For best experience please turn on javascript and use a modern browser!

Research Project

Graduate School of Life and Earth Sciences

The Research Project is a mandatory part of the Masters in Biomedical Sciences. Below you can find information about the procedures and regulations of the research project.

  • Research Project Protocol

    To inform and guide both student and supervisor a protocol is available discusses the following topics:

    • Objectives and outline
    • Guidance and supervision
    • Approval and registration 
    • Assessment

    Both student and supervisors (daily supervisor, assessor and FNWI-appointed examiner) are expected to read this protocol.

  • Time schedule
    Approval Research Project 4 - 2 weeks prior to start
    Interim assessment 8 - 4 weeks after starting
    Draft version report 4 weeks before final date
    Feedback draft version report 4 - 2 weeks before final date
    Processing feedback, writing final version report 2 - 1 weeks before final date
    Final version report 1 week before final date
    Oral scientific presentation of the project Before final date
    Grading Max. 20 working days after final date
  • Approval and Registration

    All research projects are subject to approval of the track coordinator and FNWI-appointed examiner. Students should submit their online Approval Form through the link below. This procedure should be completed at least 2-4 weeks before the planned starting date. After the research project has been approved the student, assessor, examiner and track coordinator will receive a notification that the project has been approved and can be started.

  • Interim Assessment

    After 4-8 weeks into the project, the progress of the project  has to be evaluated (interim evaluation). The student or supervisor may initiate this meeting with the assessor (and FNWI appointed examiner). The evaluation should help the student improve the quality and progress of the research project. 

    The interim assessment is done digitally via Datanose. The procedure is explained in e-mails sent by Datanose. 

    The criteria used in the interim assessment are as given below. For each criterium, a score between 1 and 5 is given:

    1. poor
    2. needs improvement
    3. sufficient
    4. good
    5. excellent
    Criterium Explanation
    Theoretical knowledge Does the student acquire the knowledge needed to carry out the project?
    Technical skills Does the student show good experimental, programming and/or mathematical skills?
    Independence/initiative Does the student take initiatives of his/her own to carry out the project, and could he/she make progress in the (temporary) absence of close supervision?
    Original contribution Did the student make an original contribution to the project?
    Working attitude How is the overall working attitude of the student?
    Accuracy Does the student work accurately? And, if relevant, are the experiments carried out safely, and are environmentally issues well respected?
    Cooperation Does the student actively participate in work discussions? How is the cooperation with other group members during the research? How are the student’s communicative skills?
    Self-reflection Does the student actively evaluate his/her own work?
    Progress  
    Academic level  
    Overall assessment  
  • Final Assessment

    The research project will be assessed by at least two persons, i.e. the assessor and FNWI-appointed examiner. The assessment consists of three components:

    • Experimental Work
    • Research Report
    • Oral Presentation

    The final assessment is done digitally via DataNose. The procedure is explained in e-mails sent by DataNose. 

    The criteria used in the final assessment are as given below. For each criterium, a score between 1 and 5 is given (see above for explanation).

    Experimental Work

    Criterium Explanation
    Quality Did the student carefully carry out his/her work? Did the student interpret the results correctly?
    Theoretical knowledge Did the student acquire the knowledge needed to carry out the project?
    Technical skills Did the student show good experimental, programming and/or mathematical skills?
    Independence/initiative Did the student take initiatives of his/her own to carry out the project, and could he/she make progress in the (temporary) absence of close supervision?
    Original contribution Did the student make an original contribution to the project?
    Working attitude How was the overall working attitude of the student?
    Accuracy Did the student work accurately? And, if relevant, were the experiments carried out safely, and were environmental issues well respected?
    Cooperation with others Did the student actively participate in work discussions? How was the cooperation with other group members during the research? How were the students communicative skills?
    Efficient time use Did the student plan his/her work well? Did the student finish the written report in time?

    Research Report

    Criterium Explanation
    Context Was the subject placed in a correct scientific context, with proper referencing of the prior work? If applicable, was the relevance for society well recognised (technological aspects, ethical aspects, historic context, or environmental aspects). Is the description of the context readable for a non-expert in the field?
    Scientific quality Does the thesis give an accurate and readable/understandable description of the subject? Has the contribution of the student been indicated explicitly?
    Use of literature Is the quality and quantity of the literature sufficient? Is the literature cited adequately and correctly presented in a list of references?
    Srtucture and language Is the report clearly written and structured? Do abstract and concluding section contain the important results obtained, and is there a discussion of possible future work? Is the use of the language basically correct as to grammar and spelling?
    Lay-out Is there a proper use of figures and graphs? Is the overall lay-out appealing?

    Oral presentation

    Criterium Explanation
    Contents Does the presentation give an accurate description of the work? Has the contribution of the student been indicated explicitly?
    Clarity of presentation Was the research presented clearly?
    Discussion Were the questions answered correctly?