Comité de suivi individuel (CSI)

The CSI's missions

The implementation of an individual PhD student Follow-up committee (CSI: Comité de Suivi Individuel du doctorant) is made compulsory by article 13 of the ministerial decree of 25 May 2016, which states: "An individual PhD student follow-up committee shall ensure the smooth running of the programme on the basis of the doctoral charter ("charte du doctorat") and the training agreement ("convention de formation"). In an interview with the doctoral student, it evaluates the conditions of his training and the progress of his research. It makes recommendations and sends a report of the interview to the doctoral school director, to the PhD student and to the thesis supervisor. In particular, it shall ensure that all forms of conflict, discrimination or harassment are prevented. The composition, organization and functioning of this committee are determined by the doctoral school council. The members of this committee do not participate in the direction of the PhD student's work."

The procedures for the composition, organization and operation of the CSIs were adopted by the MathSTIC doctoral school council on 29 January 2018 and are described below.

The composition of the CSI

Each doctoral student is accompanied by an individual doctoral student follow-up committee (CSI), composed of at least two persons not involved in the supervision of the thesis.

  • At least one of the members of the CSI must be a Professor or Research Director (DR) or have an accreditation to supervise research (HdR: habilitation à diriger des recherches),
  • At least one member must be from the thesis field,
  • At least one member of the CSI must be outside the institutions (including the institution, unit, laboratory,company of (co-)directors and supervisors) where the thesis is prepared. Upon motivated request from the director of the research unit addressed to the director of the doctoral school, it can be admitted that this external member is at least outside the research team (in the sense team evaluated by HCERES) and the company of (co-)directors and supervisors.

The members of the CSI are appointed by the director of the doctoral school on the proposal of the director of the research unit sent to the site manager of the doctoral school, using the form for the proposal of the individual monitoring committee of the doctoral student (CSI). For PhD thesis subject to confidentiality clauses, a confidentiality commitment from the CSI members must be completed by the thesis director and signed by the CSI members.

A member of the CSI (by default the first) is designated as the referent-CSI and will validate the contents of the meeting report and the CSI's opinion before signature and transmission to the thesis director and the doctoral student.

Deadline for setting up a CSI: No later than three months after the PhD student's first registration. Replacement of an ISC member: The rules for the appointment of a member of the above CSI committee apply to replace a member of an CSI committee during the thesis.

The progress report

Each year, the PhD student must send an annual PhD work progress report to the members of his CSI.
The PhD student must ensure that this report is received by the members of his CSI and must inform the PhD thesis director and, where applicable, the appropriate PhDs' department/service of his laboratory.

Deadline for sending the report to the CSI members: No later than two weeks before the date of the meeting with the CSI Committee and in any case ideally before the end of May.

The organization of the CSI meetings

When to organize the CSI meeting? An annual meeting of the committee, not mandatory (but strongly recommended by the doctoral school) for doctoral students in their first year, is required for PhD students in

their second year or more. The CSI may also decide to hold a meeting at the request of the PhD thesis director or the doctoral school deputy-director or director.

Objective of the CSI meetings: Each meeting must include an interview between the members of the CSI and the PhD student without his supervisors. It can be usefully completed by an interview between the members of the CSI committee with the supervisors, with or without the PhD student. A meeting with the committee is formative and constructive to evaluate the progress of the PhD student in relation to his personal path. During the meeting, the doctoral student presents the work carried out during the year, the results obtained and the provisional planning for the following year. The PhD student should plan a presentation of about 20 minutes. This presentation is followed by questions-discussions on the PhD thesis work. This part of the meeting can be done in the presence of the supervisors.

The part of the meeting, which is an interview with the PhD student WITHOUT the supervisors, will provide an opportunity to discuss other points, in particular to identify any form of conflict, discrimination or harassment: his integration into the research team, in the laboratory, his relationship with the supervisors, his wishes for the future, etc....

In case of major problems identified in the progress of the work and/or in the relationship between the doctoral student and his supervisors, the PhD student's individual follow-up committee (CSI-members) must imperatively inform the doctoral school's direction.

Calendar of CSI meetings: CSI meetings can take place at any time. However, the annual meeting of the CSI should ideally be held before the end of May.

Who is in charge of organizing the CSI meeting? The PhD student must take care (with the possible help of the PhD thesis director, his supervisors or the laboratory) of the organization of this meeting: contact the members of the CSI and plan the date, the hour, the place, or, if it is by visioconference, to make the necessary reservations, etc.

The circuit for transmitting CSI recommendations

At the end of the CSI meeting, if applicable, or upon receipt of the PhD student's progress report, the CSI members fill in the "template for the CSI's report and opinion" document with any recommendations and issue an opinion for re-registration in the following year. This report signed by the two members of the CSI is transmitted by the referent-CSI to the PhD thesis director and the PhD student.

The PhD thesis director adds his opinion, signs it and sends it to the appropriate laboratory service if applicable, or directly to the laboratory director.
The laboratories are responsible for retrieving the progress reports of their doctoral students, the opinions of the CSI committees, and seeking the opinion of the laboratory director. They transmit all these elements together in a group to the MathSTIC doctoral school secretary.

Notification Deadline: CSI reports with recommendations and signatures must be received by the doctoral school no later than June 15, 2018.

The CSI and re-registration

Authorization for registration in the following year is granted if all opinions are favorable and transmitted by the deputy director of the MathSTIC doctoral school to the head of the registration establishment.

If all the opinions are unfavorable, a duly argued unfavorable opinion is notified to the PhD student by the deputy director of the doctoral school and to the head of the enrolment establishment.

All other cases (discordant opinions, problems or conflicts reported or alerts from the CSI, etc.) are examined by the doctoral school's office (bureau) which can rely on the thesis commission of the MathSTIC doctoral school to give its opinion. In case of reserved opinion and for late re-registration requests, a CSI meeting must be held at the latest in the autumn. The opinion of the CSI, with the opinion of the thesis director and the laboratory director must be sent to the doctoral school before the request for re-registration and in all cases before the closing of registrations in the registration institution.

CSI Exemption cases

On a duly argued request from the PhD thesis director to the deputy-director of the doctoral school, an exemption from the CSI procedure (exemption from writing the doctoral student's progress report and exemption from meeting with the CSI committee) may be granted (i) for first-year PhD students registered after 1st January, (ii) for PhD students who are likely to defend their thesis before 31st December of the current year and (iii) exceptionally for other duly justified reasons.

Requests for CSI exemption for PhD students likely to defend their thesis before 31st December of the current year (case (ii)), must imperatively mention the provisional date of defense.

If the exemption is not granted, the CSI procedure corresponding to the PhD student's registration year must be followed according to the corresponding calendar and in all cases before the closing date for registration at the registration institution.