3 Review board opinion

\label{review-board-opinion}

3.1 Did the self-evaluation committee represent all the various stakeholders (students and staff) associated with the program?

\label{did-the-self-evaluation-committee-represent-all-the-various-stakeholders-students-and-staff-associated-with-the-program}
The self-report is a comprehensive paper comprising more than 90 pages. It has been compiled by four main authors (Dr. Marta Bellone & Dr. Ulrike Toepel: UNIL, Prof. Anthony Holtmaat: UNIGE and Prof. Jean-Pierre Hornung:UNIL) and the self-evaluation committee comprising scientist, students, and managing people. As stated on page 6 of the self-evaluation, the self-evaluation committee has operated much effort to put together the self-evaluation information about the PH.D. program. On this page all stakeholders of the program are listed. For example, the committee has conducted a survey among 77 students graduated from and 85 currently attending the Ph.D. program (in total 162 people). In addition, they contacted 56 alumni who graduated between 2013 and 2016, of whom all answered the survey. Current Ph.D. candidates who participated are beyond the third semester of Ph.D. program (52 responders). Thus, a pretty large group of alumni, PhD candidates and members of the self-evaluation committee have contributed to this self-evaluation report.

3.2 Was the self-evaluation report comprehensive?

\label{was-the-self-evaluation-report-comprehensive}
The self-evaluation report is definitively comprehensive. It is based on a survey and internal discussion among the above-mentioned stakeholders (see above).

3.3 Did the critical analysis draw on relevant sources of data?

\label{did-the-critical-analysis-draw-on-relevant-sources-of-data}
The survey data comprises information about the following aspects of the PH.D. program:
It is worth to mention that the survey participants were explicitly instructed to respond to these dimensions in the context of their doctoral training by the LNDS, and not with reference to their Ph.D. projects and host labs. As mentioned in the self-evaluation report it was not always be possible to make a clear distinction between these issues.

3.4 Were the data made available and were they able to be verified?

\label{were-the-data-made-available-and-were-they-able-to-be-verified}
Yes, the data of this analysis is fully available and are listed in the annexes of the self-evaluation report.