) until you obtain IRB approval.

Often you will receive revisions or questions from a reviewer once your IRB protocol has been submitted. Typically, the reviewer will either reach out to you via the Mentor IRB messages function or through a Request for Revisions memo.

To respond to requested revisions, please download our Request for Revisions Memo Template , utilize tracked changes to submit the revised documents, and include a clean, final version of all updated documents. For information on how to mark revisions using the "track changes" feature, visit this guide for Microsoft Word and this guide for Google Docs.

When planning your research timeline, please keep the following in mind:

For most studies researchers should budget at least four weeks for their IRB protocol process which includes drafting materials, meeting with the faculty sponsor, IRB protocol submission, IRB review, response to revisions, and final IRB approval or acknowledgment. Times may vary based on the current IRB protocol queue, the population of interest (if the population is vulnerable), and other mitigating factors (e.g., a pandemic). 

• For most studies that are minimal risk (exempt or expedited) , researchers should likely hear from IRB reviewers between 5-10 business days after the protocol has been submitted in the Mentor IRB system.
• Full Board studies can expect to hear back from a reviewer five business days after the convened Full Board meeting.

Visit our Meetings and Deadlines page for more information concerning review details and dates.

Modifications and Terminations

After obtaining IRB approval, you may decide to alter certain aspects of your research study. Prior to making the changes, you will need to submit a  modification . You can find templates and more information on how to submit study modifications on the  modifications page  of the TC IRB website, the  "IRB Modification Submission Self-Check" blog , and  ways to adapt research in an emergency  blog.

A protocol should be terminated once recruitment has been finalized and all data collection has concluded (e.g., your dissertation has been published). An investigator-initiated voluntary termination is characterized by an investigator wishing to terminate activities involved in their research study and administratively close the protocol with the IRB. You should share these reasons for termination with TC IRB in the continuing review report. Please note that once an IRB protocol has been terminated, it  cannot  be reopened. For detailed information regarding when and how to terminate a protocol, please check out our  terminating a protocol page . 

Dissertation research is a rewarding experience that will inform your subsequent professional development. TC IRB has  a myriad of resources available on our website to demystify the process and support successful dissertation research. If you have any questions or concerns, please send us an email at  [email protected]   to schedule a virtual meeting with an IRB administrator.

Happy Researching! 

— Raquel Queiruga, B.A.

Published Thursday, Nov 11, 2021

Institutional Review Board

Address: Russell Hall, Room 13

* Phone: 212-678-4105 * Email:   [email protected]

Appointments are available by request . Make sure to have your IRB protocol number (e.g., 19-011) available.  If you are unable to access any of the downloadable resources, please contact  OASID via email [email protected] .

School of Interactive Computing

College of computing, ph.d. review procedures and guidelines, section i: purpose and scope.

The purpose of this document is to provide guidelines and policies for the academic, instructional and educational conduct of the doctoral students and faculty of the School of Interactive Computing (IC), as well as some components of faculty service to the School. The policies and procedures of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, both present and future, as well as those issued by the School Chair, College of Computing, and the upper administration of the Georgia Institute of Technology, automatically supersede this document.

Section II: Revising This Document

This document may be revised according to the procedures defined in the School of Interactive Computing Voting Faculty Bylaws.

Section III: PhD Review Procedures and Guidelines

The goal of the PhD review process in the School of Interactive Computing is to give students feedback on their progress in the program, in relationship to clearly articulated expectations and milestones. Every case is unique and exceptions are sometimes warranted (see “Exceptions” below).  However, this document provides a general guide as to what to expect as well as how students and faculty can calibrate expectations, respectively.  These School of Interactive Computing policies must also be interpreted with respect to the relevant Georgia Tech regulations for doctoral degrees:

•        Georgia Tech Catalog

•        Georgia Tech Graduate Admissions & Studies

When a student is accepted into any of the Ph.D. programs offered by the School of Interactive Computing, they are granted certain rights based on the expectation that the student maintains a good standing within the Ph.D. program. The Ph.D. review process is the mechanism by which the faculty periodically communicate to the students whether or not they are in good standing. In the worst case, when a student is no longer deemed to be in good standing, the school will no longer have a commitment to financially support that Ph.D. student (see “Not in good standing” below).  The milestones outlined in this document can help students plan a successful Ph.D. course of study.

Defining the Process of the Ph.D. Review

Each year, the school faculty conducts two PhD Reviews as follows. The first review occurs during the Fall semester and entails a review of  all   PhD students  by the faculty. The primary outcome of the Fall Review is an assessment of every Ph.D. student advised by faculty in the School of Interactive Computing. During the second, Spring semester, Review  all first year PhD students  are reviewed.  Additionally,  those students previously determined, during the Fall review, to not be making satisfactory progress are again reviewed during the Spring review.  The primary outcome of the Spring Review is an assessment of all first year and the Fall semester’s probationary students.

The Fall Review takes place on the second Friday in November. The Spring Review typically takes place during the last week of classes for spring term. If there is any deviation from this pattern, it will be announced in advance.

1.     Every PhD student must submit a self-assessment one month prior to the PhD Review date.  In their self-assessment, students must clearly document their progress towards meeting PhD program milestones.

  There are many good reasons for moving at a slower (or faster) pace than the suggestions. For example, students may switch advisors. A student’s progress might also be delayed by major life events, or by the need to build significant lab infrastructure (for example, a robot) before their research can begin. These reasons should be clearly explained in the student’s self-assessment.

2.     Faculty must complete their individual assessments three weeks prior to the review date.

  At this stage, each faculty member is responsible for indicating which students are his or her advisees. This ensures that students are not overlooked in the review system especially when a student has yet to specify a faculty advisor.

3.     Faculty subgroups meet to discuss each student two weeks prior to review.

This step ensures a larger group of faculty are familiar with all PhD students and helps identify potential problem cases before the official review date.

4.     The actual review is a full-day meeting of all departmental faculty  and others (affiliated faculty and research scientists) who advise or co-advise PhD students in which the status and progress of every PhD student is discussed.

Faculty must be present for the entire review day, or designate a per-student proxy to represent them at the discussion of the student.

5.     Advisors are responsible for preparing individual review assessment letters within one week of the review date each semester.

6.     PhD students have 10 days to acknowledge receipt of their letter, and may submit a rebuttal to be reviewed by the faculty.

A student rebuttal offers an opportunity to correct factual errors, provide relevant context, and express disagreement with the faculty-produced assessment. The student’s status is not normally changed in response to the rebuttal, except in cases of substantial factual error. However, the rebuttal is filed with the student’s permanent record, and will be included in the discussion the next time the student is reviewed.

7.     Any student who is reviewed as less than “Satisfactory” during the Fall Review will be reviewed again in a Spring mini-review, typically during dead week of the Spring semester.

Additionally, every first year student is reviewed in the Spring to ensure that they are making progress towards identifying an advisor. Further, if a student and faculty member decide to end an advisee-advisor relationship, that student will be reviewed again at the next available opportunity, which might be the Spring mini-review. Any student who has a review in the Spring semester will receive a letter indicating the results of the review by the end of May of that year.

8.     Any student who feels they have been treated unfairly as part of this process is encouraged to consult with and/or appeal to the graduate coordinator for the school. Beyond this, the student may request that the graduate coordinator appoint a neutral faculty member to serve as ombudsman.

Milestones for Fall Review

The following are the milestones for the fall review, in November of each year.

Fall Year 1:  Student should have an interim advisor. The student should have regular meetings with at least one faculty member.  If the interim advisor does not have an intellectual connection with the student’s work, then the student should have regular meetings with another faculty member who is connected to his/her intellectual interests. The motivation for this is that there be someone by the Fall review period who can vouch for the student’s intellectual progress.

Fall Year 2:   The student should have an advisor for research.  The student should also show evidence of having worked on one research project. This is compatible with the kind of evidence of research progress that is needed in the research portfolio for the qualifying exam. Starting this year, the student is expected to have submitted at least one publication per year (see below).

Fall Year 3:   The student should have attempted the Qualifying Exam for their degree program during the previous spring. If the student failed the Qualifying Exam, a plan for the second and final attempt at the Qualifier must be provided, which we expect will happen during the third year in most cases.  The student should present a plan for a thesis proposal, including identification of the research area and a schedule for when the thesis proposal will tentatively happen. Students subject to the TA requirement should have TA’d at least once, or at minimum have concrete plans to TA a specific course this academic year.

Fall Year 4:  The student should have passed the Qualifying Exam, should have begun writing their thesis proposal and have a concrete plan for completing it before next fall. 

Fall Year 5:  The student should have completed their thesis proposal. The student should have finished the bulk of their research, and be preparing for thesis defense. Students subject to the TA requirement should have TA’d two times, or have concrete plans to TA a specific course this academic year to finish their requirement.

Fall Year 6:  The student should have graduated or have a concrete plan for graduation before the next fall review.

Publication:  Additionally, students are expected to have submitted at least one publication to a peer-reviewed venue each year, starting at their review in fall of year 2 and onwards.  Note that this requirement refers to submissions, and the faculty understands that not all submission will be accepted for publication. 

PhD Review Status Determination

There are four possible status determinations for a PhD students during PhD reviews:  satisfactory, concern, warning, and not in good standing as described below. 

Satisfactory , means the student is in good standing and will be reviewed again the following year

The remaining three status determinations (concern, warning, or not in good standing) require some level of follow-up review in the Spring PhD Review; these students are expected to meet any deficiencies expressed in the written documentation from the fall review before the Spring PhD Review.

Concern.  If a student misses a milestone, the particular circumstances will be discussed at the PhD review. There may be legitimate reasons for missing a milestone such as switching research areas or advisors, birth of a child, visa processing delays, logistical issues beyond the student’s control (like a delay in obtaining an essential piece of hardware), etc.. Each case will be discussed individually. In general, a student late on a milestone will be placed on “concern” status, and their case will be marked for discussion at the Spring PhD Review.

Warning.  Students will be reviewed in the Spring if a “concern” was noted during the Fall PhD Review.  At this time, if the milestone causing the “concern” has still not been met, the student’s review status will be changed to “warning” unless there are extenuating circumstances.

Not in Good Standing.  A student whose review resulted in a Warning status, may be moved to “not in good standing.” Once a student is deemed “not in good standing,” the school is no longer financially obligated to support the student. This does not preclude the student obtaining funding from sponsored research or fellowships; however, the school has no further financial commitment to the student.

When a student who was previously on a non-satisfactory status is re-reviewed and shows improvement, faculty decide on a case-by-case basis whether their status should be changed to satisfactory or remain at "concern" or "warning."

A student will automatically be asked to leave the program as a result of failing the qualifier twice, irrespective of whether they were satisfactory, concern, or warning.

After each review, the student’s status will be clearly explained to them in a letter delivered in a timely fashion (no more than 10 days after the review meeting).  The review letter will clearly map out the milestone(s) that need to be met and the time frame allowed for milestone completion, and the consequences of failing to meet that milestone by the next review. The student will be given an opportunity to respond to their status in written form, and their rebuttal will be included in their file and discussed at the next review when their status is addressed again.

What To Do When You Are At Risk For An Unsatisfactory Status

The faculty as a whole decide whether a student's particular situation justifies missing milestones.  Thus, it is important for students to be explicit in their self-review about why specific milestones have been missed and how/when the student plans to meet the previously missed milestones.  For example, if a student is delayed in meeting a current milestone because of a previously missed milestone,  and the student is still trying to catch up, such an explanation must be included in the student’s self-assessment.

Each student’s self-assessment is important, but every faculty member does not read every student self-review.  For any student, it can be beneficial if faculty members beyond the student’s advisor are well acquainted with the student’s academic situation because these faculty members can further vouch for the student at the review meeting.  In situations where a student has a conflict with their advisor, they are encouraged to approach another professor familiar with the situation, asking them to speak on the student’s behalf at the meeting can ensure all viewpoints are heard.

Broader Considerations

•        Funds are a shared resource . Most students are expected to be supported by fellowships or sponsored funds. However, there are times when such funds are not available. The school has a limited pool of funds to be used in these cases.

•        Students and faculty should view the available funds as “belonging to” all of us.  If one student lingers in the program for many years funded by department funds and ultimately leaves the program without a degree, that means less funds for other students who for example may simply need one year of funding after their fellowship has expired.

•        Life happens . In a community of this size, it is inevitable that some students will face chronic illness (of themselves or a family member), the birth of a child,  or other major life events during their time here. However, it is important for students to keep their advisors “in the loop” during such times.  A student who is not accomplishing their work can no longer be supported on sponsored funds with clear deliverables. If a student is unable to work at all, they must make use of the College of Computing’s leave policy. If a student is able to work at a reduced pace, there may be some school funds to support them through this period of time. This time period is limited to one semester, and availability of such funds is not guaranteed. Students who need to take a leave of absence should obtain the leave form from the School of Interactive Computing’s graduate programs coordinator. The form should be approved by the student’s advisor and the director of graduate studies for the School of Interactive Computing, then returned to the graduate programs coordinator.

•   Part-time students . Expectations are different for part-time students. Part-time students typically are not dependent on the school for financial support, but still demand the attention of the faculty. These students will take longer to complete the program, but as a general guideline that time should not exceed twice the normal time to reach each milestone.  In planning their career, part-time students must be aware of one time limit set by Georgia Tech: “Students must complete all degree requirements within seven years from the end of the term in which they pass the comprehensive examination.” (See: http://www.catalog.gatech.edu/students/grad/doctoral/time.)

•        Good standing . Good standing in the PhD program is dependent upon making satisfactory progress towards milestones, and having a committed advisor. It is not dependent on funding.  Timelines for milestones are what we normally expect; however, there are many legitimate reasons from deviating from those norms and each case is treated on an individual basis.

When a Student Has No Advisor

Before each review (fall and spring), the school will ask all faculty to confirm which students they are advising. Students lacking an advisor will be reviewed and notified in writing that they must have an advisor before the next review. If a student does not have an advisor for two consecutive PhD reviews, then they will be designated as not in good standing. The school is not obligated to provide funds to support students who are not in good standing.  Students with no advisor will be clearly notified of the date of the next review, and the consequences of not having an advisor by that date.

Students are never asked to leave the program simply because they do not have funding. If the student has an advisor who is willing to advocate for them and they are in good standing, they will be supported on school funds.

Institute Limits

Beyond the guidelines here, there are institute limits to be aware of, particularly: “Students must complete all degree requirements within seven years from the end of the term in which they pass the comprehensive examination.” (See  http://catalog.gatech.edu/academics/graduate/doctoral-degree-info/#time-limit )

Regardless of their standing, students are never guaranteed funding for summer term.

Exceptions to this policy may be made with approval of the School Chair or the chair’s designate.

• < Previous

Home > HRC_ORALHISTORY > MCHV > interviewchapters > 720

Interview Chapters

Chapter 16 : Institutional Review Boards at MD Anderson

Linda E. Elting DPh , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Tacey A. Rosolowski PhD , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Description

Dr. Elting sketching her role in MD Anderson’s Institutional Review Boards, including establishing a new IRB when the board overseeing clinical research didn’t serve the needs of non-clinical researchers. She talks about the role of the research review committee (PBHSRC) that also looks at protocols.

Next, she sketches a history of IRBs at MD Anderson, first established in 1966, before the federal requirement to establish such review processes. She explains how attempts were made to create effective processes that would not slow research.

Next, Dr. Elting explains the value of IRBs and traces how their role has changed as more resources have been provided to support monitoring.

Dr. Elting explains that the computer system that enables efficient entry and management of data has lagged behind the development of IRB processes and causes problems with the system. She also notes that when HIPPA requirements

EltingL_03_20150326_C16

Publication Date

Houston, Texas

Interview Session

Linda S. Elting, DrPh, Oral History Interview, March 26, 2015

Topics Covered

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center - An Institutional Unit; Institutional Processes; MD Anderson History; Building/Transforming the Institution; The Administrator; Controversies

Tacey A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Now explain to me this role on the Institutional Review Board. Now, did you just serve that role within the department, or was that a go-to place for individuals throughout the institution who needed this--

Linda S. Elting, DrPh:

Oh, it's for the whole institution.

That's what I thought, okay. So, explain to me what that role entailed.

Well I joined as a vice-chairwell let's see. I joined as a member years before that when it was recognized that the research that was not clinical trials, that was going to the IRB, and for scientific review, was not getting the kind of review it needed from the clinicians who populated the IRB and the Clinical Research Committee. And so they started what they called a Psychosocial, Behavioral, and Health Services Review Committee [PBHSRC] that was paralleled to the Clinical Research Review Committee, and it was staffed with people who were psychologists and health services researchers and epidemiologists, to do the scientific review. And then it getsonce passed, the scientific review goes to the IRB for human subjects review, and final approval. And so, I was asked to chair that committee when it started, the PBHSRC. And, so as Chair of that, I was reported as a member to the IRB where all of our protocols would be going. And I presented our protocols there to the group, and you know, that sort of thing. So, my role was to chair the scientific review, and once the scientific review had been approved, then to present the protocol to the Institutional Review Board, and at that point, there was only one IRB. And then it would be voted on, and approved, and then monitored in the future by the IRB.

Now, was there a senseI guess I'm interested in kind of the history of the IRB at MD Anderson. You know, were there changes during the time that you were here, and how that was looked at? I mean, the complexity of the review process, what was looked at, what the benchmarks were, how did that evolve? I mean, because research was changing so much. So that's what I'm trying to get a sense of.

Yeah. Well the IRB started in MD Anderson in 1966, I think? It was atit actually began before it was a requirement of the federal government. It was a group of six or eight physicians to start with, and it only reviewed research that was funded by the NCI originally. And I think at their first meeting, they only reviewed three protocols. And over time, it had morphed to a large committee. WeMD Anderson had signed a federal-wide assurance agreement, which is a contract with the federal government that says all research conducted at MD Anderson will comply with the federal regulations; not just the federally-funded research. And when we did that, that meant everything had to go through the IRB. And so, when I joined the IRB, Aman Buzdar was the chair, andour meetings were just interminable. You know, we would go through twenty or thirty protocols a month, and there was this huge backlog. And so, as I began to be in the IRB group, there was a huge push to make the review and oversight process more effective, more efficient, and not to slow research down. So, while I was still on the IRB, it split into two. And wethat meant there were two meetings a month, and we hoped that would clear the backlog. And when that happened, I was appointed as a vice-chair. As Vice-chair of the IRB at that point, that was the othere were only two IRBs, and they were the same. They reviewed the same research; research was randomly assigned to the two. They were always chaired by physicians, male physicians. [laughs] Andbut there were a lot of duties of the IRB that could be performed outside the actual meeting, and approvals that could be done by a chairman administratively, but only if you had enough vice-chairmen to do the work, because no IRB chair could get all that done. So--

Tell me a little bit, because I actually don't know anything about how the IRB works. So what would you do, what is the work that you're referring to, in reviewing these protocols?

The researchers protocols, written protocols are submitted to the IRB for review. We have to review, first of all, that the language and the informed consent is appropriate; that it accurately reflects the risks and benefits of the study. We had to review the whole protocol design for risks and ensure that there is no way that we could further reduce risks, and make a decision about whether there are risks that have not been appreciated by the principal investigator. We are required once a protocol was approved to monitor the conduct of the study, to monitor all adverse events, to check their reporting status to ensure that the status is going adequately, and then toat the close of the study, to look at the results, and ensure that everything was conducted according to the federal regulations. Our other job to train researchers what the regulations are.

I'm justthis may be a "tip of the iceberg"kind of question, but I'm wondering how do you define, for example, an "adverse event"? I mean, I'm wondering is there discussion about how to interpret risk, how do interpret (inaudible)--

[coughs] Oh yeah. There's a lot of back-and-forth. An "adverse event"is something that happens that's bad during the conduct of the study. And it could be, the patient threw the medicine up. It could be they get an infection; it could also be there was a breach of confidentiality and their data was lost, or distributed. It could be that, you know, they shocked themselves with the little device they're using.

I see, okay.

All kinds of things can be adverse events, and they are all reviewed. So there's one vice-chair who spends full time reviewing adverse events. There's another vice-chair who spends a lot of time looking at changes to protocols, because every change that's made has to be approved by the IRB. There's a vice-chair that spends full time, one or more, reviewing protocols that don't have to go to full review, that are, for example, chart reviews, or things like that, a study to establish a database. That doesn't need to go to full review at the committee. A vice-chair can sign off on it.

Now, I mean, very candidly, I've had so many conversations with people in the process of doing these interviews, and a great many of them, particularly older generation folks, you know, are not shy in saying that the IRB process has become extremely top-heavy and stands in the way of research, and you know, that's clearly their perspective. I mean, as someone who's been very, very involved in this for over a decade now, what is your view of the IRB process and its value to research, to the institution, et cetera?

I guess I would say two things. The first is that when I first came to this institution, the IRB did not have sufficient resources to provide hardly any oversight. And as a result, there were never any situations where the IRB came to you and said, "Your study is deficient in this area. You have to stop until you fix it." So, there's no one who randomly chooses a protocol, and then verifwas no one who would verify that everyone had signed an informed consent. After some inspections from the Food and Drug Administration in the early eighties where we were unable to produce informed consents for clinical trials and such, we began to have a lot more interestthe administration had a lot more interest in ensuring that we were truly complying with the regulations. So the regulations governing research have not changed, but our attention to them has changed dramatically. So that's the first thing. So anyone who was here in the seventies was here in the cowboy research days, where you just sort of decided you wanted to do something, and you did it, and there was no oversight. So, after this started, there was more and more interest in this oversight job, because the oversight piece is what was lacking, and that's what could end up having MD Anderson's right to do research stopped, as has happened in other big institutions in the nation. Which would cost MD Anderson an arm and a leg. So, there was this suddenrecognition that oversight needed to be happening. And so they said, "Okay, now we're going to do it." Unfortunately, there was no trained infrastructure to make it happen efficiently and correctly. And so, over time, the infrastructure has increased. The processes have gotten morein some cases, more efficient, but the computer systems lagged behind, and they were almost entirely paper systems, which is not a good way to manage the number of studies at MD Anderson. So they're still in the process of trying to come up with an electronic system that will, you know, make theautomate the IRB functions, reporting and everything. So that's one of the reasons that someone who has been here a long time would perceive this to be very egregious, because it's so much more specifically-directed at oversight than it was initially. So the other thing I would say is that when HIIPA, the Health Insurance Information and Portability Act, was passed, the intention of which was to ensure that information could move between entities, that act crippled us by putting so many regulations and rules in place that affected research that we have to jump through ten times more hoops than we used to. Now, that is not specifically governing research, but at this institution, as in most others, the IRB is also the privacy board, and manages the HIIPA regulations. And that has been just nightmarish for all of usyou know, for me too as a researcher, to deal with the requirements. And the requirements were put into place without ever really considering researchers. So it's a federal law, and unlike the research regulations, which are also federal laws, instead of just being subject to civil penalties, under HIIPA, all of us as researchers are subject to criminal penalties for violation of HIIPA regulations. So, the stakes have changed considerably as well.

We're almost at our hour time. Can I ask you one more question--

--because you've been working with the IRBs, you know, for all of this time. Why have youwhat is the commitment that you felt to dealing with this important part of the institution?

Initially, I did it because it was an opportunity to raise my profile professionally. Getting put in that chairmanship position of the PBHSRC when I was a junior associate professor, was the kind of opportunity that almost no one ever gets, particularly for someone who's not a physician. So, that was an opportunity I needed to capitalize on. I was interested in the whole issue because it was something I didn't understand or know, so as I learned about it, I realized how big a problem it was, and how simple it would be to fix if people had ever read the regulations themselves. But you know, none of us read the instructions when we should. And then, it became really clear as weas I worked there that the whole IRB process, as it was done at MD Anderson for clinical research, didn't fit for research that wasn't clinical research. And just the whole thing didn't work. And we needed a completely different process. And that became more and more and more evident, andthen a decision was made, I think, by Aman Buzdar, andwho Icould have been Maurie Markman, who was Vice President for Research then, that they needed to add another IRB, and it needed to focus on the issues that dealt with social science kind of research, and non-clinical research, and they asked me to be chair, which was a once-in-a-career kind of opportunity to take a leadership position in the institution. So, I felt like I could do the job, and I liked the idea of starting from scratch, and building it, and fixing the issues that I knew were there. And it was a great job. Hard, time-consuming, stressful, but it was a really good job.

Would you like to leave it there for today? I mean, I don't want to abuse your time.

Okay. And then we canI hope I can impose on you for another session, because I know we have more things to ask.

Sure. Sure.

All right, great. Well thank you so much. I mean, this is just a really interesting look at a part of the institution that nobody's really talked about from an insider's perspective before, so very, very interesting. Thank you, Dr. Elting for your time today.

Sure. My pleasure.

Recommended Citation

Elting, Linda E. DPh and Rosolowski, Tacey A. PhD, "Chapter 16 : Institutional Review Boards at MD Anderson" (2015). Interview Chapters . 720. https://openworks.mdanderson.org/mchv_interviewchapters/720

Conditions Governing Access

Since February 08, 2023

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Contribute to OpenWorks

• Author FAQs

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

Featured Clinical Reviews

• Screening for Atrial Fibrillation: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement JAMA Recommendation Statement January 25, 2022
• Evaluating the Patient With a Pulmonary Nodule: A Review JAMA Review January 18, 2022
• Download PDF
• Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
• Permissions

Responding to the Call to Meaningfully Assess Institutional Review Board Effectiveness

• 1 The Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight (AEREO), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• 2 Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
• 3 Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R), Boston, Massachusetts
• 4 Department of Bioethics, NIH Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland
• Viewpoint Single IRBs in Multisite Trials Robert Klitzman, MD; Ekaterina Pivovarova, PhD; Charles W. Lidz, PhD JAMA
• Original Investigation Industry Relationships Among Academic IRB Members Eric G. Campbell, PhD; Christine Vogeli, PhD; Sowmya R. Rao, PhD; Melissa Abraham, PhD; Roz Pierson, PhD; Sandra Applebaum, MA JAMA Internal Medicine

Independent review and oversight have long been recognized as requirements for ethical research involving human participants, leading institutional review boards (IRBs) to become deeply entrenched in the research enterprise. Against this background, it would be reasonable to expect that there are clear, comprehensive, and reliable approaches to evaluate whether the IRB system, any individual IRB, or the Human Research Protection Programs (HRPPs), of which IRBs are often a part, are effective in protecting the rights and welfare of research participants. However, a 2023 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report 1 is the latest in a long line of analyses to conclude that nearly 50 years after the requirement for IRB review of research was first codified in federal regulations, we still have no such measures. 2 The task of meaningfully evaluating IRB effectiveness beyond mere regulatory compliance is a hard one, but recent progress is promising and could be even stronger with adequate resources.

Read More About

Fernandez Lynch H , Hurley EA , Taylor HA. Responding to the Call to Meaningfully Assess Institutional Review Board Effectiveness. JAMA. 2023;330(3):221–222. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.8457

Manage citations:

© 2024

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Cardiology in JAMA : Read the Latest

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing
• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

Website Navigation for Screen Readers

• Return home
• Go to header navigation
• Go to search form
• Go to content region
• Go to footer region

PhD Program Review Resources

• PhD Program Review Protocol
• PhD Program Review Resource Document

Navigate To

• Second Commission on Undergraduate Education
• Graduate and Professional Education
• Accreditation and Academic Compliance
• Student Learning Assessment

PhD Program Review

PhD programs at Johns Hopkins University are reviewed every 5-7 years by the University-wide Doctor of Philosophy Board (DPB), generally in coordination with each academic division’s own program review cycle. Following this review, the Doctor of Philosophy Board (DPB) advises the Provost regarding each program’s strengths, areas of improvement, and needs based upon discussion of the data and information provided in the PhD Program Review Resource Document by the program. Upon receipt of a written report from the DPB, the Provost provides timely written feedback to the respective Dean and Vice Dean.

Resources provided on this page include the PhD Program Review Protocol document which provides an overview of the DPB program review process and the steps involved, and the PhD Program Review Resource Document template which is used by the programs to share information with the Doctor of Philosophy Board.

• Office of the Provost

265 Garland Hall 3400 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Phone: (410) 516-8070 Fax: (410) 516-8035 [email protected]

• External link to Facebook
• External link to Instagram
• External link to Twitter
• External link to Linkedin
• External link to Youtube
• External link to Wikipedia
• About the Provost’s Office
• University Policies
• © 2024 Johns Hopkins University
• University Contacts
• Emergency Contact Information
• Student Right to Know

Website Footer Navigation

• Jump to content region

School of Social and Political Science

End of first year review board.

This section gives information on the PhD first year review process.

For information on the annual review form within EUCLID see the Annual Review system page:

PhD Annual Review system

Purpose of the review

The first year of a PhD is considered to be probationary, and is assessed by the End of First Year Review Board.

The Board is an opportunity to evaluate:

• whether the candidate is capable of doing a PhD
• whether the work is sufficiently developed, and of the required standard, to justify confirmation of PhD registration

The Review facilitates support and timely completion of the research by ensuring that students proceed only when they have acquired the necessary expertise.

The Review is a genuine hurdle, but the preparation provided by the Research Training courses, coupled with guidance from supervisors and PG advisor, provide the support needed.

Timing of the review

All full-time PhD candidates should have their review board within 9 to 12 months of enrolment on the PhD programme.

Occasionally it may take place slightly earlier, particularly if an MSc by research has been completed prior to  beginning the PhD.

Part-time students operate to the same timescale as full-time students, however they will not be expected to have made as much progress within this time.

Additionally there is the option to defer the progression decision and/or confirmation of registration to the second annual review.

Composition of the panel

The Review is carried out by a Board which normally consists of:

• both supervisors
• one or two 'external' examiners

These staff members will usually be from within the Subject Area/Centre.

The 'external' examiners should not have been involved to any significant extent, either academically or administratively, with the student.

The composition of the panel can vary slightly between subject areas, this can be confirmed with the Postgraduate Advisor for your Subject Area/Centre.

There is no formal University requirement for any of the examiners at a PhD First Year Review Board to be external to the School, although it could include someone from outside the School or the University, if appropriate.

The University guidance is in section 3.2 of the  Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students .  It lays out the process and explains what you should expect.

What is required

Research proposal.

Around 3-4 weeks in advance of the board, you should complete your section of the  online annual review form  and submit a written full research proposal to the online system and email a copy to your Board members.

The proposal:

• specifies the research question and locates it in the appropriate academic literature
• fully elaborates the research design, methodology and anticipated contribution to knowledge
• discusses ethical, political and practical issues
• includes a timetable and a programme of work

As a guide, this should be around 12-15,000 words.

Your report is required to be submitted to  Turnitin  by your supervisor and the similarity report made available to the board members prior to the meeting.

Please ensure you raise this requirement with your supervisor in a timely manner to ensure the report is available.

In addition to submitting the proposal in advance of the meeting of the Board, you may choose to make a short oral presentation.

Ethics self-assessment

Students should also complete, or have in progress, an ethics self-assessment in conjunction with their supervisors, and the process should be integrated into their First Year Review Board. Self-assessment is conducted via an online ethics form and draft applications can be saved as a PDF to share with supervisors and submit to the Review Board. Once finalised, the ethics form is submitted for approval. Details of the 3-level approval approach to ethical approval are given in Point 5.1 of the PhD Handbook.

Review meeting

The meeting discusses the proposal – asking questions, giving constructive feedback and making suggestions.

It may last for up to 2 hours, to allow enough time for a full assessment of the work, of the student, and of the supervisory team.

Possible outcomes of the review

After the review meeting, the Principal and/or Lead Co supervisor will complete their section of the  online annual review form  and upload the minute and/or report of the review board meeting.

This report makes clear the recommendation and the basis of the decision. This report is confirmed by all members of the review board, including the student.

Information on the recommendations available to the review panel are available in the  Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students  and the  Postgraduate Assessment Regulation for Research Degrees , and outlined below.

Postgraduate Assessment Regulations for Research Degrees:

Extract from the Postgraduate Assessment Regulations for Research Degrees:

Regulation 14 | Annual progression review recommendation

(a) confirmation of registration, for example for PhD, MPhil;

(b) a repeat progression review must be undertaken within three months before confirmation of progression;

(c) for part-time students only for the first progression review: deferment of the confirmation decision to the second annual review;

(d) registration for a different research degree such as MPhil or MSc by Research;

(e) registration for a postgraduate taught degree (for example MSc) or diploma can be recommended if the student has undertaken the coursework for that qualification;

(f) exclusion from study.

Where a serious problem is identified or discontinuation is considered, the Review Board will normally write a report stating where the proposal is deficient and explaining what work needs to be done to bring the proposal up to the required standard.

A second review will be arranged at which the student has the chance to present a revised proposal.

Outcome 14(b)

If the outcome of the annual review is 14(b) then the three month period starts from the date of issue of the progression decision to the student.

The outcomes of a repeat are the same as for the initial review, with the exception of 14(b) - only one repeat review may be undertaken.

If the Review Panel still finds that the student has not met the required standard, then discontinuation will be recommended.

Section 3.2 of the  University Code of Practice for Supervisors and Research Students  outlines the procedures in full.

Administrative procedures

After the board review you should ensure that you have:

• completed the  online Research Ethics form
• asked your supervisor to submit a Leave of Absence form on your behalf if you are intending to leave Edinburgh for research purposes/fieldwork
• completed the Travel Plan and Risk Assessment form , if you are conducting your fieldwork outside Edinburgh

Any queries regarding the administrative procedures can be directed to the PG Research Support Team .

• Resources    
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Alumni & Friends
• News & Media

Who Serves on the Institutional Review Board?

The Institutional Review Board members serve on a volunteer basis and are profiled below.

The minimum composition of the board is established by institutional policy. The chair is a faculty member elected from within the board. The policy regarding board membership is described in the IRB Guidebook.

Timothy J. Runge, PhD, NCSP, BCBA (Pennsylvania State University)

Runge is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Runge was a school psychologist in public schools and consultant for the Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network prior to his current position. Runge continues to provide consultative support to schools implementing Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for academics and behavior. Runge is the lead on the statewide evaluation of Pennsylvania’s School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports initiative. Runge’s research interests include behavior support at the individual, classroom, and school-wide level; literacy assessment and instruction; curriculum-based assessment; and measurement of responsiveness to intervention.  

Kristy Chunta, PhD, RN, ACNS (West Virginia University), associate professor, Department of Nursing and Allied Health

Chunta is a licensed registered nurse (Pennsylvania) and holds certification as a clinical specialist in medical-surgical nursing. She earned her diploma in nursing from the Conemaugh School of Nursing; bachelor of science in nursing and school nurse certification from the University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown; and master of science in nursing with role preparation in education from Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Chunta teaches undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral courses. She is vice president of the board of trustees for the Lucas Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides support to families who have lost a newborn. Her research interests include recovery of open-heart surgery patients, transition to clinical practice, and simulation. Chunta is a reviewer for clinical, research, and nursing education-based journals, including the American Journal of Nursing, Heart & Lung , and Nurse Education Today . She can be reached by email at [email protected] or by phone at 724-357-2408.

Alex Heckert, PhD (University of Iowa), professor, Department of Sociology

Bethany Jackson, CRA ,  Director of Research Services and Compliance, School of Graduate Studies and Research

Jackson has a bachelor’s degree in communication studies from Grove City College and has earned the designation of certified research administrator (RACC). She manages research policies and ethical compliance for the university, manages the IRB Manager system, and oversees the operations of the IRB Office. Jackson can be reached at  [email protected] .

Steve Kleinman,   PhD (Ohio State University), Assistant Director of the Department of Communications Media

Luz Marin,  ScD  (University of Massachusetts, Lowell), assistant professor, Department of Safety Sciences

Richard Neff, MD (Drexel University College of Medicine), Chief Medical Officer, Indiana Regional Medical Center.

Neff trained in family medicine at the University of Pennsylvania's Family Medicine and Community Health Residency in Philadelphia. Before medical school at MCP Hahnemann School of Medicine/Drexel University, he received a bachelors of arts degree in music with college honors from Earlham College, completed the course work for a master’s in music history and theory at Penn State University, and is currently working on an MBA at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Most recently, he hails from Flagstaff, Arizona, where he worked for Northern Arizona Healthcare, working in a number of positions, including as chief medical officer for Flagstaff Medical Center, serving as NAH IRB member, then its chair, as well as serving as a community member on Northern Arizona University's IRB. As part to his role supervising research, he worked to facilitate research collaborations between the university and the health system. Richard can be reached via email at [email protected] or by phone at 724-357-7178.

Kelli R. Paquette, EdD (Wilmington University), professor and chairperson, Department of Professional Studies in Education

Paquette is an IUP alumnus, earning her undergraduate degree in elementary education. She is a former Delaware elementary school teacher certified in grades K-6 (Pennsylvania) and grades 1-8 (Delaware), and she is also certified as an elementary school principal, reading specialist, and program specialist ESL. Paquette teaches undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral courses in her department. Her research interests include literacy development and research-based best instructional practices. She is a reviewer for Early Childhood Education Journal and presents at various international, national, and regional conferences. She can be reached by email at [email protected] . or by phone at 724-357-2400.

Margaret Reardon, PhD (Florida International University), associate professor, Department of Psychology

Reardon received her BA in psychology from State University of New York College at Geneseo, and her master's and doctoral degrees in psychology from Florida International University with a focus on legal psychology. She teaches courses in statistics and research methods at both the undergraduate and graduate level, along with undergraduate courses in her area of specialty such as Forensic Psychology and Actual Innocence. Reardon's current scholarly interests include juror evaluations of forensic evidence, perceptions of police use of force, and beliefs in justice. Reardon is a member of the American Psychology-Law Society and the Association for Psychological Science and regularly consults on legal cases involving eyewitness evidence.

Jennifer Roberts, PhD  (University of Nebraska), professor, Department of Criminology

Roberts has been a long-standing member of the IRB, including serving as chair from 2014-2023. She is currently the IRB’s Expedited Reviewer. Within the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, she teaches a variety of courses across the undergraduate and graduate levels. Her research interests include the study of violence and the use of the survey methodology with criminological samples. She may be contacted by email at  [email protected]  or by phone at 724-357-5610.

Mark Sloniger, PhD  (University of Georgia), professor, Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Science

Mark Sloniger holds the position of professor of Exercise Science. He completed his doctorate at the University of Georgia and a post-doctoral NIH Research Training Fellowship at Duke University Medical Center. Sloniger has been recognized as an American College of Sports Medicine Fellow as a result of his research accomplishments and service to the college. He is a past president of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Chapter of ACSM and maintains memberships within ACSM and the National Strength and Conditioning Association. He is certified by the NSCA as a strength and conditioning specialist. Sloniger serves the Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Science through his work on various committees, which includes chairperson of the departmental Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects. Additionally, he is director of the Human Performance Laboratory housed within the department. Sloniger can be reached by email at  [email protected] or by phone at 724-357-5508.

• School of Graduate Studies and Research
• Associate Dean for Research Stright Hall, Room 113 210 South Tenth Street Indiana, PA 15705-1081
• Phone: 724-357-7730
• Fax: 724-357-2715
• [email protected]

• Aviation and Astronautical Sciences
• Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence and Data Science
• Construction and Facilities
• Critical Infrastructure
• Cyber & Information Security
• Cyberpsychology
• Engineering
• Engineering Technologies
• Intelligence and Global Security Studies
• Management of Technology
• Occupational Safety and Health
• Uncrewed Systems
• Doctoral Degrees
• Master's Degrees
• Bachelor's Degrees
• Online Programs
• Associate Degrees
• Certificates
• Minor Degrees
• Summer Programs
• STEM Events
• Webinars and Podcasts
• Master's
• Undergraduate
• Transfer Students
• Military and Veterans
• International Students
• Admissions Counselor
• Capitol Connections
• Accepted Students
• Project Lead the Way
• Builder Culture
• Campus Life
• Clubs and Organizations
• Centers and Labs
• Online Classes
• The Capitol Commitment
• Top Employers
• Co-ops and Internships
• Professional Education
• Find a Mentor
• Career Services
• Capitol Online Job Board
• Recruiters and Employers
• Why Capitol Tech
• At a Glance
• Mission, Vision and Goals
• Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
• Washington, D.C.
• Capitol History
• Capitol Partners
• News and Events
• Visitors/Campus
• Accreditation
• Recognitions & Awards
• Current Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Alumni & Giving
• News & Events
• Capitology Blog
• Maps / Directions

• Degrees and Programs

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Project Management

• Request Information

Earn a Doctorate in Project Management and become an asset to any and every organization.

The PhD in Project Management provides a path for the highest mastery of managing business processes in competitive local, national, and global industries. Project management is a multi-disciplinary profession that encompasses the design, process, and goals for your company projects, making you an asset to any employer. As a leader in project management, you will develop the mastery needed to determine scope and feasibility, manage time and resources, tackle deadlines, meet customer expectations, lead teams, effectively use technology, and provide business expertise throughout the many complex phases of project completion.

The PhD in Project Management program is structured for experienced professionals in this field with an appropriate undergraduate degree. Within the program, students will conduct original research in an approved area of Project Management. 

As your PhD progresses, you will move through a series of progression points and review stages by your academic supervisor. This ensures that you are engaged in research that will lead to the production of a high-quality thesis and/or publications, and that you are on track to complete this in the time available. Following submission of your PhD Thesis or accepted three academic journal articles, you will have an oral presentation assessed by an external expert in your field. 

Why Capitol?

Expert faculty guidance in doctoral research

Capitol’s doctoral programs are supervised by faculty with extensive experience in chairing doctoral dissertations and mentoring students as they launch their academic careers. You’ll receive the guidance you need to successfully complete your doctoral research project and build credentials in the field.

Proven academic excellence

Study at a university that specializes in industry-focused education in cyber and technology-based fields, nationally recognized for our academic excellence in our programs.

Program is 100% online

Our PhD programs are offered 100% online with no in-person residency required.

Dr. Richard Baker

Dissertation Chair

Dr. Richard Baker is Dissertation Chair of Graduate Programs at Capitol Technology University. He previously served as associate professor in Indiana State University’s Department of Aviation Technology, and as executive director of the Center for Unmanned Systems and Human Capital Development.  Richard holds a BS in mathematics and an MS in computer science from Indiana State University. He received his doctorate in information systems from Nova Southeastern University.  

Dr. Craig Capano

Dissertation Chair/Adjunct Professor

Craig D. Capano, PhD, CPC, is a Dissertation Chair and Adjunct Professor at Capitol Technology University for PhD students in Construction Science. Dr. Capano earned his PhD in Civil Engineering, Master of Construction Science and Management degree, and a dual undergraduate degree in Architectural Engineering and Construction Management. He completed post doctorate work at Harvard University’s College of Education focusing on Higher Education Administration. Dr. Capano brings extensive academic and professional experience with more than 47 years of experience in the construction industry and over 25 years in academic program leadership. He currently serves as principal of The Capano Group, a consulting firm for contractors and construction education.

Dr. Ian McAndrew

Prof. Ian R. McAndrew, PhD is a mechanical engineer who has worked in education nearly 30 years. His global teaching and research began in London and, now with Capitol Technology University where he is the Dean of Doctoral Programs, have taken him around the world. He has taught in over 25 countries, holds six degrees, is qualified as an Electrical Engineer, and is an accepted fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Association Fellowship, also known as a FRAeS. He has supervised over 80 PhDs and has almost 60 peer-reviewed publications. Dr. McAndrew’s current research is in aerodynamics and low speed flight. He is frequently invited to deliver keynote speeches and is the chair of several international conferences. Additionally, he is the editor or assistant editor in chief of several international academic journals.

Eric Motycka

Director of Graduate Programs

Eric Motycka serves Capitol Technology University as the Director of Graduate Programs. Prior to joining Capitol Tech, Eric held multiple leadership positions in industries ranging from industrial coatings to financial services to Higher Education Advancement. Eric holds a BA in Literature and Writing from Burlington College, an MBA from Indiana State University, and a Ph.D. in Higher Education Leadership from Indiana State University.

Career Opportunities

Market demand for Project Management expertise

Graduates will contribute significantly to the creation of new knowledge and ideas, and will be prepared for in-demand roles such as a trusted subject matter expert, researcher, technician, manager, or professor.

Degree Details

This program may be completed with a minimum of 60 credit hours, but may require additional credit hours, depending on the time required to complete the dissertation/publication research. Students who are not prepared to defend after completion of the 60 credits will be required to enroll in RSC-899, a one-credit, eight-week continuation course. Students are required to be continuously enrolled/registered in the RSC-899 course until they successfully complete their dissertation defense/exegesis.

The PhD program offers 2-degree completion requirement options:  

Dissertation Option: the student will produce, present, and defend a doctoral dissertation after receiving the required approvals from the student’s Committee and the PhD Review Boards. 

Publication Option: the student will publish three works of original research in a scholarly peer-reviewed journal(s) of high stature. Two of the three published works may be in a peer reviewed conference proceeding if the conference is international and approved by the Dean. The student will produce an exegesis culminating the work for their defense. Students must receive the required approvals from the student’s Committee and the PhD Review Board prior to publication. Prior Achieved Credits May Be Accepted.

Doctor of Philosophy in Project Management Courses  

Total Credits: 60  

PROJECT MANAGEMENT DOCTORAL CORE: 30 CREDITS 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT DOCTORAL RESEARCH AND WRITING: 30 CREDITS 

Educational Objectives:  

1. Demonstrate knowledge of the historical connections and evolutions in Project Management. 

2. Incorporate the theoretical and practical applications of Project Management to design an original research project. 

3. Apply the Project Management framework to current issues in the world. 

4. Critically compare and contrast theories of Project Management and identify the appropriate connections. 

5. Communicate findings, both in a written and oral format, to a variety of audiences. 

6. Create research works that bring forward new knowledge in Project Management. 

Learning Outcomes: 

Upon graduation, graduates will...  

1. Incorporate the theoretical basis and practical applications of Project Management into their professional work. 

2. Apply research and advance problem-solving skills to their career field. 

3. Be versed in the science to offer economic solutions to Project Management. 

4. Demonstrate the highest mastery of the needs of Project Management globally. 

5. Be ambassadors for research and the advancement of knowledge. 

Tuition & Fees

Tuition rates are subject to change.

The following rates are in effect for the 2024-2025 academic year, beginning in Fall 2024 and continuing through Summer 2025:

• The application fee is $100
• The per-credit charge for doctorate courses is $950. This is the same for in-state and out-of-state students.
• Retired military receive a $50 per credit hour tuition discount
• Active duty military receive a $100 per credit hour tuition discount for doctorate level coursework.
• Information technology fee $40 per credit hour.
• High School and Community College full-time faculty and full-time staff receive a 20% discount on tuition for doctoral programs.

Find additional information for 2024-2025 doctorate tuition and fees.

Need more info, or ready to apply?

Scientific Research

The Scientific Review Board participates in the review of candidates for our research programs and investigators for reappointment.

The board includes accomplished scientists who collectively represent the breadth of biomedical fields in which HHMI Investigators work.

Related links

• Medical Advisory Board
• Scientific Research programs

Larry Abbott, PhD William Bloor Professor of Theoretical Neuroscience Kolb Research Annex Columbia University

David Altshuler, MD, PhD Executive Vice President, Global Research, and Chief Scientific Officer Vertex Pharmaceuticals

Dora Angelaki, PhD Professor of Neural Science and Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering New York University

Silvia Arber, PhD Professor of Neurobiology and Cell Biology Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research

Naama Barkai, PhD Professor, Department of Molecular Genetics Weizmann Institute of Science

Lorena Beese, PhD James B. Duke Distinguished Professor of Medicine Professor of Biochemistry Duke University

Shelley L. Berger, PhD Daniel S. Och University Professor Director, Epigenetics Institute University of Pennsylvania

Alexander Borst, PhD Director, Department of Circuits – Computation – Models Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology

Nils Brose, MSc, PhD Professor, Director Max Planck Institute for Experimental Medicine

Aravinda Chakravarti, PhD Director, Center for Human Genetics and Genomics NYU Grossman School of Medicine

Roger Cone, PhD Mary Sue Coleman Director and Research Professor Life Sciences Institute University of Michigan

Michael Czech, PhD Isadore and Fannie Foxman Chair of Medical Research Program in Molecular Medicine UMass Chan Medical School 

Marc Freeman, PhD Director and Senior Scientist Vollum Institute Oregon Health & Science University

Gregory Hannon, PhD Director & Senior Group Leader Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute University of Cambridge

Caroline S. Harwood, PhD Gerald and Lyn Grinstein Professor of Microbiology University of Washington

Richard Henderson, PhD, FRS Programme Leader MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology

Anthony Hyman, PhD Director Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics

Sabine Kastner, MD, PhD Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience Neuroscience Institute Princeton University

Jürgen Knoblich, PhD Scientific Director (Interim) Institute of Molecular Biotechnology

Robb Krumlauf, PhD Scientific Director Emeritus and Professor Stowers Institute for Medical Research

Richard Lifton, MD, PhD President and Carson Family Professor The Rockefeller University

Kelsey Martin, MD, PhD Executive Vice President SFARI and Simons Foundation Neuroscience Collaborations 

Joan Massagué, PhD Chief Scientific Officer, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Director, Sloan Kettering Institute

Diane Mathis, PhD Professor of Microbiology and Immunobiology Morton Grove-Rasmussen chair Harvard Medical School  

Markus Meister, PhD Anne P. and Benjamin F. Biaggini Professor of Biological Sciences  California Institute of Technology 

Andrew Murray, PhD Herchel Smith Professor of Molecular Genetics and Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology Harvard University 

Dmitri Petrov, PhD Professor of Biology Director of the Program for Conservation Genomics Stanford University

Janet Rossant, PhD President and Scientific Director Gairdner Foundation

Robert T. Sauer, PhD Salvador E. Luria Professor Department of Biology Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Alex Schier, PhD Professor of Cell Biology and the Director of the Biozentrum University of Basel 

Robert Schreiber, PhD Andrew M. and Jane M. Bursky Distinguished Professor, Pathology & Immunology Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis

Petra Schwille, PhD Director, Department of Cellular and Molecular Biophysics Max-Planck-Institute of Biochemistry

Shanthini Sockanathan, PhD Vice Chair of Faculty, Department of Neuroscience Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

Wesley Sundquist, PhD Chair and Distinguished Professor Department of Biochemistry University of Utah School of Medicine

David Tollervey, PhD Professor of RNA Biology Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellow Wellcome Center for Cell Biology University of Edinburgh

Gordana Vunjak-Novakovic, PhD University Professor and Mikati Foundation Professor of Biomedical Engineering Columbia University

Susan Wessler, PhD Neil A and Rochelle A Campbell Presidential Chair for Innovations in Science Education University of California Riverside

Moscow City Teachers' Training University Rankings

Quick Review

* Moscow City Teachers' Training University is among the institutions that don't provide data on acceptance rates. This might happen because the university has programs where applicants only need to meet admission requirements to enroll and don't necessarily compete with others.

We estimate the above acceptance rate based on admission statistics of closely ranked nearby universities with similar research profiles that do publish such data.

Acceptance rate & Admissions

The tuition table for Moscow City Teachers' Training University gives an overview of costs but prices are approximate and subject to change and don't include accommodation, textbooks, or living expenses. The costs of programs might differ significantly for local and international students. The only source of truth for current numbers is the university's official website.

Currency is in Russian Rubles (RUB).

Moscow City Teachers' Training University has financial aid programs and on-campus housing.

Programs and Degrees

Moscow city teachers' training university alumni.

Victoria Sinitsina

Victoria Alexandrovna Sinitsina is a Russian ice dancer. With Nikita Katsalapov, she is the 2022 Olympic gold medalist in the team event, 2022 Olympic silver medalist, 2021 World champion, two-time European Champion (2020,2022), the 2019 World silver medalist, the 2018–19 Grand Prix Final silver medalist, and a two-time Russian national champion (2019–2020). They have also won several medals on the Grand Prix and the Challenger Series, including winning the 2018 CS Ondrej Nepela Trophy.

Maria Paseka

Maria Valeryevna Paseka is a Russian artistic gymnast and member of the Russia women's national gymnastics team. During her decade-long career, she has primarily been successful as a vault specialist. On this apparatus, she is a two-time Olympic medalist (silver in 2016, bronze in 2012), a two-time world champion (2015, 2017), a two-time European champion (2015, 2019), the 2015 Universiade champion, and a two-time Russian national champion (2013, 2019). As a member of the Russian teams at the 2012 and 2016 Summer Olympics, Paseka won two silver medals in the team competition.

Ruslan Zhiganshin

Ruslan Nailevich Zhiganshin is a retired Russian ice dancer. With partner Elena Ilinykh, he is the 2015 Russian national champion.

Lubov Iliushechkina

Liubov Ivanovna Ilyushechkina is a Russian-born Canadian pair skater.

Moscow City Teachers' Training University faculties and divisions

General information, location and contacts, moscow city teachers' training university in social media.

UC selects dean to lead renowned performing and media arts college

Peter jutras, phd, will serve as dean of the college-conservatory of music.

Peter Jutras, PhD, professor of piano and piano pedagogy and director of the Hugh Hodgson School of Music (HHSOM) at the University of Georgia, has been named dean of the University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music, effective Aug.1, 2024, pending approval of the UC Board of Trustees.

Jutras, an award-winning professor and educator, has been a member of the HHSOM faculty for 18 years and served as associate director for research and graduate studies prior to being named director in 2019. The HHSOM is a nationally recognized, large public university music school with more than 500 majors.

Peter Jutras, PhD

“Peter Jutras has a strong record of inclusive leadership, visionary thinking, fiscal responsibility, community building and student-forward curricular development, all of which will serve our College-Conservatory of Music as it continues to grow its legacy as an internationally renowned performing and media arts institution,” says Valerio Ferme, PhD, UC’s executive vice president of academic affairs and provost. “His experience in the development of interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary partnerships with programs in the humanities and sciences will continue to fuel our innovative approach to education.”

During his tenure at HHSOM, Jutras has become known for an innovative and creative vision, community building and student success. He led school-wide efforts to launch new curricular offerings and review core requirements to create opportunities for more relevant and flexible course options. Additionally, Jutras has tapped innovative collaborations across campus to partner with new educational programs such as an Innovation Bootcamp for musicians and an interdisciplinary arts Lab.  

I have a strong passion for advancing the cause of music and the arts on a global scale while supporting and empowering students, faculty and staff. I can’t wait to partner with members of the UC and Cincinnati communities to build on the college’s rich history.

“It is an honor and privilege to be chosen as the next UC College-Conservatory of Music dean,” says Peter Jutras, PhD. “I have a strong passion for advancing the cause of music and the arts on a global scale while supporting and empowering students, faculty and staff. I can’t wait to partner with members of the UC and Cincinnati communities to build on the college’s rich history to prepare students for successful careers that positively impact society.”

An avid researcher, Jutras has published numerous articles in leading music journals, and he is a frequent presenter at national and international conferences. Jutras served as editor-in-chief of Clavier Companion Magazine, a leading national piano pedagogy publication, for 11 years.

Jutras holds a BM degree in music education from the Eastman School of Music, an MM degree in piano performance and pedagogy from Southern Methodist University and a PhD in music education with an emphasis in piano pedagogy from the University of North Texas.

About the College-Conservatory of Music

The University of Cincinnati's nationally ranked and internationally renowned College-Conservatory of Music (CCM) is a preeminent institution for the performing and media arts. The school’s educational roots date back to 1867, and a solid, visionary instruction by internationally renowned faculty has been at its core since that time. Declared "one of this country's leading conservatories" by the New York Times, CCM offers nearly 120 possible majors, along with a variety of pre-collegiate and post-graduate programs and workshops. The synergy created by housing CCM within a comprehensive public university gives the college its unique character and defines its objective: to educate and inspire the whole artist and scholar for positions on the world stage.

Learn more at ccm.uc.edu .

• College-Conservatory of Music
• Next Lives Here
• Graduate School
• Arts & Culture

Related Stories

President pinto's 2021 year-in-review message.

December 17, 2021

University of Cincinnati President Neville G. Pinto looks back on a historic year that brought students, faculty, staff and the community back together like never before.

2021 University Recognition Ceremony honors student achievements

April 13, 2021

The University of Cincinnati recognizes students each year who have made significant service, leadership, and academic contributions to the UC community. These students exemplify the spirit of what it means to be a Bearcat.

April 11, 2024

Peter Jutras, PhD, professor of piano and piano pedagogy and director of the Hugh Hodgson School of Music (HHSOM) at the University of Georgia, has been named dean of the University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music, effective Aug. 1, 2024, pending approval of the UC Board of Trustees.

A Magazine for Those With a Passion to Travel in Style

Moscow: An Honest Review of this Amazing City

“ You’re going to Russia?!?! Why? ” I heard these words pretty much every time I announced my upcoming trip to the east.

This reaction is understandable. Most people in Europe and the United States have a Putin-provoked distaste of the Russian Federation, which is growing by the day. Politicians claim that Russia’s sole mission is to diminish and undermine western powers to strengthen its own. After all, the name Vladimir comes from two old Slavic words, which together mean “great ruler of the world.” Make of that what you will…

Even the non-political vision of Russia is unfavorable. Most think of a cold, grey, backward place with Soviet architecture or battle-hardened, weather-beaten people. However, arriving at the sleek Moscow Domodedovo airport, I was impressed. I had been right to rebut popular notions of an unwelcoming and stony place.

However, almost immediately after leaving the airport, the ground for my righteous vindication became shaky. Driving into the outskirts of Moscow, my mind drew comparisons to television images of North Korean suburbs. Miles of uniform houses and bleak tower blocks lined the roads.

At the Izmailovov Delta Hotel next to the famous market of the same name, things were not looking much better. Truly peculiar decorations and violently colored walls competed for one’s gaze in the hotel lobby. Luckily, the rooms themselves were perfectly comfortable, though not particularly noteworthy. I’d stay central next time.

After dropping bags, I ventured toward the Izmailovov market for a look at how the locals live. From a distance, the buildings that encase the market are vivid, intricate and quite something to behold. As it was late in the day, the market was empty. Shop shutters were closed and stalls were folded up. I got the same uneasy feeling I get when walking through Disney Land – as if this was what remained after the recent collapse of a utopian society.

While nearly all the vendors had packed up and gone home, a few stalls remained opened for business. All that was left was an abundance of satirical matryoshka dolls containing various countries’ political leaders in historical order.

A tattooed burly salesman came over to me as I withdrew François Mitterrand from the wooden bowels of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing.

“ Where are you from, friend? ” He asked.

Ignoring my response, he launched into a speech about his armed forces days and the political situation in Russia.

“ You really ought not to trust the government, ok? Putin is a dangerous man, you see. Someone’s always watching in this city. ”

The whiff of Glühwein that carried with each sentence made me doubt the erudition of his analysis. Then again… this is what we hear in the news. I was not sure what to believe. After thanking the man and hastily filling Charles de Gaulle with the rest of the presidents of the Fifth Republic, I made my way back to the hotel.

Emerging from the underground we rounded the corner and immediately found ourselves in Red Square. The sight demands you stop and stare.

The insurmountable walls of the Kremlin line the length of one side; halfway along lies Lenin’s tomb and opposite is the lavish exterior of the Gosudarstvennyi Universalnyi Magazin shopping center (or GUM, as it’s referred to, thank God). The architectural marvel of Saint Basil’s Cathedral stands at the south end, with the State History Museum at the other. Even though the foreboding structures radiate a rouge pastel hue into every corner of the square, there is a sense of openness. No-doubt there was a somewhat different atmosphere when thousands of Soviet soldiers goose-stepped through the square. Interestingly, the Russian army still marches like this today.

Walking around central Moscow, history oozes from every spire and pillar. Buildings seem to lean over as you walk past, as if peering down on whoever dares to enter these austere places. For every moment or event in Russian history, there is a dedicated museum.

The quality of each museum is notably high. In particular, the Armory inside the Kremlin holds astonishing collections of royal carriages from across the world and throughout the ages. The world-renowned Fabergé Eggs are displayed here too.

Having wandered around for so long during the day, we had no time to eat before attending the Ballet that evening. Sitting in the Bolshoi, the long day began to catch up with me.

It is now that I must make a confession: while attending a performance by one of the world’s greatest ballet companies, I fell asleep.

Thankfully, I woke up later in the second half and was treated to the final leaps and prances of Shostakovich’s The Bright Stream. As someone who is not a ballet aficionado, that was probably enough.

Feeling significantly perkier afterward, a late dinner was in order. Just behind the Bolshoi is VOGUE Café , a gastronomic outpost of the famous magazine. It claimed to serve an eclectic mix of Japanese, Italian and Russian dishes. Intrigued, we entered.

Adventurously, we accepted the offer of some Russian wine. Full bodied and berried, it was delicious. Our evident surprise led the waitress to explain that Russian food and drink has improved hugely over the last few years. As it turns out, since the United States and the European Union placed sanctions on Russia after their annexation of Crimea, food imports have been scarce. As a result, Russian producers have been forced to meet the demand and quality expected today. As a result, Siberian wines and cheeses now win awards around the globe.

When we left the restaurant, it was late. Only a day had passed, yet we had filled every minute with history, culture and food. The next three days followed a similar format and we continued to make our way down the list of museums and sights. A boat ride along the river is a must-do for alternative views of the Kremlin and Saint Basil’s Cathedral. Afterwards, sit on the rooftop Strelka bar opposite the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and watch the 3-mile-long line of pilgrims move slowly forward.

On the third day, we were due to board an overnight train to Saint Petersburg, but there was still so much left to do. Truth be told, it was probably too much for another three days, let alone one.

Nonetheless, I was satisfied. Moscow had revealed itself to be a fascinating and impressive city. While the city infrastructure isn’t as up-to-date as most capitals, the needs of every modern traveler can be met. It certainly isn’t the cold and unfriendly place envisioned by most in the west. Moscow’s winning attribute is its omnipresent sense of untouched history. This is a feature that is so often lost amongst hordes of tourists in Europe’s capitals.

It goes to show: what we hear about places we haven’t been in the news or through general hearsay, we can formulate pretty strong prejudices in our mind. While the political realities may still be ugly, by visiting, you can learn to separate and appreciate the everyday, the culture and the history of a place. On one side of a great red wall in central Moscow, a tyrannical leader works. On the other side, wholly separated, lies a magnificent Red Square where an overwhelming sense of history reveals the essence of Moscow and of Russia. And it is truly remarkable.

Russia Tourism: https://www.russiatourism.ru/en/

Previous Article

3 amazing real estate opportunities in hawaii this season.