The research plan is not a bureaucratic document. It serves two functions:

1. Establish a verifiable starting point. Without it, there is no way to measure progress or identify deviations.
2. Force early decisions. Writing the plan requires defining scope, method, and timeline before bad choices accumulate.

A vague plan produces vague evaluations. A plan with clear decisions allows specific feedback.

The Regulations establish that every graduate student must develop a research project under the supervision of an accredited faculty member. The project must:

• Be linked to the program’s research lines
• Be feasible within the course deadline
• Contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field

The research project is the foundation for developing the dissertation (Master’s) or thesis (Doctoral), and its approval is a requirement for continuing in the program.

The research plan is the first formal document the student must submit after admission. It establishes the foundations of the project that will be developed during the course and serves as a reference for monitoring progress.

Submission Deadline:

• Up to 60 days after first enrollment
• Consequence of non-compliance: Dismissal from program

The deadline is short because the plan should record decisions the student already made upon entering, not discoveries yet to be made.

The research plan must contain the following sections:

Formatting:

• Maximum length: 20 pages
• Spacing: double

Verifiable objectives: Vague objectives (“study”, “investigate”, “analyze”) do not allow knowing if they were met. Verifiable objectives have clear success criteria.

• Vague: “Investigate reaction X”
• Verifiable: “Determine the rate constant of reaction X as a function of temperature”

Realistic timeline: A timeline that ignores courses, qualification, and unforeseen events does not guide — it deceives. Reserve time for what will happen, not just for what you would like to do.

Justified methodology: It is not enough to list techniques. Explain why these techniques answer the project’s questions.

The supervisor must:

• Review the plan before submission, ensuring decisions are recorded clearly
• Verify feasibility of the timeline and necessary resources
• Ensure the scope is appropriate for the course level (Master’s or Doctoral)

Plans approved without adequate review generate problems that manifest at qualification or defense.

The research plan is evaluated by the advisor designated by the CCP, who verifies:

Possible results:

When the review indicates revision, it must be clear what needs to change and where the problem is.

The research plan is evaluated by the advisor designated by the CCP, who verifies:

Possible results:

When the review indicates revision, it must be clear what needs to change and where the problem is.

It is natural for the research project to undergo adjustments throughout the course, as the student deepens their knowledge of the topic and obtains preliminary results.

Permitted changes:

• Scope and methodology adjustments
• Objective refinement
• Timeline modification

Procedure:

• Changes must be agreed upon with the supervisor
• Significant changes must be communicated to the advisor
• Replanning must be recorded in annual reports

Topic change: In exceptional cases, a substantial change in the project topic may be necessary. This requires:

• Well-founded justification
• Supervisor consent
• CCP approval
• Evaluation of impact on deadlines

The problem is not changing the project. The problem is changing without recording, making it impossible to evaluate whether there was progress.

The annual report exists to identify problems while there is still time to correct them. It is not accountability — it is a monitoring tool.

A useful report shows:

• What was done in relation to what was planned
• What changed and why
• What will be done next

Reports that just list activities without connecting them to the original plan do not allow evaluating progress.

The Regulations establish that programs must maintain mechanisms for monitoring student progress:

• Verify compliance with goals established in the project
• Identify difficulties and offer support
• Ensure the student is progressing adequately
• Avoid delays in course completion

Programs have autonomy to define the form and frequency of monitoring, as long as they guarantee continuous evaluation of academic and scientific performance.

Annual reports are instruments for monitoring student progress. They allow evaluating whether the project is developing as planned and identifying eventual difficulties before they become critical.

Frequency:

• Annual, according to deadlines defined by CCP or funding agency

Responsibility:

• Preparation is the student’s responsibility
• The supervisor must evaluate and issue an opinion
• The advisor analyzes and evaluates the report

Consequence of non-compliance:

• Failure to submit reports within established deadlines may result in dismissal from program

The annual report must contain the following sections:

Content of “Activities Completed” section:

• Courses taken and grades obtained
• Experiments performed and results obtained
• Publications, conference presentations
• Technical training and internships
• Participation in scientific events
• Other relevant activities

Students with funding agency scholarships (FAPESP, CAPES, CNPq) may submit reports in the format required by the agency, as long as it contains essential information.

Minimum requirements:

• Description of activities performed
• Results obtained
• Planning for the following period
• Supervisor’s opinion

Note: Even when using the agency format, the student must ensure that all information required by the Program is included.

Evaluation Process:

1. The student prepares the report and submits to the supervisor
2. The supervisor evaluates and issues an opinion
3. The report is forwarded to the advisor
4. The advisor analyzes and evaluates the report
5. The result is communicated to the student

Evaluation Criteria:

Possible Results:

• Approved: The student is progressing adequately
• Approved with recommendations: The student must implement suggested adjustments
• Failed: The student is not progressing adequately

If the report is failed by the advisor, the student has the opportunity to correct the identified deficiencies.

Procedure:

1. The student receives the opinion with the reasons for failure
2. Must submit new report within 30 days after result disclosure
3. The new report must incorporate the recommendations and corrections indicated
4. The advisor evaluates the report again

Consequences:

• First failure: The student has 30 days to submit a new report
• Second consecutive failure: The student is dismissed from program

How to respond to the opinion:

The new report must show that the opinion was read and used. This means:

• Identify each point raised
• Indicate where the change was made (or explain why it was not possible)
• Do not repeat the same text with cosmetic adjustments

Responding to the opinion with abstract arguments does not improve the report. Responding with concrete revisions does.

The advisor is a doctoral degree holder designated by the CCP to monitor the development of the student’s research project. Each student must have 1 or 2 advisors.

For more details, see the Advisory page.

Designation:

• The supervisor and student prepare a list with 4 names of potential advisors
• The CCP designates the advisor(s) considering adequacy to the project and number of students already advised (maximum 5)
• Deadline: up to 60 days after first enrollment (submitted with research plan)

Advisor Responsibilities:

• Evaluate the research plan and annual reports
• Evaluate summaries for courses and qualification
• Meet with the student at least once a year
• Sign the meeting form
• Communicate any identified problems to the CCP

Restrictions:

• Cannot be the student’s supervisor or co-supervisor
• Can advise a maximum of 5 students simultaneously

Annual meeting: The student must meet with the advisor at least once a year. It is recommended that the supervisor not participate, so the student can openly discuss the project’s progress.

Deadlines for report submission are defined by CCP or funding agency.

For scholarship holders:

• Follow the funding agency calendar (FAPESP, CAPES, CNPq)
• Students with external scholarships may submit reports in the agency format

For non-scholarship holders:

• Follow the calendar defined by CCP
• Consult the secretariat for specific dates

Tips:

• Keep updated records of your activities throughout the year
• Do not leave report preparation until the last minute
• Request the supervisor’s opinion in advance
• Check deadlines in advance and plan accordingly

Research that cannot be communicated does not fulfill its function. Knowing how to present work — with clarity, on time, answering questions — is part of training, not an extra.

The seminar is also a form of evaluation: it exposes how much the student masters their own work. Those who cannot explain what they did probably have not yet understood what they did.

The Chemistry Program values the practice of seminar presentation as a fundamental part of graduate student training. This activity allows:

• Developing scientific communication skills
• Practicing organization and synthesis of information
• Receiving feedback on ongoing research
• Learning about work from other research groups
• Preparing for presentations at conferences and defenses

Required Course:

The course QFL5942 – Advanced Topics in Chemistry IV is required for:

• Doctoral students
• Direct Doctoral students

This course offers 2 credits.

The Chemistry Program values the practice of seminar presentation as a fundamental part of graduate student training. This activity allows:

• Developing scientific communication skills
• Practicing organization and synthesis of information
• Receiving feedback on ongoing research
• Learning about work from other research groups
• Preparing for presentations at conferences and defenses

Required Course:

The course QFL5942 – Advanced Topics in Chemistry: Seminar Presentation Practice is required for:

• Doctoral students
• Direct Doctoral students

This course offers 2 credits and focuses on developing oral scientific communication skills.

QFL5942 – Advanced Topics in Chemistry: Seminar Presentation Practice

Course Objectives:

• Train the student to present scientific seminars clearly and effectively
• Develop oral communication skills in academic context
• Practice synthesis and organization of scientific content
• Prepare the student for presentations at conferences, qualification, and defense

Structure:

• Individual presentations by students
• Collective discussion after each presentation
• Feedback from faculty and colleagues
• Continuous formative assessment

Courses are not obstacles to complete before doing research. They provide conceptual and technical tools that the project will require. Taking them without connecting to the project is a waste of time; taking them while connecting is an investment.

The Program organizes courses into cores so that the student builds a formative track coherent with their project — not to fill credits.

The Regulations establish general rules for evaluation in graduate courses:

Grading System:

Approval:

• Grades A, B, or C indicate course approval
• Grade R indicates failure
• Credits are computed only with approval

Attendance:

• The minimum required attendance is 75% of scheduled activities
• Insufficient attendance results in failure, regardless of assessment performance

Course failure has serious consequences for continuity in the program:

Dismissal Rules:

Notes:

• The failure count considers the entire program history
• Courses taken as a special student are also considered
• Dismissal is automatic upon reaching the limits

Recommendations:

• Evaluate your availability before enrolling in many courses
• Communicate difficulties to the professor as soon as possible
• Seek help from colleagues or tutors when necessary
• Consider withdrawing from the course if you realize you cannot keep up

The Chemistry Program follows the grading system established by USP’s Graduate Regulations. Each course defines its own evaluation criteria, which must be presented to students at the beginning of the course.

Common Forms of Evaluation:

Required Courses:

Required courses in the program vary by degree:

Master’s:

• QFL5930 – Safety, Ethics and Responsibility
• QFL5939 – Advanced Topics I

Doctoral:

• QFL5930 – Safety, Ethics and Responsibility
• QFL5940 – Advanced Topics II
• QFL5942 – Seminar Practice

Direct Doctoral:

• QFL5930 – Safety, Ethics and Responsibility
• QFL5939 – Advanced Topics I
• QFL5940 – Advanced Topics II
• QFL5942 – Seminar Practice

Each degree requires a minimum number of course credits:

Credits for Qualification:

The student must have completed minimum credits by the qualification exam date:

Each degree requires a minimum number of course credits:

Credits for Qualification:

The student must have completed minimum credits by the qualification exam date:

Exception: Master’s students who request transfer to Direct Doctoral with institutional scholarship change must have 100% of credits (30 credits) completed.

Course withdrawal is a resource available to students who, for some reason, cannot keep up with a course in a given semester.

Procedure:

• Request withdrawal within the deadline established in the calendar
• Withdrawal results in grade T on the transcript
• The course can be taken again in another semester

Limitations:

• There is a deadline to request withdrawal (usually until mid-semester)
• Withdrawal does not count as failure
• Check if withdrawal will not affect your qualification deadlines

When to consider withdrawal:

• Difficulty keeping up with content
• Overload of activities in the semester
• Personal or health problems
• Schedule conflicts with laboratory activities

The grade I (Incomplete) is assigned when the student has not completed all course assessments but has the possibility to do so.

Typical situations:

• Justified absence from assessment
• Pending final work
• Need for additional time due to force majeure

Grade conversion:

• The student must complete pending activities
• There is a defined deadline for converting grade I
• The professor assigns the final grade after completion of activities
• If there is no completion within the deadline, grade I may be converted to R

Procedure:

• Communicate with the professor about the situation
• Formally request the assignment of grade I
• Agree on a deadline for completing pending activities
• Submit activities within the agreed deadline

Credits obtained at other institutions or in other USP programs can be transferred, upon analysis:

Courses from other USP programs:

• Can be fully transferred
• Must be related to the research area
• Requires approval from supervisor and CCP

Courses from other institutions:

• Can be partially transferred
• Limit: up to 1/3 of required course credits
• The institution must have an accredited graduate program
• Requires content and course load equivalence

Courses taken as a special student:

• Can be transferred if taken in the last 36 months
• Must have been passed (grade A, B, or C)
• Requires supervisor approval

The annual evaluation of the Program is fundamental to assess the effectiveness of knowledge generation processes and human resource training. The methodology is structured in multiple stages:

Evaluation Forms

Electronic forms are periodically sent to different groups:

Interviews and Focus Groups

Meetings with student and faculty representatives to deepen emerging themes from quantitative evaluations. These occur during the PPGQ-IQUSP Annual Workshops.

Indicator Analysis

Monitoring of metrics such as:

• Average time to degree
• Dropout rate
• Faculty productivity
• Career placement of alumni
• Participation in scientific events

Data Sources