Precedents database

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	27/11/2024
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Inconsistent use of tools for decision making; Consistency in the interpretation of the agency’s criteria
Panel conclusion	Partial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (28/05/2024)
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee learned that, out of 24 applications concluded between

2022 and 2024, the final conclusions on the standards differed from those

proposed by the panels in four cases – three of which occurred in

2024. This

trend resulted in either more or less favourable outcomes for the concerned

higher education institutions.The Committee could not understand, without a panel insight, whether

the increased discrepancy between the panels’ and the Authorisation

Council’s conclusions occurring after the site visit (2023-11-05) steams from

the (im)proper use of the tools for consistent application of agency’s criteria

or other external factors (see more in ESG 3.3)”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Targeted, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	02/07/2024
Standard	2.5 Criteria for outcomes
Keywords	Lack of clear deliberation rules
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“7. In its last decision for renewal of registration (of 2019-11-05), the Register Committee found that CTI only partially fulfilled the requirements of the standard as the consistency in their decision making was not always assured - the Committee noted a lack of clear deliberation rules detailing the basis upon which specific decisions were made.

8. The Register Committee noted that CTI has introduced a new tool for ensuring consistency in its decision making – a deliberation table, used for synthesizing the panel assessments. Furthermore, the Committee understood from the analysis of the panel that the deliberation tables ensure consistency in the decision making process and make the review process more transparent.

9. Following the recent developments regarding the introduction of the new tool and its impact on consistency of the outcomes of CTI, the Register Committee was able to concur with the panel's conclusion, and found that now the agency complies with the standard.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Focused, coordinated by ECA
Decision of	18/03/2021
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“9. The review panel's report contained no analysis of the factors that led to that departure from EQ-Arts' own policies, but confirmed that all reviews since December 2018 have included students (8 reviews in 2019 and 1 in 2020); the panel further elaborated on EQ-Arts approach to recruiting and training experts.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/03/2023
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Lack of meaningful involvement of students in panels
Panel conclusion	Compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“ECAQA involves a variety of stakeholders in the composition of panels, including students. The Committee learned that, in practice, the student reviewers were not always offered the training provided for the other panel members – such conditions made their involvement in some of the reviews nominal in the panel's view.The Register Committee found that despite the formal involvement, ECAQA's approach did not ensure meaningful participation of students in all review panels”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/12/2021
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Strength of the training for reviewers
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The training for experts relies mainly on sending materials to the experts and their self-

preparation and group briefings at the beginning of the review”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	15/10/2021
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of students in panels
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee learned that the absence of student

members in the panels in the two activities is due to the specificity of the

processes; the procedures focus on quantitative indicators on teaching

offering and the human, material and financial resources. The Committee, however, understood that the process goes beyond a

purely technical check of numbers, as it generally involves other experts also

making a qualitative assessment. The Committee could not agree with the

panel’s conclusion that the “student perspective could not add any value” in

those procedures and considered that the students’ views could offer an

important insight into the matters under observation in both activities”

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
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (18/03/2025)
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel noted that “when the nature of the assessment in question so requires, every effort is made to include non-academic experts [...] as well as students who are experienced in quality assessment in higher education“ (ERR, p. 39). As the Register Committee found the analysis unclear as to whether students are consistently involved in all ACSUCYL’s review panels, the Committee asked the panel for further clarifications. The panel explained that all evaluation procedures within the scope of the ESG include one student member. The panel further added that students are regarded as equal members of peer review expert panels.”

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	Panels composition
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its 2016 decision on QQI's Substantive Change Report, the Register Committee flagged for attention the composition of QQI expert panels.The Register Committee noted that some specific QQI processes do not use traditional expert panels, but are based on desk assessments or dialogues by QQI staff, followed by subsequent decisions where applicable. The Committee noted that the decision-making bodies include all perspectives that are otherwise required to be on a panel.The Committee further noted that wherever panels are deployed their composition complies with the standard. The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag was addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that QQI complies with the standard.”

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	Involvement of students in panels.
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its previous decision the Register Committee flagged CTI’s involvement of students in some of its review panels. The Register Committee noted that CTI works together with the French engineering students’ association, to ensures that CTI systematically nominates student experts in all its regular programme evaluations. The review panel also confirmed that in its CeQuInt evaluations, CTI’s panel include among its four experts also a student. ”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	19/06/2019
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Panels composition
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Agency (06/06/2019)
RC decision	Compliance

“The review panel learned that in cases where expert panels are employed for follow-up and case-based monitoring procedures their composition is not clearly defined. The Register Committee therefore asked the agency for further clarifications. The agency explained (see letter of 06/06/2019)) that its guidebook on follow-up procedures define the composition of panels for both follow-up and case-based monitoring procedures. The agency stated that it ensured that a student representative is included in the composition of the expert panel for both procedures.The Register Committee therefore concurred with the panel’s judgment that NCEQE is compliant 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	Involvement of students in review committees
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In the previous review this standard was flagged due to the fact that the regular involvement of students on all review committees was yet to become practice.The Committee noted that steps have been taken in order to ensure regular involvement of students. Participation of students in evaluation procedures isguaranteed by the Basque Country Act 13/2012.The Register Committee therefore concluded that the flag has been addressed and concurred with the panel's conclusion that Unibasq (substantially) complies with the standard”

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	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	06/12/2018
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	student involvement in pilot procedures
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Partial compliance

“The Register Committee noted that there was no systematic inclusion of students in all expert groups for initial, paper-based accreditation as yet, but that the inclusion of students in these expert groups was currently piloted.[…] the Register Committee concluded that the flag has only been partially addressed so far, pending the pilot advancing to become a full regular part of the process.. The Committee further noted that there were no students included in the panel for the pilot on Combined Education and Research Evaluations, but appreciated that the panel was confident that students would be involved in case this activity became permanent.”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Initial
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	13/06/2018
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Nomination of students in expert panels
Panel conclusion	Substantial compliance
Clarification request(s)	Panel (30/05/2018)
RC decision	Compliance

“The Register Committee, however, noted that there might remain a residual risk of influence as long as higher education institutions could de facto exercise a veto right in the nomination of students to the NEAA pool of experts. While not impeding the agency's compliance with the standard (nor with standard 3.3) the Register Committee consider that NEAA should be mindful of that issue (also in regard to operational independence under standard 3.3).”

Full decision: see agency register entry

Application	Renewal
Review	Full, coordinated by ENQA
Decision of	03/12/2016
Standard	2.4 Peer-review experts
Keywords	Involvement of external experts
Panel conclusion	Full compliance
Clarification request(s)	–
RC decision	Compliance

“In its decision of inclusion Register Committee flagged the involvement of external experts in initial accreditation.The Register Committee noted that the accreditation panels of AI now include at least three members and consist of professional experts with higher education experience and a student for each procedure. ”

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 (18/03/2025)
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