Criteria for Tenure and Promotion of TT faculty on the �鶹ӰԺ Campus

In all cases, the Ad Hoc RTPC shall consider Faculty performance in research, teaching, and citizenship when making recommendations on tenure and promotion. The tables and text below are designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those candidates who are being evaluated for tenure and promotion. During the probationary period, these tools should be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving tenure and promotion.

Minimum expectations for tenure or promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor for �鶹ӰԺ campus Faculty members include

a substantial body of published research in top tier journals in the discipline and/or publication of significant research monographs, where
- quality is valued more highly than mere quantity, and
- papers of exceptional length, impact and quality are given particular consideration;
a national/international reputation in the discipline, with indicators including, but not limited to
- external reviewers;
- top tier journal editorship;
- invitations to make presentations at high quality conferences;
a sustained record of applications for extramural funding;
a good teaching record; and
an adequate citizenship record.

Tables 2 (A and B), 3, and 4 provide quantitative guidelines for the assessment of a Faculty member’s performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of candidates. In all cases, the quality of the candidate’s work is weighed more heavily than mere quantity.

For tenure or promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor, a �鶹ӰԺ campus Faculty member must meet the criteria for a least a “very good” rating in research and in teaching, with at least a “good” rating in citizenship.

The Department has higher expectations of a candidate for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor than a candidate for promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor. In particular, the candidate’s reputation in and impact on the discipline are expected to be high. The candidate must demonstrate full involvement in the graduate program, including successful direction of theses and/or dissertations. In addition to the expectation of a sustained record of applications for external funding, it is normally expected that the candidate will have achieved some success in obtaining grants. Nevertheless, it is recognized that opportunities for obtaining grants vary widely from one sub-discipline to another.

For promotion from Associate Professor to Professor, a �鶹ӰԺ campus Faculty member must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in both research and teaching and a “very good” rating in citizenship.

Standards for the Evaluation of Research

Research is an essential and critical component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact and value of the work must be assessed. The candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTPC with ample descriptive evidence of the nature of his/her scholarly activity. Moreover, to assist the evaluation process, the candidate shall submit the names of at least five (5) experts in her/his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. In addition, the Chair may independently identify two (2) further experts who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. The selection of these persons shall be discussed with the FAC and the candidate.

All Faculty of the department are expected to seek excellence in research. Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of research is based are provided in Tables 2A and 2B.

Indicators of the standard of a Faculty member’s research record include the quality and quantity of published work as well as the faculty member’s success in obtaining extramural funds. In all cases, quality of research is valued more than mere quantity. It is recognized that the attributes of an individual Faculty member’s research activity will vary across sub-disciplines.

Within this context, during annual reappointment reviews, all Faculty members who will seek tenure or promotion are expected to provide evidence supporting their research records. In particular, it is expected candidates will provide specific information about article and journal quality and impact, funding history and plans. They should also include materials, in supplementary files when appropriate, of any other evidence of research and scholarly activity they deem relevant. In turn, the members of the Department’s Ad Hoc RTPC and the Chair shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the Department’s expectations for successful promotion and tenure decisions.

Table 2A. Evaluation Components for Assessment of

Research for Promotion and Tenure

Research Rating	Indicators of Rating
Excellent	At least 10 quality points, of which at least 7 are publication points, at least one is a grant point, and at least one is a discipline impact point
Very Good	At least 7 quality points, of which at least 5 are publication points, and at least one is a grant point or a discipline impact point
Good	At least 4 quality points, of which at least 3 are publication points
Below Expectations	Below good rating

Quality points are assigned as follows:

Publication Points	Indicator
n	n high quality papers published or accepted for publication in top tier journals during review period**
n/2	n high quality papers published or accepted for publication in middle tier journals during review period

Grant Points	Indicator
2n	n extramural grants awarded or held during review period, each exceeding $15,000 annually ($10,000 for RC candidates)
1	At least one extramural grant proposal every 2 years (4 years for RC candidates) of review period, each exceeding $15,000 annually ($10,000 for RC candidates)

Discipline Impact Points

Activity

1 point for each activity listed on the right, with the total not exceeding 2 points.

Author of a research monograph***

Editor of top tier journals

Organizer of international conferences

At least one half hour or hour national/international conference presentation every 2 years of review period

Graduate Program Points	Indicator
n	n �鶹ӰԺ State doctoral dissertations directed to completion in review period
n/2	n �鶹ӰԺ State Master’s theses directed to completion in review period

**On the recommendation of the Committee, papers of unusual quality and significance may be awarded multiple quality points

*** On the recommendation of the Committee, research monograph publication may in addition be awarded one or more publication points

Table 2B. Journal Ranking for Guidance in RTP Decisions

Top tier journals	Journals with high ranking in the discipline, as evidenced by inclusion in the SCI listings; exceptions must be approved by GSC and FAC
Middle tier journals	Journals with medium ranking in the discipline, as evidenced by inclusion in the SCIE, but not SCI, listings; exceptions must be approved by GSC and FAC
Low tier journals	Journals with low ranking in the discipline, as evidenced by exclusion from the SCIE listings and not approved for higher ranking by GSC and FAC

Standards for Evaluating Teaching

Information such as written comments from students, colleagues within and beyond the Department, College, or University administrators shall be considered when available. Peer reviews and summaries of Student Surveys of Instruction (including all student comments) must be submitted as part of a candidate’s file for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant teaching material should also be available for review. Documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate student, and post-doctoral student advising should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion. �鶹ӰԺ campus Faculty members are expected to mentor graduate students (particularly at the doctoral level) and/or postdoctoral students.

Criteria for the evaluation of teaching are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure

Teaching rating	Indicators of Rating
Excellent	At least 5 quality points, of which at least 3 are student and peer perception points, and at least one is an innovation and award point
Very Good	At least 4 quality points, of which at least 3 are student and peer perception points
Good	At least 3 quality points, of which at least one is a student perception point and at least one is a peer perception point
Below Expectations	At least one of: Student perceptions consistently worse than norms Unsatisfactory peer evaluations Pattern of complaints

Quality points are assigned as follows:

Student Perception Points	Indicator
2	Student perceptions consistently better than norms
1	Student perceptions consistently close to norms

Peer Perception Points	Indicator
2	Consistently superior peer evaluations
1	Consistently satisfactory peer evaluations

Standards for Evaluating Citizenship

A Faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Department, the Campus, the College, the University, and the discipline as outlined in Table 4. Judgments of merits of University service should weigh the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served.

Citizenship contributions include committee membership at departmental, college, campus, and University levels. In judging committee work, extra weighting should be given for committee chairing. Citizenship contributions also include active participation in Department events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, department meetings and seminars, etc.

Other components of citizenship are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions and may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the Department.

Being an active and useful citizen of the Department, Campus, College and University is expected and valued; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a candidate's research and other scholarly activity and instructional responsibilities. Expectations in service for promotion to Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

Table 4. Assessment of University Citizenship for promotion and tenure

Citizenship Assessment	Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score
Very good	Significant role in Department, Campus College, and/ or University as evidenced by productive service on committees, active participation in significant events, effectively chairing committees, specific administrative assignments, meaningful public outreach
Good	Achieves the minimal departmental expectations, meeting Department/Campus obligations in a timely manner and actively participating in significant departmental/campus committees or events
Below Departmental Expectations	Does not meet Department/Campus obligations in a timely manner or does not actively participate in significant departmental/campus committees or events

�鶹ӰԺ