Purpose
To describe the processes used by the Mediterranean Council for Quality and Accreditation (MCQA) for the international accreditation of higher education study programmes and micro-credentials, as well as the handling of complaints and appeals related to these procedures.
To inform members of MCQA decision-making bodies, external reviewers, and MCQA Secretariat staff.

Content
1.1. MCQA International Accreditation Process
1.2. Application for Accreditation
1.3. Review of Applications and Accreditation Contract
1.4 Self-Evaluation Report (SER)
1.5. Accreditation Expert Team
1.6. Preparation of the Accreditation Visit
1.7. Accreditation Visit / Remote Review
1.8. Accreditation Report and Results
1.9. Decision on Awarding the Accreditation Certificate
1.10. Complaints and Appeals
1.1. MCQA International Accreditation Process
MCQA international accreditation is a structured process that leads to a decision on whether a given study programme or micro-credential meets the criteria to be awarded an MCQA Quality Label.
The process normally includes the following phases:
  • Initial communication and preparatory meeting(s) between MCQA and the applying institution;
  • Submission and review of the Application for Accreditation and the Self-Evaluation Report;
  • Signature of an Accreditation Contract setting scope, timeline, and financial conditions;
  • Appointment and training (where required) of the Accreditation Review Team;
  • Preparation and conduct of the accreditation visit (on site or online/hybrid);
  • Preparation of the Accreditation Review Report and formulation of recommendations;
  • Decision by the competent MCQA body and notification to the institution;
  • Issuance of the Accreditation certificate, and, where applicable, follow-up actions.
Before a formal application is accepted, MCQA and the applicant institution may hold preliminary discussions to confirm mutual understanding of the procedure, scope, language(s) of work, and approximate costs and timing. This stage also allows MCQA to assess whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the programme or micro-credential is ready for an international accreditation procedure.
MCQA ensures that the applying institution has access to the following key documents:
  • MCQA Accreditation Criteria and Standards;
  • MCQA Self-Evaluation Template (programme or micro-credential);
  • MCQA Code of Ethics and Independence for reviewers;
  • MCQA Complaints and Appeals Procedure.
1.2. Application for Accreditation
The Application for Accreditation is the formal entry point into the MCQA process.
  • Applications must be submitted on the official MCQA form:
  • MCQA International Accreditation Application (or the current equivalent).
  • Eligible applicants include higher education institutions, educational centres and professional bodies operating study programmes or micro-credentials in accordance with the legal requirements of their home country.
As a minimum, the programme or micro-credential should:
  • Have been in operation long enough to generate meaningful evidence on implementation and outcomes;
  • Hold valid national recognition/licensing where required by law;
  • Be able to submit a complete Self-Evaluation Report using MCQA form Self-Evaluation of the Programme / Micro-Credential (or equivalent template).
Only fully completed applications, including the Self-Evaluation Report and signed by the authorised institutional representative (e.g., rector, dean, programme director or equivalent), will be considered for further processing.
Applications and their annexes are submitted electronically to the MCQA Secretariat.
1.3. Review of Applications and Accreditation Contract
The MCQA Secretariat reviews each application for completeness, eligibility and basic alignment with MCQA criteria.
The review focuses on verifying that the application form is properly completed and duly signed. If the application is incomplete or unclear, MCQA requests additional information or corrections from the institution within a specified deadline (typically up to 15 days from the request).
Once the application is deemed complete and eligible:
  • MCQA prepares an Accreditation Contract defining:
- Scope and type of accreditation (programme, micro-credential, joint programme, etc.);
- Responsibilities of MCQA and of the institution;
- Tentative schedule and format of the review (onsite, online, hybrid);
- Fees and payment terms;
- Confidentiality and data protection provisions.
  • The contract is signed by the authorised representative of the institution and the authorised signatory of MCQA.

The institution is informed in writing about the acceptance of the application and the next procedural steps within a defined period after the submission of a complete application.

  • The Self-Evaluation Report addresses all required areas and includes the requested evidence;
  • There is sufficient documentary proof of the programme’s legal status, recognition (where applicable) and operation.
1.4. Self-Evaluation Report (SER)
After the application is accepted and the Accreditation Contract is signed, MCQA sends the official Self-Evaluation Report (SER) template to the institution.

The institution has up to 3 months to complete the SER and attach evidence showing:
  • Coverage of all MCQA criteria and required sections
  • Documentary proof of the programme’s legal status, national recognition (where applicable) and effective operation
Once submitted, MCQA checks whether:
  • The SER addresses all required areas and includes the requested evidence
  • There is sufficient documentation on status, recognition and operation
MCQA then sends brief written observations on gaps or clarifications needed.
The institution has up to 1 month to revise and submit the final SER, which will be used by the Accreditation Review Team for the subsequent evaluation and visit.
1.5. Accreditation Expert Team
MCQA appoints an Accreditation Expert Team (AET) for each evaluation, ensuring a balanced composition and absence of conflicts of interest.

The team normally includes:
  • A Chair, responsible for leading and coordinating the work of the Expert team;
  • Subject-matter expert(s) in the relevant academic and/or professional field (ideally one from academia and one from professional/industry practice);
  • Where appropriate, an additional expert for methodological or QA aspects (e.g. student-centred learning, micro-credential design, online education);
  • A student representative from a relevant discipline, when feasible and appropriate;
  • A MCQA coordinator, responsible for visit coordination, time management and contacts with the institution.
General requirements for reviewers include:
  • Appropriate academic or professional qualifications in a relevant field;
  • Experience with teaching, programme design, or quality assurance;
  • Ability to work in the agreed language(s) of the review;
  • Familiarity with international quality assurance principles and outcome-based evaluation.
MCQA avoids conflicts of interest by:
  • Checking that reviewers have no professional, financial, or personal ties to the institution or programme under review;
  • Replacing any proposed reviewer if a potential conflict is declared or identified.
All members of the Accreditation Expert Team must:
  • Confirm in writing their adherence to the MCQA Code of Ethics and Independence;
  • Participate in MCQA’s training or briefing for reviewers, ensuring common understanding of the criteria, procedures, and expectations.
Short profiles of reviewers are sent to the institution before the accreditation visit to demonstrate that the team has absence of conflict of interest, appropriate and diverse expertise.
1.6. Preparation of the Accreditation Visit
The  MCQA together with the Chair of the Accreditation Expert Team, coordinates the preparation of the accreditation visit (onsite or online/hybrid).

Preparation usually involves:
  • Establishing a provisional timetable for the visit, including meetings with leadership, programme management, teaching staff, students, administrative/support staff, and external stakeholders (e.g. employers, alumni);
  • Clarifying logistical and technical arrangements (venue, online platforms, translation if needed, documentation access);
  • Identifying additional documentation to be made available before or during the visit (e.g. course descriptions, samples of student work, examination papers, staff CVs, QA policies);
  • Confirming which programmes, micro-credentials or tracks are included in the scope of the review.
The visit should take place during a period when:
  • Teaching and learning activities are ongoing, or;
  • Sufficient numbers of students and staff are available for interviews (if outside normal teaching weeks, this must be explicitly agreed).
The duration of the visit (or the sequence of online sessions) is determined by MCQA depending on the complexity and number of programmes involved, but must be sufficient to allow a comprehensive review of all applicable criteria.

The agreed Visit Programme is shared with the institution in advance.
1.7. Accreditation Visit / Remote Review
The purpose of the visit (onsite or remote) is to validate the Self-Evaluation Report, verify evidence, and assess compliance with MCQA criteria.

A typical visit includes:
  • Introductory meeting with institutional and programme representatives to clarify objectives and agenda;
  • Tour of facilities (physical or virtual) including classrooms, laboratories, libraries, digital platforms and student support services;
  • Review of documentation, such as programme specifications, course syllabi, assessment materials, records of student progression, and quality assurance documentation;
  • Interviews and focus groups with:
- Institutional leadership;
- Programme management and teaching staff;
- Students and, where possible, alumni;
- Administrative and support staff;
- External stakeholders (employers, professional bodies, partners);
  • Internal deliberation meeting(s) of the Accreditation Expert Team to analyse findings and formulate preliminary judgements;
  • Final feedback meeting with the institution, where preliminary observations are shared (without stating the final decision).
Each reviewer documents their observations in a structured way (e.g. using MCQA Expert Form or equivalent), referring to the relevant criteria and noting strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement.
MCQA may use a grading scheme for each criterion, for example:
  • Fully compliant – Requirements are fully met; strengths and best practices identified;
  • Partially compliant  – Requirements are partially met; some non-critical weaknesses identified;
  • Non-compliant – Major deficiencies identified, that prevent the criterion from being considered fulfilled.
In specific cases, the entire review may be conducted online, provided that MCQA is satisfied that the format allows adequate verification of evidence and meaningful interaction with stakeholders.
1.8. Accreditation Report and Results
The MCQA Coordinator that took part in the visit is responsible for drafting the Accreditation Review Report using the prescribed MCQA template (e.g.  MCQA Expert Report).
The report usually contains:
  • Identification and contextual information about the institution and programme(s)/micro-credential(s) reviewed;
  • Scope and methodology of the review;
  • Summary of documentation reviewed, facilities visited and stakeholders interviewed;
  • Detailed findings for each criterion or group of criteria, including grades/levels of compliance;
  • Recommendations, which may include conditions, suggestions for improvement, and good practice examples.
The draft report is normally:
  1. First reviewed internally by the MCQA Accreditation Expert Team Chair (or all team members), who checks completeness;
  2. Then shared with the institution for factual accuracy check only, within a defined time window (e.g. 14 days). The institution may correct factual errors but does not change the professional judgements of the reviewers.
After considering any factual corrections, the report is finalised and overall judgement is proposed, including where applicable, conditions or specific follow-up requirements (e.g. deadlines for addressing certain weaknesses).
Possible overall outcomes might include:
  • Accredited without conditions;
  • Accredited with conditions, specifying what must be addressed and within what timeframe;
  • Not accredited.
1.9. Decision on Awarding the Accreditation Certificate
The final decision on accreditation/non-accreditation is taken by the competent MCQA decision-making body (e.g. MCQA Accreditation Board), based on:
  • The final Accreditation Expert Report;
  • Any factual corrections or clarifications submitted by the institution.
The decision is:
  • Formally recorded in MCQA minutes or decision registers;
  • Communicated in writing to the institution, including:
- The final outcome (accredited / accredited with conditions / not accredited);
- Conditions to be fulfilled (if any), with timelines;
- Opportunities and procedures for complaints or appeals.

If conditions are imposed, MCQA will define the method of verifying their fulfilment (e.g. documentary evidence, focused follow-up visit, or short desk review).
Once any conditions are confirmed as fulfilled, MCQA confirms or updates the accreditation status accordingly.
The validity period of accreditation is defined by MCQA regulations (e.g. typically 5 years for a full accreditation, shorter periods for initial or conditional accreditation). At the end of the validity period, the institution may apply for renewal (re-accreditation).
1.10. Complaints and Appeals
Institutions that have entered into an Accreditation Contract with MCQA have the right to submit:
  • A complaint, for example regarding:
- The conduct of the review team or MCQA staff;
- Alleged procedural irregularities;
- Perceived lack of impartiality or ethical behaviour;
  • An appeal against the final accreditation decision (e.g. “not accredited” or “accredited with conditions”), where the institution believes that the decision is not supported by the evidence or that MCQA procedures were not correctly applied.
All complaints and appeals must:
  • Be submitted in writing to the MCQA Secretariat within the deadlines specified in MCQA regulations;
  • Clearly state the grounds and include any supporting evidence.
MCQA handles complaints and appeals through a dedicated Complaints and Appeals Committee (or functionally equivalent body) that is independent from the original review team.
The process typically includes:
  1. Acknowledgement of receipt of the complaint/appeal by the Secretariat;
  2. Appointment of a case manager or rapporteur, who analyses the case, reviews relevant documents and may consult both the institution and those involved in the review;
  3. Preparation of a Complaint/Appeal Report with:
  • Summary of the case;
  • Analysis of the issues raised;
  • Proposed conclusion on whether the complaint/appeal is justified;
  • Recommendations on possible corrective actions or revision of the decision;
4. Discussion and decision by the Complaints and Appeals Committee, which can:
  • Uphold the original decision;
  • Request additional investigation or clarification;
  • Recommend modification or withdrawal of the original decision.
5. Preparation and sending of a written response to the institution, signed by the authorised MCQA representative.

If the complaint or appeal is found justified, MCQA implements appropriate corrective and preventive measures to avoid recurrence (e.g. staff training, procedure adjustments, change of reviewers, or revision of the decision).
Finalised complaints and appeals are reported to the relevant MCQA governing body. Once the internal procedure is concluded according to MCQA regulations, no further internal appeal is normally possible on the same case.