Find a section
Use these discussion tools to decide what is ready and what needs support. They do not replace formal programme assessment.
How to Use Them
Choose your current stage. Review the evidence together and agree on one or two priorities, support, and a review date.
For each criterion, mark Not yet discussed, Needs development, Ready for this stage, or Not applicable. Add evidence and a next action. Use one relevant scorecard, without a total score: polished writing cannot offset a validity or feasibility gap.
Idea Readiness
| Criterion | Evidence to discuss |
|---|---|
| Problem and significance | A specific problem, the people or tasks affected, and a clear reason it matters. |
| Prior work and gap | A comparison of the closest verified papers, what they establish, and the important difference the project would test. |
| Research question | A focused question that can be investigated within the available time. |
| Contribution | What another researcher or practitioner could understand or do differently; a new model combination or domain alone is not enough. |
| Evaluation | A plausible way to collect evidence, with suitable comparisons and measures. |
| Feasibility | Access to necessary data, expertise, equipment, time, and any required permissions. |
Decision: Refine the question, run a feasibility study, or begin the agreed study plan. Record the reason and the next concrete step.
Study Readiness
| Criterion | Evidence to discuss |
|---|---|
| Claim and method | The planned evidence can support the intended claim. |
| Comparisons and measures | A credible simple baseline or suitable comparison, with comparable information and resources; measures reflect the intended concept. |
| Validity | The strongest competing explanation, likely confounds or leakage, and evidence that could weaken the intended claim. |
| Data and participants | Suitable sampling, data quality, access, and required ethics or data-use arrangements. |
| Analysis and reproducibility | A documented procedure and analysis plan, with code, versions, and records where relevant. |
| Pilot and scope | A small trial has exposed practical problems; the remaining work fits the timeline. |
Decision: Revise the design, run a pilot, or proceed with the study once required approvals and access are in place.
Progress and Research Ownership
| Criterion | Evidence to discuss |
|---|---|
| Understanding | The student can explain the question, methods, evidence, and limitations in their own words. |
| Judgment | The student judges gaps, novelty, and significance using verified evidence; feedback and alternatives inform decisions. |
| Execution | Agreed work is documented, obstacles are raised, and plans are revised when needed. |
| Ownership and collaboration | Individual responsibilities and contributions are clear; credit reflects the work. |
| Communication | Updates connect evidence to an interpretation and a proposed next step. |
| Support and scope | The student has the guidance and resources needed; workload and deadlines remain realistic. |
Degree-specific interpretation: A master’s student should understand and own a bounded contribution with appropriate guidance. A PhD student should show increasing independence in defining questions, designing studies, and defending an original contribution. Expectations increase with experience and stage; they are not identical from the first day.
Thesis or Paper Readiness
| Criterion | Evidence to discuss |
|---|---|
| Contribution and positioning | The contribution is clear and accurately related to the closest work. |
| Evidence and claims | Results support the claims; uncertainty, negative findings, and limitations are reported honestly. |
| Rigour and transparency | Methods and analyses are sound and documented well enough to assess. |
| Coherence | The question, method, results, and conclusions form one consistent argument. |
| Integrity and credit | References and numbers are checked; contributions, authorship, and applicable disclosure requirements are addressed. |
| Fit and completion | The work addresses degree requirements or the intended venue’s scope and requirements. |
Decision: Identify essential revisions and separate them from optional extensions. Submission readiness is a shared judgment; publication acceptance is not a score for student progress.
Example: What Counts as Ready?
Illustrative sales-agent project: “The agent sounds more honest” does not yet show that customers make better decisions. A useful readiness discussion asks whether we have verified product facts, a fair comparison, and a measure of customer understanding that does not depend on the agent judging itself.
If both agents are equally accurate and one receives clearer instructions, any improvement may come from those instructions. Agree on what stays the same before attributing a benefit to an adaptive mechanism. A scenario pilot can check the task and measures; it cannot establish real-world customer benefit.
Next action: Test whether the two conditions differ in the intended way and whether customers can understand the task. Record what the pilot cannot establish. Use the research decision note to connect the claim, evidence, and next decision.
Record the Next Step
For each review, record the project, date, current stage, evidence, top one or two priorities, student action, supervisor or team support, and next review date. If progress is blocked, identify what needs to change in the project or support available.
Return to Getting Started or consult the Research Guide for practical methods and examples.