The assessment of the MDMC programme is based on participation, practical experience, and the development of an individual project. Students are evaluated throughout the programme, with particular attention to their engagement in coursework and performance during the internship.
The overall evaluation of each student is based on three assessment stages, reflecting the different components of the MDMC programme:
- Traineeship Supervisor Assessment – up to 20/60 points, evaluating the student’s performance and work during the traineeship.
- External Thesis Reviewer Assessment – up to 25/60 points, evaluating the quality and outcomes of the final thesis project.
- Final Discussion Panel Assessment – up to 15/60 points, evaluating the presentation and discussion of the thesis project.
The maximum overall score is 60 points. Students must obtain at least 27/60 points from the Supervisor and External Reviewer assessments combined to be admitted to the final thesis discussion.
The final score is calculated as the sum of the scores obtained in all three assessment stages.
The final certificate reports the outcome rather than the numerical score:
- Not approved: final score below 30/60
- Approved: final score from 30/60 to 53/60
- Approved with honours: final score of 54/60 or above
Students are required to attend at least 70% of the in-person lectures.
Attendance requirements during the traineeship period are defined according to the specific arrangements agreed with the host institution and the traineeship supervisor.
The traineeship supervisor evaluates the student’s overall performance during the internship according to four criteria, each scored from 1 to 5, for a maximum of 20 points:
- Thesis Evaluation – Is the thesis clear and well organised? Is the work technically and scientifically sound?
- Internship Performance – Was the student’s participation in the internship activities proactive, continuous and effective?
- Dissemination and Communication – Ability to communicate internship activities and results clearly and effectively, e.g. through presentations, documentation or internal seminars.
- Collaboration and Community Engagement – Willingness to collaborate with colleagues and fellow students, contribute to team activities and foster a sense of community.
Score legend: 1 = Poor · 2 = Acceptable · 3 = Good · 4 = Very Good · 5 = Excellent.
Project Thesis Evaluation
The external thesis reviewer evaluates the final project according to five criteria, each scored from 1 to 5, for a maximum of 25 points:
- Topic Relevance – Is the topic relevant to data management and curation?
- Quality of Work – Is the work technically and scientifically sound?
- FAIR Data Approach – Are data and metadata managed according to the FAIR principles? To what extent does the student understand and appropriately apply FAIR principles within the specific scientific context of the work?
- Clarity of the Thesis Document – Is the thesis clearly written, well structured and easy to follow?
- Code Quality and Technical Documentation – Is the code appropriately documented? Are comments clear and informative, supporting understanding of the code logic and structure? Is the code appropriately licensed?
Score legend: 1 = Poor · 2 = Acceptable · 3 = Good · 4 = Very Good · 5 = Excellent.
The Final Discussion Panel evaluates the thesis presentation and discussion according to three criteria, each scored from 1 to 5, for a maximum of 15 points:
- Topic Relevance – Is the topic relevant to data management and curation?
- FAIR Data Approach – Are FAIR principles correctly addressed and clearly explained in the implemented work?
- Presentation and Communication – Was the oral presentation clear, well structured and effectively delivered?
Score legend: 1 = Poor · 2 = Acceptable · 3 = Good · 4 = Very Good · 5 = Excellent.