An open, transparent, and merit-based selection, fully aligned with the Charter & Code policies for researchers’ recruitment,
is guaranteed as to appoint the best candidates.

The evaluation process comprises four main steps and lasts approximately 16 weeks.

Step 0

All the information about the submission of applications and the required documents is available in the Call for applications and the Guide for Applicants.

Step 1


The eligibility check is carried out by the UNIPhD Technical Committee at the University of Padua. If needed, the Committee may ask applicants for additional information or clarifications. Results of the eligibility check are anonymously published on the UNIPhD website as soon as the process is concluded, and applicants are notified by email about the publication of results. A pass/fail-evaluation is applied for on two criteria: admissibility of proposals and eligibility of candidates.

Step 2


A Scientific Evaluation Committee (SEC) is established for each of the 25 PhD Courses involved in UNIPhD. The candidates' CV and research proposal are assessed. Applicants admitted to Step 3 are invited for an interview by email. Applicants who do not pass are duly informed on the outcome of Step 2 of the evaluation.

Step 3


All interviews are conducted by the Scientific Evaluation Committee of each PhD Course, plus 2 additional members: 1 representative of the non-academic sector and 1 motivational expert. Each interview is conducted remotely and lasts approximately 30 minutes. The applicant is informed well in advance about technical requirements needed for the interview. The Interview aims at evaluating the Excellence of the candidate.

Step 4


For each PhD position, a merit-based ranking is determined by weighing the scores for the evaluation of CV (30%), project (30%) and interview (40%). 11 PhD fellowships (1 for each research topic) is awarded. All applicants selected for Step 3 are duly informed of results, and individual feedbacks on the outcome of the evaluation are sent to each applicant on whether their proposal was funded. The ranking lists are published on this webpage.