Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Training of experts
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“13. The Register Committee understood that the panels involve students and other stakeholders on equal bases. Furthermore, the Committee learned that despite the regular (online) trainings offered by the agency, very few people have enrolled for this online trainings.

14. The Register Committee therefore followed the panel’s conclusion that the agency continues to comply with the standard. The Committee, however, shared the panel’s view that the agency should find ways into making training opportunities more attractive for the reviewers to attend.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	07/02/2022
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	training of experts & pool of experts limited
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel noted that FIBAA uses several videos and Power Point presentations to provide training for the experts, but critically remarked that there is not a face-to-face training and no clear obligation for experts to undertake such a training (or supervision on it) prior to an accreditation or certification procedure. The training is done on a voluntary basis. The review panel also underlined that the training materials for the English-speaking experts may not be as comprehensive as those received by German-speaking experts.

In its analysis the review panel also noted that the number of international experts in the pool of experts to be rather limited given FIBAA’s international profile and that there is minimal rotation and renewal among the experts.

Considering the above mentioned shortcomings, the Register Committee cannot follow the panel’s conclusion on (substantially) compliant but finds that FIBAA complies only partially with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	14/03/2022
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	monitoring expert training, experts trained by other agencies
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“19. In addition,the review panel noted that the proportion of experts who take part in training had increased, but not sufficiently in the panel's view. The panel also considered that the process for recruitment and selection of experts was largely informal.

20. The Register Committee welcomed the newly introduced systematic monitoring of experts' training and prior experience, as explained in ZEvA's representation. The Committee agreed that ZEvA may of course rely on experts who were previously trained by other agencies operating in Germany.

21. At the same time, the Committee considered that 50% was not a very ambitious goal for the share of formally trained experts. Moreover, the Committee had some doubts whether prior experience should be considered entirely equal to a formal training.

22. While the Register Committee welcomed that the involvement of students was now ensured and that ZEvA is taking steps to enhance the formal training of experts, the Committee considered that the level of formal expert training remained weak to date. The Register Committee was therefore unable to concur with the panel, but considered that ZEvA only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	students
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“17. In its past decision, the Register Committee noted PKA’s intention to ensure students are part of the peer-review expert groups in the opinion-giving process and to contribute as equal partners.

18. In its 2023 review report, the panel noted improvements related to the wider engagement of different stakeholders’ groups. In the case of opinion-giving procedure, panels are now composed of members of relevant sections or experts appointed from the academic teachers expert group and a student.

19. The Register Committee thus concluded that the agency has addressed the issues raised in the previous report and therefore can follow the panel’s judgment of compliance.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Training of experts
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“13. In its previous decision of registration on EQAR (of 2020-03-16), the Register Committee found AHPGS to be partially compliant with the standard due to ambiguity in whether the agency ensured that all experts received training. Additionally, the criteria and process for recruiting reviewers were not clear.

14. From the report, the Register Committee learned that the training process has been improved, and ensures inclusivity and accessibility for all experts. Furthermore, as underlined by the panel, the format was made more adaptable and personalised.

15. Following the improvements made by the agency, the Committee was able to follow the panel’s conclusion that the agency now complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (09/10/2020) Panel (25/10/2020)
RC decision	Compliance

“ the Register Committee noted that students were not always listed among the peer-review experts. The Register Committee has therefore asked the panel whether it was aware of such exceptions and whether it was given any explanation.

The panel explained that the involvement of students was piloted only in 2018 and that it became part of THEQC’s procedure in the academic year 2019-20 (following the set-up of the agency’s Student Commission in October 2019). The panel was assured by those that it spoke to, including the student representatives, that it was now THEQC’s policy to include students on all review panels.

The Register Committee welcomed the panel’s explanation, but noted that students were not listed among the peer-review team members in a number of evaluations carried out in 2019 (e.g. Alanya University, Atashehir University, Şırnak University, Hakari University, Ataşehir Adıgüzel Meslek Yüksek Okulu, Muş Alparslan).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Focused, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Student involvement in panels
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that QANU has, since its last review, taken steps towards the inclusion of students in the assessment of research units/PhD programmes. QANU agreed with VSNU, KNAW and KWO (the organisations who developed the Standard Evaluation Protocol for these assessments) to include students on the experts panels in the form of a pilotscheme, starting in

2019. The Register Committee found that QANU has so far finalised one assessment of a research unit/PhD programme in 2019 (report published as of 15 March 2019), but that the expert panel for that review did not include a student.While the Register Committee recognised and welcomed the clear stepstaken by QANU so far, it considered that the involvement of students on research unit/PhD assessment panels is so far at the stage of a pilot and notyet implemented in practice. The Committee was therefore unable to concur with panel’s conclusion of (substantially) compliant but found that QANU stillcomplies only partially with ESG 2.4. The Register Committee further underlined the review panel’s recommendation to ensure that students become a constituent element of the research units/PhD programme assessments panels. The Committee further added that students involvement should not be limited to the assessment of specific aspects, but that they are to be fully involved along all expert panel members.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	22/06/2020
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement; Mismatch between number of experts enlisted in the reports and number of experts required according to agency’s review methodology; Unavailability of some reports
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee flagged AKKORK’s involvement of students in its previous decision of inclusion. The panel received confirmations during its multiple interviews that all of AKKORK’s peer review expert groups now included a student member.

The panel’s findings nevertheless show inconsistencies in the number of experts, listed by AKKORK in its published reports and the number of experts expected to be involved according to AKKORK’s own methodology. In particular, the review panel expressed concerns about the use of single experts for professional-public accreditations, although it was told that not all panel members were in fact listed in the prepared reports. The panel therefore concluded that while the formal procedure in the composition of review panel was met on paper, the practice differed. The Register Committee noted from AKKORK’s additional representation that its procedures are published, but noted that the above raised concerns were not addressed and remain unresolved. The Register Committee noted from the statement by the agency - in its further information on the report and additional representation - that the links have been checked and all review panel members are now listed in the published reports. Following a check of the agency’s website, the Register Committee found that a number of reports still have broken links (see the agency’s Register of programmes, under the Russian version of its website). ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	learners in non-traditional higher education provision
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (25/04/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“While the panel underlined the different status of "listeners", as opposed to “students”, who enrol into these programmes, the Register Committee considered that the institutions and programmes in question were part of the higher education system and their accreditation thus within the scope of the ESG; this was also NCPA's own assessment at eligibility stage.

While the panel considered that, in light of the small number of these accreditations, a stricter judgement had “overstretched” the relevance of the matter, the Register Committee considered that this was not only a matter of numbers. The practice at the time of review meant that two types of accreditations did not fully comply with the standard.

In its additional representation, NCPA explained that it had revised the corresponding regulations and now required the presence of a “listener” (i.e. a student/learner enrolled in a further professional education programme, see above) on the expert panels. [...]

The Register Committee therefore considered that the issue has been addressed and was now able to concur with the panel’s conclusion that NCPA complies with the standard.

”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in panels.
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee noted that the agency has a wide range of experts involved in institutional, departmental and programme evaluations and that higher education institutions can make reasoned objections concerning the composition of the Expert Evaluation Committees (EEC - panel of experts conducting external evaluation).According to the analysis of the review panel, there is room for a more substantial role of students in evaluations, which is currently limited to a few issues (review report p. 41).While the panel found the arrangement for the appointment of EEC transparent, the panel also underlined that CYQAA should publish the procedures and criteria for the selection of all categories of experts and to explicitly define and communicate the criteria for the selection of student experts.In its additional representation the agency stated that it has published on its website the procedures and criteria for the selection of all categories of experts, including students. The agency further explained that the involvement of student experts is not restricted by the law or limited by CYQAA, and that the agency endeavours to support students’ participation in evaluation processes. The agency further included details about a recent training workshop organised for student experts in preparation for an external review. CYQAA added that the review panel extract referring to the participation of students on limited matters referred to a few students and that the review panel concluded that ‘all groups of experts feel that they participate on an equal footing’ (review report p. 41).14.The agency further argued that students are equal to the rest of the panel members, that they follow the same terms of reference, have the same responsibilities (defined in the “Guidelines for the Membersof External Evaluation Committees”), receive the same information, directions and clarifications and have the same rights and obligationsas the other panel members.15.Having considering the clarification provided by the agency, the Register Committee was able to follow the panel’s conclusion of (substantial) compliance with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	05/11/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	absence of student reviewers in panels for NCE procedures and overseas accreditations
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (21/10/2019)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The involvement of students was flagged when A3ES was admitted to the Register. While the panel’s conclusion was that A3ES was substantially compliant withthe standard, the Register Committee noted that students were not involved in prior accreditation of study programmes (NCE) and international assessment teams. The Register Committee sought clarification from the panel in that regard. Inits response the panel explained that NCE was a compliance-check procedure based on juridic judgement and it involved only experts knowledgable in law. Furthermore, the panel considered A3ES arguments not to involve students in international assessment teams as reasonable andas exceptional cases that do not indicate that A3ES deviates significantly from the quality standards expected under 2.4.The clarification from the panel thus confirmed that students are not part of the panels for prior accreditation of study programmes (NCE) nor part of the panels for overseas compliance check. The Registered Committee considered that this arrangement did not meet the requirements of the standard and that students should be involved as expert panel members in all activities that involve an assessment by a panel of experts. Also for new study programme concepts and for existing programmes implemented in a new setting abroad, students may add a valuable additional and specific perspective to the process. Given the absence of student reviewers in panels for NCE procedures and overseas accreditations, the Register Committee concluded that the flag was not fully addressed and was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion. The Register Committee concluded that A3ES only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	training of experts, clarity of rules for expert pool
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“21. […] the review panel noted that the criteria for the recruitment of the experts were not formalised and published.

22. The review panel discussed that the training of experts consisted only of a phone briefing. The panel recommended that AHPGS intensify and further improve the training for both new and experienced experts.

23. The Register Committee took note of AHPGS' explanation that most of its new experts had prior experience from serving as accreditation experts for other agencies in Germany; given the common system there would be no need to re-train them. While the Committee could follow this argument for experts with prior experience, it considered that there will certainly be some – even if few – experts who participate in their first accreditation with AHPGS, and the Committee considered that a more in-depth training was warranted for those.

24. The additional representation underlined that AHPGS offers a regular training programme [...] it remained unclear whether it was ensured that all panel members have participated in a formal training session […]

25. The representation further clarified that there actually is an open invitation, […]

27. Given the panel’s analysis and the issues that remain unclear after clarification and additional representation, the Register Committee was unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion but considered that AHPGS only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Student involvement in panels
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel’s findings show that in the opinion-giving process students are not involved as members of review panels. Opinions are prepared by members of relevant Sections or PKA experts, following which the Presidium prepares a resolution that is forwarded to the Minister and highereducation institutions. The panel noted that students are to a certain extent involved as members of the Presidium of PKA. In its statement to the review report PKA acknowledged its shortcomingregarding the student involvement in the opinion giving processes and decided to set up a team of student experts to issue opinions on applications.The Register Committee welcomed PKA’s intention but found that the composition of the relevant sections and experts panels is still unchanged. The Committee further underlined that students are normally expected to beinvolved as part of the peer-review expert groups and to contribute as equal partners. As the current arrangement of PKA could not yet be reviewed by an external panel the Committee was unable to conclude whether the way students are involved meets the requirements of the standard. Register Committee therefore concurred with the review panel’s view and concluded that PKA complies only partially with ESG 2.4.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/03/2020
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	lack of student experts in some review panels
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (20/02/2020)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“In its additional representation ANVUR acknowledged the lack of student experts in review panels, and referred to the involvement of students in the internal consultation process on new study programmes. ANVUR added that starting from November 2019, the agency has included (PhD) students in the evaluation groups for PhD programmes at two institutions. The agency also presented its plans to involve students in the AFAM’s external reviews, starting with a pilot project during

2020. ANVUR further stated that starting in 2021 the fees will be aligned between the faculty panel members and student panel members. The Register Committee considered that if student experts have an equal role in panels there is no ground for paying them differently, and welcomed ANVUR's commitment to change its practice in that regard. The Register Committee underlined that the consultation of student representatives in the institutions' internal preparation processes for new study programmes cannot replace the requirement of the standard, i.e. that students are part of ANVUR's expert groups.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	no student on a panel at a request of an individual HEI
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (19/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“17. [...] students had not been involved in the panels for enhancement reviews previously.

18. [...] The panel’s clarification confirmed that student involvement on panel’s was not yet a fully established practice across all reviews, but that students will be part of all future procedures.

20. [...] The Committee, however, noted that the December 2018 review of the Royal Academy of Fine Arts (KASK) in Ghent did not include a student panel member; with a note in the report that “contrary to EQ-Arts’ policy and practice, it was the decision and request of School of Art KASK that a student panel member was not included in this review process”.

21. The Register Committee concluded that EQ-Arts was apparently ready to make such exceptions, which are in contradiction to ESG standards. The Committee underlined that such exceptions are incompatible with the spirit of a predefined quality assurance process that is implemented consistently.

22. As EQ-Arts does not stringently implement its policy as regards student panel members, the Register Committee remained unable to concur with the panel’s conclusion, but considered that EQ-Arts only partially complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/04/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement in ex-ante procedures
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that students are not involved in ex-ante accreditation of new institutions, the accreditation of doctoral schools and in the initial evaluation of programmes. The Register Committee agrees with the panel’s reasoning that the anonymity of experts in ex-ante evaluations precludes evaluators for becoming answerable for their decisions.[...] The agency also stated that the practice of maintaining the anonymity of experts will be changed following the Board’s decision (of February 2019). Regarding the involvement of students in the ex ante evaluations, the agency argued that students are involved in the decision-making process, as members of the expert committees where findings are discussed and that all eight expert committees now involve a student. In the view of the agency ex-ante evaluations call for an academic judgement as the focus is on academic content. The Register Committee welcomed HAC’s decision to lift the anonymity of experts (in case of ex-ante procedures) and acknowledged HAC’s intention to address the involvement of students in its follow-up report to the coordinator. The Committee nevertheless noted that such changes are yet to take place, and underlined that students should be appropriately involved in all peer expert groups, including the ex-ante evaluation stage as per the requirement of the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/03/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	infrequent involvement of students in some procedures
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (05/11/2018)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The involvement of student reviewers in reviews for Degree-Awarding Powers (DAP) was flagged when QAA was admitted to the Register. The Committee noted that student reviewers now take part in these reviews […]. The panel's report, however, suggested that the standard was not fully met, as there were no student review panel members in some of QAA's review methods. The Register Committee sought clarification from the panel in that regard. The Committee noted that students are not on the review teams for General Osteopathic Council reviews (GosC); and it could not be established how frequently students are on the panels for Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) or Transnational Education review (TNE).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement in some reviews and involvement limited to student matters; anonymous review team experts, site-visit undertaken by an agency sub-commission instead of the group of exprts which prepared the report
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The panel’s findings show that students (and employer representatives) take part in periodic programme accreditations only when they are combined with institutional ones. The panel also noted that the involvement of students is limited to student matters.The Committee further noted that at the time of the application by CAQA review team experts remained anonymous and that their involvement was limited to assessing compliance based on documentation. The site visits were undertaken by a CAQA sub-commission, which subsequently prepared the final report integrating the experts' feedback.The Register Committee considered that this arrangement did not meet the requirement of the standard and that assessments should be undertaken by a “group of external experts”. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	04/04/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement & training of experts
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“While the panel confirmed the practice of involving students as review experts in all ARACIS’s reviews, including at programme level, the panel added that at the time of its review the agency had had little practical experience. The panel further commented that “some evaluation panels treated student members as supernumeraries and not as full partner-evaluators in the review exercise and that some evaluators were not attuned to the necessity for ‘student centeredness’ in higher education and what that required of tutors and of them as evaluators.” (Review Report, p. 35)

In its additional representation ARACIS [...] commented that its policies and procedures gave students equal rights and obligations i.e. the coverage of mission costs and remuneration is the same as for the other members, and that students are required to participate in the Council, the Permanent Speciality Commission and expert panels. (p. 8-9) ARACIS further added that one of the aspects considered in the selection process of the Permanent Speciality Commission in 2018 was the understanding of students’ role and involvement in quality assurance activities.

The Register Committee noted that, while ARACIS regularly offers training sessions for its evaluators, the panel found that the format for training sessions offered few opportunities for learning through simulation and practical exercise and that the ‘virtual’ and ‘online’ training were lacking in efficacy. In the additional representation, ARACIS clarified that the e-platform is a complementary facility to the face to face training sessions and not a substitute. [..] The agency provided a list of past training sessions focused on the practical activity of the Permanent Speciality Commissions.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	16/11/2017
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in external review process
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion, the Register Committee flagged the involvement of students in all external review expert groups.The panel’s findings showed that students participate in all SKVC’s expert teams for all types of evaluations, whether in Lithuania or abroad. In its interviews the panel also learned that students were not always involved equally in the external review process, an issue that was mostly depended on the chair of the team (Review report pg. 36).The Register Committee noted that SKVC involved students in all its reviews and has therefore addressed the flag. he Committee nevertheless underlined the panel’s recommendation that SKVC could play a more supportive role in ensuring that students participate as equal members in all panels.”

Full decision: see agency register entry