Regulation concerning the attainment of doctoral degrees at the KU Leuven, supplemented with the Particulars of the Faculty of Law and Criminology

Article 0. Preamble

§1. These regulations concern the general requirements for attaining the university degree of doctor at the KU Leuven. Only if there are no specific provisions in these regulations, the Education and Examination Regulations also apply.

§2. Definitions: the terms and committees referred to in these regulations will be used as defined in these regulations.

§3. Communication with potential legal significance must be submitted in writing (preferably by email). If so desired, communication with the doctoral ombuds can be in person.

§4. In principle, the committees concerned decide collectively. If a collective decision cannot be reached, the majority vote decides. In the event of a tie the chairperson decides.

Article 1. Scope

The following topics are addressed: (1) preliminary provisions, (2) doctoral school and doctoral committee, (3) admission and enrolment, (4) supervision and progress, (5) doctoral programme, (6) thesis and public defence, (7) interdisciplinary degree, (8) joint PhD degrees, and (9) doctoral ombuds, appeal procedure and disciplinary regulation.

§2. Within the framework of these general regulations, the executive committees of the Groups can draw up and approve supplementary regulations if so advised by the respective doctoral schools and the Research Coordination Office. A supplementary regulation stipulates more specific provisions (hereinafter called "Particulars"). The "Particulars" are supplementary to the general provisions but shall in no case be incompatible. Additional provisions are not possible for Subsection 7 "Interdisciplinary degree" 'and Subsection 8 "Joint PhD degrees". Once a year, each executive committee of the Groups compiles all the changes to the supplementary regulations and puts them on the agenda for notice at the Executive Board and the Academic Council.

Article 2. Concept

The purpose of preparing a thesis and of the doctoral programme at KU Leuven is to train a researcher so they can contribute independently to the development of scientific knowledge. The thesis must demonstrate the capacity to create new scientific knowledge on the basis of independent scientific research.

The learning outcomes in the doctoral preparation, leading to the PhD, are stipulated in the Codex Hoger Onderwijs Art.II.141 5°:

1. “the systematic understanding of a discipline and the ability to master skills and research methodologies in that discipline,
2. the ability to design, develop, execute and adapt a wide-ranging research process with the integrity expected of a researcher,
3. a contribution to moving the frontiers of science by performing original research in the shape of a wide-ranging body of work, part of which is worthy of a nationally or internationally peer-reviewed publication,
4. the ability to critically analyse, evaluate and synthesise new and complex ideas,
5. the ability to communicate with colleagues in the same discipline and in the wider scientific community both nationally and internationally and in society as a whole about the area in which one has expertise,
6. the ability to deliver an innovative contribution within an academic and professional context, leading to technological, social or cultural advances in a knowledge society."

Article 3. PhD researcher

§1. The PhD researcher is expected:

1. to conduct original and scientific research under the supervision of one or more supervisors and optionally one or more co-supervisors (see Subsection 4).
2. to successfully complete the doctoral programme (see Subsection 5) with the aim of (i) expanding and deepening the knowledge of the PhD researcher within the research domain and (ii) acquiring various skills that will advance the quality and efficiency of doctoral research and promote the future professional career of the PhD researcher, within or outside the university.
3. to write and successfully defend a thesis in public (see Subsection 6).
4. to adhere to the rules of scientific integrity.

§2. The PhD researcher complies with the provisions laid down in these regulations and its "Particulars" (see art. 1, §2). The charter of the PhD researcher and the supervisor is also in force as an appendix to these regulations. The PhD researcher also complies with the other internal regulations of KU Leuven. If the PhD researcher has a staff category (as an employee or as a PhD scholarship holder), the regulations of these staff categories and the regulations and contractual obligations imposed by the relevant funder also apply.

§3. The PhD researcher is responsible for the administrative follow-up and documentation of the progress of the doctorate, via the KU Loket application "PhD progress”. 

Article 4. Doctoral school

Each executive committee sets up a doctoral school at the level of the Group.

The responsibilities of the doctoral school include:

1. organising and assuring the quality of the doctoral programme in partnership with the doctoral committees (see Subsection 5),
2. ensuring doctoral efficiency,
3. assessing the interdisciplinary nature of the doctoral research in the context of the application for starting an interdisciplinary degree (see Subsection 7),
4. concluding partnership agreements in the context of joint PhD degrees (see Subsection 8),
5. monitoring the activities of the doctoral ombudspersons (see art. 26),
6. increasing the visibility and recognisability of doctoral research at KU Leuven with the aim of attracting research talent.

Article 5. Doctoral committee

The executive committee of the Group or the faculty council assemble a doctoral committee at the level of every faculty. The doctoral committee consists of members of the senior academic staff (ZAP) and representatives of the PhD researchers. The membership must represent the various research domains within the faculty.

The responsibilities of the doctoral committee include:

1. authorising the enrolment of PhD students (see art. 6 and art. 8),
2. authorising the enrolment of predoctoral students, stipulating the content and scope of the predoctoral exam, and evaluating whether the predoctoral exam has been passed (see art. 7),
3. approving the composition of the team of supervisors (see art. 11) and the supervisory committee (see art. 12) and giving advice about the composition of the examination committee (see art. 17),
4. monitoring the progress reporting (see art. 13),
5. deciding to stop the doctoral process, excluding the specific competence assigned to the ad hoc committee (see art. 26),
6. deciding whether the doctoral programme has been completed successfully (see Subsection 5),
7. authorising a collaboration leading to the awarding of a joint PhD degree (see Subsection 8),
8. in the exceptional situation that a supervisor does not agree with the thesis, granting permission to the PhD researcher to submit the dissertation to the examination committee (see art. 18 §5),
9. taking note of the anonymised report from the doctoral ombudsperson (see art. 26).

Article 6. Admission requirements

Together with the future corresponding supervisor (see art. 11) the candidate requests permission from the doctoral committee of the faculty to which the corresponding supervisor is affiliated to enrol as a PhD researcher. The candidate must meet the following requirements:

• Either (1) the candidate must hold a Flemish Master’s degree relevant to the doctoral research or an equivalent higher education degree, and also have obtained at least a distinction or have distinguished him/herself with high-quality scientific publications or design-oriented achievements,
• Or (2) the candidate must have passed the predoctoral exam with the degree of distinction (see art. 7).

The candidate must also have sufficiently mastered the language of the discipline in order to be able to participate actively in the research.

Article 7. Predoctoral period and predoctoral exam

The doctoral committee can invite a candidate to take a predoctoral exam if they are insufficiently convinced of the relevant academic and professional suitability and/or prior knowledge, and they deem it necessary for the candidate to obtain additional qualifications before being allowed to start the doctoral programme and doctoral research.

§1. The predoctoral exam assesses the suitability of the candidate to obtain the degree of doctor. The predoctoral exam is taken after a predoctoral period in which the candidate can acquire further skills by following specific course components, and developing a research project. The doctoral committee decides on the content and scope of the predoctoral period and the predoctoral exam.

§2. During the predoctoral period the candidate must enrol as a predoctoral student.

§3. For candidates from EEA countries (European Economic Area) the predoctoral period lasts a maximum of one year. For candidates from non-EEA countries, the predoctoral period lasts a maximum of two years.

§4. The predoctoral period ends with a predoctoral exam. The doctoral committee decides whether the candidate has passed the predoctoral exam. Candidates who pass the predoctoral exam with distinction are authorised to enrol as a PhD researcher. Candidates who do not pass the predoctoral exam with distinction can obtain a certificate of ‘research specialisation’ for the course components that were successfully completed.

Article 8. Enrolment

The PhD researcher is obliged to enrol every year as a PhD student. The initial enrolment can go ahead once the doctoral committee has given its authorisation (see art. 6). A PhD researcher with a doctoral scholarship or a research and teaching assistant position with doctoral finality, must enrol at the latest on the day that the scholarship or research and teaching assistant position begins.

The PhD researcher pays course fees at the first enrolment and in the academic year during which the public defence takes place. The interim enrolments are free of charge. Re-enrolment depends on a progress report approved within the previous year.

Article 9. Start of the doctoral period

The doctoral period starts at the beginning of the doctoral scholarship or the research and teaching assistant position with doctoral finality, and for others on the date of the first enrolment as a PhD researcher (see art. 8).

Article 10. Duration of the doctoral period

A PhD researcher with a full-time research assignment obtains the doctoral degree in principle within a period of four years.

Article 11. Supervisor and co-supervisor

§1. The PhD researcher is supervised by one or more supervisors, one of whom is appointed as corresponding supervisor. One or more co-supervisors can also be assigned. In total there can be no more than four (co-)supervisors.

The (co-)supervisors are jointly responsible for monitoring the substance of the doctoral project  and the material and intellectual climate in which the PhD researcher develops and conducts their research project. The (co-)supervisors have a stimulating, coordinating, and evaluating role throughout the doctoral process. In addition, the (co-)supervisors should ensure that the PhD researcher can also acquire other skills as part of their programme which are essential from a career perspective, so as to be able to move smoothly to another position, within or outside of the academic world, after the doctoral programme. Each (co-)supervisor signs the charter of the PhD researcher and the supervisor.

§2. Despite this joint responsibility of the (co-)supervisors, the following distinctions may be made upon the basis of a difference in contributions and formal qualifications:

1. The corresponding supervisor and the other supervisors each make a substantial contribution to the doctoral project as such.
2. The corresponding supervisor acts as a contact point, bears the final responsibility for the supervision of the doctoral project, and coordinates the team of (co-)supervisors.
3. The co-supervisors make additional substantive contributions to the doctoral research.

§3. The corresponding supervisor and the other supervisors belong to the permanently appointed senior academic staff of KU Leuven. ZAP with provisional appointment can be supervisors if the suspected duration of their appointment is at least four years from the start of the doctoral period. Tenure track ZAP and ZAP appointed with the prospect of a permanent appointment are equivalent to permanent ZAP and can therefore be supervisors. Persons with the title ‘special guest professor in the arts’ can act as the supervisors of PhD researchers in the arts.

The corresponding supervisor is affiliated to the faculty in which the doctoral degree is awarded. A motivated exception can be requested ad hoc, per doctoral project, from the executive committees of the Group in question.

If the corresponding supervisor leaves KU Leuven during the doctoral period, a new corresponding supervisor is appointed.For emeritus/a professors  the terms and conditions for being a supervisor are described in the emeritus professors’ policy of KU Leuven.

§4. In principle, co-supervisors have a doctorate. The doctoral committee may allow an exception to this on the basis of specific competences

§5. The (co-)supervisors are appointed by the doctoral committee. In order to change the composition during the term of the PhD, the current and future members, together with the PhD researcher, submit a reasoned request for change to the doctoral committee for approval.

Article 12. Supervisory committee

The doctoral committee appoints a supervisory committee for every PhD researcher at least one month before the first progress report (see art. 13). The supervisory committee consists of the (co-)supervisors and at least two other members. The doctoral committee ensures that the supervisory committee is sufficiently diverse, and doesn't consist exclusively of members of the same research group. The corresponding supervisor ensures that no conflicts of interest arise. The composition can be changed during the doctoral programme.

The responsibility of the supervisory committee is to monitor the progress of the doctoral research by means of the annual progress report (see art. 13). The PhD researcher or (co-)supervisors can also appeal to the members of the supervisory committee for additional discussions.

Article 13. Progress reports

The first progress report takes place at the latest one year after the start of the doctoral period and consists of an oral or written presentation on the research undertaken or still to be done. The results determine whether the doctoral programme and the preparation for the thesis can be continued or not. The evaluation takes place on the basis of two criteria: (1) the progress made in the doctoral research, and (2) the advances made in academic ability and research maturity by the PhD researcher.

Subsequently the PhD researcher reports on an annual basis on the progress of the doctoral research, and in addition, if required, when applying for or extension of a scholarship or mandate.

Every progress report is validated by the (co-)supervisors , and assessed by the other members of the supervisory committee. The result is substantiated and recorded in writing and sent to the PhD researcher and the doctoral committee.

The supervisory committee may advise to stop the doctoral process in case of insufficient (expected) progress. In that case, the PhD researcher has the right to express their comments regarding this advice in writing and to submit it to the doctoral committee within seven calendar days following notification of the supervisory committee's opinion. These comments are added to the report of the doctoral committee. If the PhD researcher wishes to initiate a mediation procedure with the doctoral ombudsperson (see art. 26), this must be done within seven calendar days following notification of the opinion of the supervisory committee.

Article 14. Doctoral programme

§1. The doctoral programme is obligatory and must be successfully completed before the PhD researcher is permitted to submit the thesis and defend it in public.

§2. The doctoral programme consists of a truncus communis (see art. 15) and a supplementary part (see art. 16). The PhD researcher can only complete the doctoral programme if all the elements of the truncus communis are completed. The doctoral committee can on an individual basis grant a (partial) exemption of the doctoral programme or set a substitute assignment, on the basis of a motivated application by the PhD researcher and in consultation with the (co-)supervisors.

§3. The PhD researcher reports to the doctoral committee on the progress made within their doctoral programme. On the basis of this report, the doctoral committee will decide whether the PhD researcher has completed the doctoral programme.

Article 15. Content of the truncus communis

The truncus communis consists of at least the following elements:

1. the writing of at least one scientific publication at an international level or a similar achievement at an international level. By a publication at international level is meant: a peer-reviewed contribution (journal article, contribution to a book, conference proceedings, patent, design) about their own research and written in the language of the discipline. The contribution is aimed at an international audience. In order to be able to successfully complete the doctoral programme, the contribution must be published or be accepted for publication,
2. giving at least two seminars, either about their own research, or on a more general theme,
3. giving at least one oral or poster presentation at an international scientific conference,
4. following at least one seminar series or course component specifically organised for PhD researchers,
5. following the course component "Scientific integrity for starting PhDs" during the first year of the doctoral programme.
6. reporting on the progress of the doctoral research as specified in art. 13.

The executive committees of the Groups can add more specific provisions or additional components to the truncus communis in their Particulars (see art. 1 §2).

Article 16. Content of the supplementary part

The supplementary part consists of additional activities and training that the PhD researcher follows as part of the doctoral research and/or as a preparation for a career within or outside the university. The PhD researcher is ultimately responsible for the supplementary part. The supplementary part should not be in conflict with the status of the PhD researcher and must not hinder the progress and quality of the doctoral research.

Article 17. Examination committee

§1. The Rector appoints an examination committee for every PhD researcher on the recommendation of the doctoral committee. The Rector may delegate this authority.

1. The chairperson of the examination committee belongs to the senior academic staff of the KU Leuven and is affiliated to the faculty which will award the doctoral degree. The chairperson does not belong to the same research group as the (co-)supervisors and the PhD researcher, and is not a member of the supervisory committee. The chairperson does not act as a direct evaluator and only in case of a tied vote the chairperson takes the decision.
2. At least one member of the examination committee does not belong to KU Leuven, nor, in the case of a joint degree (see art. 25), to the institution awarding the joint degree.
3. Members of the supervisory committee may be members of the examination committee.
4. The examination committee may not consist exclusively of members of the same gender, except in demonstrably special circumstances.
5. The corresponding supervisor ensures that no conflicts of interest arise.

§2. The responsibilities of the examination committee include:

1. evaluating the thesis (see art. 18 and 19),
2. taking part in the public defence (see art. 20),
3. deciding whether or not to grant the doctoral degree after the public defence (see art. 20).

Article 18. Thesis

§1. The thesis is an exam piece that must allow the examination committee to assess the quality of the doctoral research.

§2. The regulations with regard to PhD thesis copyright must be respected. Own publications can be included as a chapter in a thesis, in which case it should be indicated in which publication channel the research has already been published and what the PhD researcher contributed.

§3. The regulations on intellectual property rights to research results including copyright apply, and PhD researchers who do not receive a salary or scholarship from KU Leuven must sign a written agreement at the beginning of their doctoral research as specified in this regulation if the results of the doctoral research have to be protected.

§4. The Group or faculty checks the thesis for plagiarism, i.e. appropriation of the work (ideas, texts, structures, designs, images, plans, code, …) of others or of a previous work of the PhD researcher themself, in an identical or slightly modified form, without sufficient reference to the source. If plagiarism or any other breach of scientific integrity is identified in the thesis, the Group or faculty will inform the examination committee (see art. 17). If plagiarism or other breaches of scientific integrity are found in publications already published by the PhD researcher, the Group or faculty will also inform the Commission on Research Integrity.

§5. The PhD researcher submits the thesis after consultation with the corresponding and any other supervisors. If a supervisor does not agree with the thesis, the PhD researcher is still entitled to turn to the doctoral committee. The doctoral committee will ask for the opinion of the PhD researcher, the (co-)supervisors and the other members of the supervisory committee. Only if it considers that a supervisor's refusal is manifestly unreasonable, will the doctoral committee grant permission for the thesis to be submitted to the examination committee.

Article 19. Evaluation of the thesis

On the basis of the thesis the examination committee can take the following decisions:

1. the thesis is approved, possibly on condition that minor changes are made: the PhD researcher is permitted to publish the thesis and defend it publicly.
2. the thesis is approved on certain conditions: the PhD researcher must make changes to the thesis taking into account comments made by the examination committee and ensure that the adapted version is given to the examination committee for final approval. If, after the second assessment, the thesis is still not approved without reservation or with minor changes, it may be rejected definitively.
3. the thesis is not approved: the PhD researcher can submit a new or thoroughly amended thesis for evaluation by the examination committee in line with the above procedure. If the thesis is not approved after the second evaluation, it can be permanently rejected.

The chairperson sends the PhD researcher a written report giving an overview of the changes to be made, or the reasons for the thesis not being approved.

Article 20. Public defence

§1. During the public defence the PhD researcher gives a short presentation about the thesis. Thereafter a discussion follows with the members of the examination committee. At the end the public is given the opportunity to ask questions.

The examination committee deliberates immediately after the public session and decides whether or not the PhD can be awarded the degree of doctor. A report is drafted and signed by all members of the examination committee present. The result is announced in public immediately after the deliberation.

§2. During the public defence, an integrity statement is pronounced by the chairperson of the examination committee. If plagiarism or any other breach of scientific integrity is identified after the doctoral degree has been awarded, this must be reported to the Committee of Scientific Integrity. In the event of serious fraud, the awarding of a degree can be rescinded along with any credit or other certificates and diplomas that have been awarded in association with the programme.

§3. Doctoral students who have successfully defended their thesis may, if the faculty or department provides for it in the details of the doctoral regulations, receive reimbursement of expenses in accordance with the manual "Operating Costs – Budgets for Doctoral Students". Reimbursement is limited to the maximum amount specified in the particulars for the Group, department or faculty concerned.

Article 21. Interdisciplinary degree

§1. If the PhD researcher conducts interdisciplinary research, regardless of whether the research takes place in one or more faculties, this can be recognised by the awarding of a ‘combined doctorate title’, consisting of combinations of existing doctoral titles. A combined doctorate title can only be awarded once the PhD researcher concerned has been authorised to undertake an "interdisciplinary degree" (see art. 22) and once this is successfully completed.

§2. In order to be recognised as interdisciplinary, the doctoral research must satisfy the following two minimum criteria for interdisciplinarity:

1. The disciplines and expertise that are combined in the research proposal are sufficiently different,
2. The input of expertise, knowledge and methodologies from each of the disciplines in question is equally necessary and the execution of the research proposal is only possible by means of an integrated, concerted approach. It should not be the case that any of the disciplines involved acts as an auxiliary science.

Article 22. Authorisation for an interdisciplinary degree

§ 1. The admissions procedure consists of two consecutive approvals:

1. The corresponding and other supervisors (see art. 24) submit an application for an interdisciplinary degree to the three doctoral schools. The directors of the three doctoral schools assess the interdisciplinary nature of the doctoral research on the basis of the abovementioned criteria and give a joint, binding, and motivated opinion (see art. 21). In principle, they take a collective decision. If this is not possible, the decision is taken by majority vote. If the opinion is negative, the interdisciplinary degree cannot be started.
2. If a positive opinion is given by the doctoral schools, the candidate and corresponding supervisor (see art. 24) request authorisation from the doctoral committee of the corresponding faculty (see art. 23) to enrol as a doctoral student (see art. 6). If the supervisors are affiliated to separate faculties, the candidate must go through the admissions procedure for each of the faculties concerned.

The admissions procedure is explained in more detail in the practical guidelines concerning interdisciplinary degrees.

§2. A PhD researcher wishing to submit an application for an interdisciplinary degree in the context of an ongoing doctorate can do so up to one year after starting the doctoral programme (see art. 9).

Article 23. Corresponding faculty

§1. If a combination of doctoral titles awarded by different faculties is desired, then one faculty is appointed as corresponding faculty. The corresponding faculty is appointed after consultation between supervisors, and the doctoral schools must agree to this proposal.

If, in the course of an ongoing doctorate, a PhD researcher switches to an interdisciplinary degree, the faculty in which the PhD researcher started the doctoral research is appointed as corresponding faculty.

§2. The doctoral committee of the corresponding faculty accepts the responsibilities stipulated in articles 5 (provisions 3-9), 13, 14, 17, 18, 22, 25, 26 and 27.

§3. The doctoral title awarded by the corresponding faculty appears first in the combined doctoral title.

Article 24. Additional provisions for interdisciplinary degrees

The Particulars and procedures of the corresponding faculty are applicable for the term of the doctorate, unless otherwise decided in a consultation between the doctoral committees involved. The following also applies:

1. Interdisciplinary doctoral research is monitored by supervisors, each of whom represents one of the disciplines in question. The supervisor belonging to the corresponding faculty (see art. 23) is appointed as corresponding supervisor.
2. When appointing other members of the supervisory committee (see art. 12), an additional requirement applies, namely that each of the disciplines concerned must be represented.
3. On the basis of each annual progress report, the supervisory committee assesses whether the research still meets the minimum criteria for interdisciplinarity, and makes special mention of this in its report. If the minimum criteria for an interdisciplinary degree are no longer met, the enrolment for an interdisciplinary doctoral title can be stopped, and all faculties involved as well as the doctoral schools must be informed. This does not automatically mean that the doctorate is stopped; if it meets all quality criteria in all other respects, it can be continued as a normal, single-discipline doctorate.
4. Within the context laid down in this regulation and the Particulars of the corresponding faculty, an interdisciplinary programme for the doctoral degree is put together by the PhD researcher and the supervisors, with equal input from all the disciplines in question. During the first progress report, the programme is presented to the supervisory committee for an advice. The doctoral programme should under no circumstances result in a double workload for the PhD researcher. This also applies to supervision, teaching assignments, etc.
5. When forming the examination committee, the following additional stipulations apply: (a) the chairperson is affiliated to the corresponding faculty, (b) in addition to the (co-)supervisors, each discipline concerned is represented in the examination committee by at least one member with voting rights, and (c) if several faculties are involved, at least two members with voting rights must not belong to the corresponding faculty, and at least one of those must not be affiliated to the KU Leuven.

Article 25. Joint PhD degrees

§1. KU Leuven wishes to increase its profile both nationally and internationally. To this end, it stimulates all research to achieve excellence and tries to create the best possible conditions in order to enable "peaks" within this top research, fields in which KU Leuven is an international leader. Joint PhD degrees are an important instrument in this respect. 

§2. In the case of a joint PhD degree, the PhD researcher prepares a thesis at KU Leuven, in collaboration with (an)other domestic or foreign institution(s). The institutions involved award the degree of doctor in the event of a successful defence.

§3. The universities involved always award their own doctoral degrees. Each institution  awards its own degree with the mention of its own doctoral title, with a clear reference to the joint nature of the doctoral process at the institutions involved. The doctoral degrees may also be listed together on one joint degree document.

§4. A joint PhD degree presupposes a substantial collaboration between the research groups and the supervisors involved, with efficient support in the involved institutions from the initial phase: close collaboration in the field of research with the research group in the partner university, agreements on joint supervision and mobility aspects, agreements on progress reporting, the appointment of the (co-)supervisors, the composition of the supervisory committee and the examination committee, the applicable IP regulations, the doctoral programme, the form of the thesis and the organisation of the defence. The specific terms and conditions of the cooperation are stipulated in an individual cooperation agreement between KU Leuven, the other institution(s) and the PhD researcher. The negotiation of this agreement is coordinated by the doctoral school concerned.

§5. The (co-)supervisors are appointed at an inter-university level, with at least one supervisor from each institution involved. The (candidate) PhD researcher, together with the (future) corresponding supervisor, requests permission from the doctoral committee to prepare a joint thesis. The doctoral committee may decide:

1. to approve the application.
2. to approve the application on the condition that KU Leuven is the home institution (see art. 25 §6).
3. not to grant permission for a joint thesis.

In principle, the corresponding supervisor submits the application for a joint PhD degree at the same time as the application for academic admission (see art. 6) and in any case within the first year of the doctoral period (see art. 9). Permission to prepare a joint thesis is only valid if the candidate receives academic admission.

§6. The home institution assumes the main responsibility in the follow-up of the doctoral process, the appointment of the (co-)supervisors, the composition of the supervisory committee and the examination committee, as well as the organisation of the evaluation process of the thesis. In principle, enrolment fees are paid at the home institution and the public defence takes place there. The main institution acts as the contact point for the PhD researcher.

The doctoral committee determines which institution is the home institution and which is the host institution based upon one or more parameters:

• Funding: the institution which funds (the majority of) the doctoral research or the institution to which the supervisor, who initiated the application for external funding, belongs;
• Attendance: the institution where most of the doctoral research takes place, where the PhD researcher is primarily present;
• Start: the institution where the PhD researcher has started the PhD research, where the PhD researcher is enrolled.

If these criteria are not sufficient to distinguish between the partners involved, one institution is designated as the home institution by mutual agreement.

§7. If KU Leuven is appointed as the home institution, the PhD researcher  complies with the general provisions stipulated in this regulation and its "Particulars".

If KU Leuven is designated as the host institution, the doctoral student follows the regulations and guidelines of the home institution. In that case, KU Leuven will impose the following set of fixed criteria on the PhD researcher university-wide:

1. sign the charter of the PhD researcher and the supervisor (see art. 3 §2);
2. put together a supervisory committee with members from the institutions involved;
3. enrol annually as a PhD researcher at the KU Leuven (see art. 8);
4. follow the course "Scientific integrity for starting PhDs" (see art. 15.5);
5. submit an annual progress report to the supervisory committee:
   1. with the focus upon cooperation with the partner institution
   2. formally approved with brief comments by the supervisors involved
6. conduct research at the KU Leuven for at least 6 months;
7. actively participate in an international conference;
8. make an oral presentation to the supervisory committee during the stay at the KU Leuven;
9. write a peer-reviewed publication (published or accepted for publication);
10. put together an examination committee with members from the institutions involved and at least one additional member from a third party;
11. present the thesis to the examination committee via an oral or written procedure in order to be admitted to the public defence;
12. submit the thesis to the KU Leuven (with the KU Leuven logo, the name of the faculty, the name of the (co-)supervisor(s) and the doctoral title awarded by KU Leuven on the cover);
13. have the thesis subjected to plagiarism control;
14. upload the digital version of the thesis onto Lirias.

No other "Particulars" by the KU Leuven Group or faculty involved are allowed (see art. 1 §2).

§8. In the case of collaboration with a Flemish university, the rules and guidelines of the main institution are followed in full. No additional criteria/particulars (from Group or faculty) are imposed by the other institution. However, there must always be

1. academic admission from the institutions involved;
2. an application for a joint PhD degree at the KU Leuven;
3. members from the institutions involved serving on the supervisory and examination committees and that these committees must be officially approved by the appropriate authorities in each institution;
4. a mandatory publication requirement (even if the home institution does not have one) regardless of whoever acts as the home institution.

Article 26. Doctoral ombuds

§1. The doctoral ombudsperson is the first point of contact for all concerned to discuss difficulties, problems and disputes in the doctoral process. The doctoral ombudsperson can help to clear up any misunderstandings, can mediate between the parties involved and can help to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties involved.

It is preferable to contact the doctoral ombudsperson of the faculty or Group to which you are affiliated, but you may also contact the doctoral ombudsperson of another faculty or Group.

The doctoral ombudsperson is not competent for substantive problems related to the doctoral programme. For this purpose, you should contact the supervisory committee and/or the doctoral committee.

§2. The executive committee of the Group appoints one doctoral ombudsperson per faculty or per Group. The doctoral ombudsperson belongs to the ZAP of the KU Leuven, including emeriti with assignment. The doctoral ombudsperson is not part of the Board of Trustees and the administrative bodies as defined in the KU Leuven Statutes.

§3. At times it might not be possible to resolve a conflict through mediation. In such cases the doctoral ombudsperson or another member of the Unit of Confidence writes up a report, which is put before an ad-hoc committee, consisting of the dean, the department chair, the research coordinator, the director of the doctoral school and the chair of the doctoral committee of all entities concerned, who together make a binding decision after hearing (in writing or orally) the parties involved.  The ad hoc committee is convened by the research coordinator and strives for a consensus decision. The ad hoc committee has the widest possible decision margin in order to formulate an adequate solution to the identified problem. It is only possible to appeal against this decision internally, insofar as the decision affects the study progress of the doctoral programme or leads to the discontinuation of the doctoral process (see art. 27).

If one of the members of the ad-hoc committee has to withdraw from the committee, this member will not be replaced, except when the number of remaining members of the committee falls to less than half. In that case, the ad hoc committee is supplemented with other persons affiliated to the faculty, which, on the basis of their expertise, are chosen by the remaining members of the ad hoc committee.

§4. The doctoral ombudsperson and everyone involved in the mediation must exercise discretion. As a result, at any stage of the mediation, only people who are directly involved are notified. The doctoral ombudsperson sends a general and completely anonymous report of their activities to the doctoral committee every year. The doctoral committee discusses this report and sends it to the doctoral school, the executive committee of the Group and the Vice Rector for Research Policy.

Article 27. Appeal procedure

§1. According to the procedure below an appeal is only possible against the following decisions of the doctoral committee and the examination committee (Higher Education Codex Art.I.3 69°):

1. a study progress decision affecting the doctoral programme, as described in art. 14 of this regulation,
2. the discontinuation of the preparation of the thesis,
3. the final result of the public defence.

§2. A PhD researcher can launch an internal appeal against a decision as mentioned above with the Vice Rector for Student Affairs. The PhD researcher is informed of this possibility in the notification of this decision. If the Vice Rector for Student Affairs is an interested party, he/she is replaced by the Vice Rector for Research Policy.

§3. The PhD researcher must submit the appeal by e-mail within seven calendar days from the day after which the decision of the doctoral committee, the ad hoc committee or the examination committee was made known. In their complaint the PhD researcher includes at least a factual description of the invoked objections.

§4. The Vice Rector for Student Affairs hears all parties in question as far as they deem necessary and in each case the PhD researcher except in case of inadmissibility of the submitted appeal. The internal appeal procedure results in:

1. The motivated rejection of the appeal on grounds of unacceptability or unsubstantiated claims. This decision is brought to the attention of the PhD researcher by e-mail within twenty calendar days from the day after which the internal appeal was launched.
2. A new decision by the Vice Rector for Student Affairs. The Vice Rector together with the Research coordinator of the Group in question or the ZAP member appointed by him/her tries to find a solution. If no consensus can be reached, the Vice Rector takes an autonomous decision. The new decision must be taken within twenty calendar days, starting from the day after the internal appeal was launched with the Vice Rector for Student Affairs and is also made known to the PhD researcher within this period. The e-mail address which the PhD researcher used to submit their appeal is used for this purpose.

The internal appeal body can inform the PhD researcher within the time available to them that it will make a pronouncement at a later date. In that case the term for external appeal only starts the day after that date.

§5. After exhausting this internal appeal procedure the PhD researcher can appeal the day after the decision of the Vice Rector for Student Affairs or after the expiration of the term in which the Vice Rector for Student Affairs could take a new decision, to the Appeals Council for Study Progress Decisions in compliance with the Higher Education Codex as codified on 11 October 2013.

In the event of disputes between the PhD researcher and the KU Leuven apart from the Appeals Council for Study Progress Decisions, only the Leuven courts have jurisdiction.

Article 28. Disciplinary regulation

The disciplinary regulation of KU Leuven also applies to PhD researchers. The disciplinary regulation applies to the AAP in addition to the provisions that apply via the Academic staff regulations.