Review materials submitted by the candidate shall comply with the University Faculty Handbook document “Annual Review: Retention, Tenure and Promotion,” subsection “RTP: Rights and Responsibilities,” sections 1 and 7. Additionally, candidates in the College of Letters and Science must follow the requirements below.

Section 6.01 Materials submitted by Candidate

Materials for Dossier must include:

  • Cover sheet obtained from the Provost’s office.
  • A comprehensive CV with teaching, scholarship, and service activities of the candidate.
  • Personal Statement that includes a description of the candidate’s area of scholarship
  • Separate self-evaluations for teaching, scholarship, service and integration
  • Each self-evaluation shall include a summary of activities, selected products or accomplishments, and evidence of recognition itemized by year over the relevant Review Period

 If included in the vita, the candidate should separate the following categories:

  • refereed books or book chapters
  • refereed journal articles
  • invited book chapters or articles
  • invited conference presentations
  • contributed conference presentations
  • seminars and/or colloquia
  • grant proposals submitted and grants funded
  • unrefereed publications

The candidate may choose to include other categories as appropriate to the discipline and the candidate’s record.  On papers, grants funded, and other scholarly products, full author lists must match the publication or grant funded.

Section 6.02 Documentation of Collaborative Scholarly Contributions

In complying with the University Faculty Handbook document entitled “Retention, Tenure and Promotion Rights & Responsibilities,” Article 1, Paragraph e, on the requirement to detail scholarly collaboration, candidates in the College of Letters and Science will include this information in a single document in a format recommended by the department.

Section 6.03 Peer Review Solicitation Procedure

The process and requirements for soliciting peer review materials are described in the University Faculty Handbook, “Annual Review, Retention, Tenure and Promotion,” subsection “RTP: Rights and Responsibilities,” section 7.

Evaluators should be specialists in the candidate’s field and familiar with the usual expectations for faculty performance. Departments should elaborate how these guidelines apply to their disciplines and must send the role and scope document to evaluators. The majority of the outside evaluators must be selected by the department head and/or departmental committee; the remainder may come from a list of names submitted by the candidate. Candidates shall not be informed of the identity of outside evaluators to protect the confidentiality of the review process.

Guidelines regarding who may and may not serve as referees are elaborated in the Faculty Handbook on “Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Rights and Responsibilities as follows:

3.c. No person may participate in the review of any person with whom they have a personal, business, or professional relationship that could be perceived to preclude objective application of professional judgment. A conflict of interest occurs when the evaluating party could realize personal, financial, professional, or other gain or loss as a result of the outcome of the review process, or when the objectivity of the evaluating party could be impaired by virtue of the relationship. Examples of persons who may be excluded by professional relationship include undergraduate and/or graduate mentors, postdoctoral mentors, collaborators who are co-investigators on grants and/or co-authors on a significant portion of scholarly products completed during the review period, colleagues who depend on instrumentation controlled or operated by the candidate, and/or co-inventor of a patent.

Five or more external review letters must be requested by that party specified in sec. 4.03, and must NOT be solicited by the candidate. The department report should state clearly how external referees were chosen and should include a brief statement of their status in the field. Referees should state either knowledge of or relationship to the candidate, if any.

External evaluators should be sent a copy of the unit’s role and scope, the candidate’s vita, a brief statement that identifies the candidate’s area of scholarship, as well as a selection of relevant publications and/or unpublished manuscripts, along with other materials, as appropriate and selected by the candidate.  They should be asked to comment specifically on the quality of the candidate’s written scholarship and his or her productivity, as well as the candidate’s recognition in the field.