Fourth Friday in January 

Arts and Sciences

Faculty members undergoing mandatory or nonmandatory reviews are typically reviewed using the unit’s currently approved APT document, which is posted on the OAA website.  

Tenure-track faculty members may choose to be reviewed under the unit’s document that was in effect on their start date or on the date of their last promotion, whichever is more recent. The current document must be used if the letter of offer or last promotion, whichever is more recent, was more than 10 years before April 1 of the review year. 

Clinical/teaching/practice and research faculty members may choose to be reviewed for promotion under the unit’s document that was in effect on their start date or on the date of their last reappointment, whichever is more recent. 

Associated faculty members being considered for reappointment at senior rank will be reviewed using the unit’s current APT document. 

A faculty member who chooses to use an earlier document shall notify their TIU head of this intent by submitting the APT document that was in effect on their start date or on the date of last promotion, whichever is more recent, when submitting their dossier and other materials for review. The deadline for doing so will be the unit’s regular deadline for receiving the dossier and other materials for the review in question. 

If a previous APT document is used for a review, only the criteria for evaluation from the earlier document are to be used. All processes and procedures for the review are to align with the currently approved APT document, regardless of whether a previous or current APT document is being used to define criteria for evaluation.

3.2.1 APT document used for reviews in restructured tenure initiating units 

Unless otherwise articulated in the restructuring statement, candidates on the tenure track who are up for promotion, or promotion with tenure, are to be given the choice of being reviewed (i) under the APT document in effect on their start date, or (ii) on the date of their last promotion, whichever is more recent; or (iii) under the currently approved APT document of the restructured unit. If the restructuring was more than 10 years before April 1 of the review year, the candidate must use the current document of the restructured unit. In any case, the eligible faculty of the restructured unit will be responsible for conducting the review. 

The candidate must make the choice and then acknowledge in writing that, once the review commences under the chosen means, the choice is irrevocable. Regardless of the candidate’s choice, the current TIU head provides the administrative review of the case. 

3.3 Creating the Introduction and Core Dossier 

Tenure-track, clinical/teaching/practice, and research faculty members undergoing promotion or promotion with tenure review or reappointment are expected to use the OAA approved electronic dossier to generate their core dossier, which may be created using either the Faculty Activity Reporting module in Interfolio or manually using this outline and instructions. In Interfolio, the introduction is maintained in the section called Profile and the core dossier is generated from the Activities section.  

Tenure-track, clinical/teaching/practice, and research faculty members undergoing promotion, promotion with tenure, or probationary reappointment review are expected to use the OAA approved core dossier (as described above). Clinical/teaching/practice and research faculty members undergoing nonprobationary reappointment and associated faculty seeking reappointment are to provide the documentation outlined in the unit’s APT document. 

The university requires complete documentation of the faculty member’s teaching, research and creative activity, and service (unless one of these is not an expectation of the position as specified in the letter of offer or annual review letter) to conduct an informed review. 

TIUs are not to start formal consideration of a case until the core dossier meets all requirements. Errors in documentation found at a later stage of review often require correction and a relaunch of the review.  

3.3.1 Time Frame 

For the teaching and service sections of the core dossier, use the start date for probationary faculty; for tenured/non-probationary faculty, use the date of last promotion, reappointment, or the last five years, whichever is most recent. The eligible faculty may allow a candidate to include information from before the start date or last promotion or reappointment if they believe such information is relevant to the review. Where included, the candidate should clearly indicate what material is work completed since the start date or mandatory review, and what material is from prior to the start date or mandatory review.  

For research/scholarship/discovery, use a full history of publications and creative work as this information provides context to the more recent and relevant research and creative activity record and/or demonstrates scholarly independence.  

Although information about activity in areas conducted prior to the start date or last promotion may be included in the core dossier, it is the performance since the start date or date of last promotion or reappointment, whichever is most recent, that is to be the focus of the evaluation. 

3.4 Building the full dossier 

TIUs are not to start formal consideration of a case until the completed dossier meets all requirements. All parts of the dossier are to be included before the case moves forward to the committee of eligible faculty for review and must include the following items: introduction, core dossier, annual review letters, fourth year review (if relevant), letters requested by the candidate, an evaluation letter from any heads of joint appointments (including Discovery Theme faculty directors), peer evaluations, external evaluation letters, and student evaluation of instruction. Errors in documentation found at a later stage of review often require correction and a relaunch of the review. Affirmation by the POD that the dossier is complete is required before the committee of eligible faculty begins its formal review. This affirmation will occur in Interfolio, and the case will not move forward until this step has been completed. 

3.4.1 Documentation 

The following sections describe the additional documentation that makes up the remainder of the dossier.  

3.4.1.1 Internal letters of evaluation 

3.4.1.1.1 TIU annual review letters 

OAA has required written annual evaluations of all compensated faculty since 1993. Annual review letters from the TIU head are to be arranged in chronological order (oldest to newest). If any required annual reviews are not available, the TIU is to provide a written explanation. For probationary faculty, include all annual reviews since the start date. For non-probationary faculty, or hires with tenure, include all annual reviews since the previous promotion, start date, or date of last appointment or reappointment, not to exceed the last five years. 

For all annual review letters, include any comments provided by the candidate to a given letter and any responses given by the TIU head. Comments and responses are to be included with the specific letter being commented on. 

3.4.1.1.2 Fourth year review (tenure track assistant professors only) 

For tenure track assistant professors, include the letters generated as part of the Fourth Year Review (Sixth Year for tenure track faculty with significant clinical duties in the College of Medicine),, including letters from the committee of eligible faculty, the TIU head, the college P&T committee, and the dean. 

3.4.1.1.3 Additional letters requested by the candidate and solicited by the TIU head 

The candidate may request optional letters be solicited by the TIU head. They can include letters from internal or external collaborators. For example, candidates with significant service/outreach activities outside the unit may request that the TIU solicit letters from colleagues familiar with the candidate’s contributions to these activities. Letters solicited from external collaborators are not counted towards the five required external letters of evaluation. 

3.4.1.1.4 Evaluation letter from joint appointment 

The TIU head in any unit in which the candidate holds a joint academic appointment (split FTE) or the faculty director in which the candidate holds a Discovery Theme appointment is to provide an independent assessment of the candidate’s accomplishments, regarding both strengths and weaknesses, relative to the expectations of that unit. It is the TIU head’s responsibility to solicit this letter prior to the meeting of the TIU eligible faculty. The TIU eligible faculty are not to start formal consideration of a case until such a letter is received and included in the dossier. 

3.4.1.1.5 Documentation of peer evaluation of teaching 

Include any letters or reports generated as part of peer evaluation. The material in this section must match requirements set forth in the TIU’s APT document.  

3.4.1.1.6 Additional Information 

Units may add materials required in their APT documents to the internal evaluations section,  placing them in the Additional Letters section. For example, in some TIUs that have sections or divisions, a letter from the section or division head is required by the unit. TIUs may also solicit and obtain letters regarding scholarship from a list provided by the candidate of colleagues in other units at Ohio State, including other TIUs and academic centers, or from collaborators at other institutions. Such letters may be particularly helpful in the case of candidates who are engaged in significant inter- or trans-disciplinary scholarship. Candidates with significant service and/or outreach activities outside the unit may also request that the TIU solicit letters from colleagues familiar with the candidate’s contributions to these activities. 

3.4.1.2 External letters of evaluation 

3.4.1.2.1 Required external letters of evaluation for tenure track and research faculty 

Except under the special circumstances described below, OAA requires a minimum of five external evaluation letters for all promotion with tenure reviews, and promotion reviews for tenure track and research faculty. External evaluation letters should come from faculty working in the five to ten peer programs and the five to ten aspirational peer programs listed in the TIU APT.  

It is the unit’s obligation to obtain the required number of evaluations and to begin the process of obtaining these letters well in advance of the review. In the event that a unit is unable to obtain the required five external evaluations, the unit must document its efforts, noting the individuals who were contacted, how they were contacted, and the dates and number of times they were contacted. The unit is to notify the college and OAA as soon as it becomes apparent that it will not be able to obtain the required letters in time for the meeting of the eligible faculty. The lack of five external letters will not stop a mandatory review from proceeding but will halt a nonmandatory review from proceeding unless the candidate, chair of the committee of eligible faculty, and the TIU head all agree in writing that it may proceed and agree that it will not constitute a procedural error.  

For nonmandatory reviews, external evaluations should not be sought before determining that all required documentation is available. A promotion review must be postponed until a future academic year if the candidate has failed to obtain or retain student evaluations for all courses taught in the past five years or since start date, if less than five years ago, or if the TIU has not conducted peer evaluation of teaching as required by the unit’s APT document. 

Although substantive missing documentation is grounds for a negative decision, mandatory reviews must proceed even when documentation is missing and unobtainable. As such, external evaluations should be sought on the timeline set forth by the TIU. 

If external evaluations are sought through Interfolio, only the summary list of evaluators is to be submitted (Summary Form for Responding External Evaluators, Form 114).  

If external letters are sought outside of Interfolio, in addition to Form 114, a single representative example of the request letter sent to the evaluators (if these letters were identical) is to be submitted. If different letters, or different sets of material for review, were sent, an example of each must be included along with an explanation of why evaluators were treated differently. If a simple invitation was sent, followed by more detailed instruction, include both letters. If the letter does not list the materials sent to the evaluators, provide this information separately. Additionally, each external evaluation letter is to be preceded by a cover page (see External Evaluator Form, Form 106). 

3.4.1.2.2 Required external letters of evaluation for clinical/teaching/practice and associated faculty 

At a minimum, faculty with a familial or comparable relationship with a candidate (e.g., spouse, partner, child, sibling, parent or other close personal relationship) must not participate in a review of that candidate. In addition, a close professional relationship can give rise to a conflict of interest, such as when a faculty member since appointment or last promotion (whichever is more recent) is co-author on a significant portion of the candidate’s publications (e.g., collaborated on 50% or more of candidate’s work), has collaborated with the candidate on major grants or projects supporting research (e.g., collaborated on 50% or more of grants or projects), has served as the candidate’s thesis or dissertation advisor, has a consulting or financial arrangement with the candidate (e.g., receiving compensation of any kind, such as money, goods, or services, is dependent in some way on the candidate’s services, or is dependent in some way on the candidate’s professional activities. Finally, any other relationship or circumstance that would prevent a sound, objective, and unbiased decision will likewise constitute a conflict of interest. 

When there is a question about potential conflicts, open discussion and professional judgment are required in determining whether it is appropriate for faculty members to recuse themselves from a particular review. Units may establish formal mechanisms for excluding persons from a review based on a conflict of interest. 

Members of college and university P&T committees are not permitted to participate in reviews of cases from their own TIUs, in cases in which they have any involvement at a previous level of review, or in cases in which the member has a conflict of interest. 

3.5.2 TIU heads and deans 

If a TIU head has a conflict of interest, is at lower rank than the candidate, is not tenured, or is otherwise unable to write the TIU head letter, the dean will select another TIU head from within the college to review the case and write the TIU head letter. If the TIU head is the dean of a college without units, the executive vice president and provost, or designee, will select another dean who is also a TIU head to review the case and write the TIU head letter. 

If a dean of a college with departments has a conflict of interest or is otherwise unable to perform the review, the executive vice president and provost, or designee, will select the dean of another college with departments to review the case and write the college letter. 

3.6 Procedures Oversight Designee (POD) review 

TIU: The committee of the eligible faculty (or the Promotion and Tenure Committee, in those units that have such subcommittees of the eligible faculty) selects one or more members of the committee as the Procedures Oversight Designee (POD). The POD(s) may not be the chair of the committee of the eligible faculty (or, as appropriate, the Promotion and Tenure Committee). The committee may select to have multiple PODs (e.g., one for each faculty member being reviewed). 

College: The members of the college P&T committee select one or more of its members as POD. The POD(s) may not be the chair of the college P&T committee. The college P&T committee may elect to have multiple PODs (e.g., one for each faculty member being reviewed). 

Although the POD is assigned oversight responsibility, all members of review bodies must accept full responsibility for assuring that reviews are procedurally correct, fair, and free of bias for all faculty members. Review bodies, not the POD(s), are ultimately responsible for the integrity of the review process. 

A summary of duties for the POD is available here. 

3.6.1 Verification of citations 

One of the first responsibilities of the POD at the TIU level is to verify the accuracy of all published and creative works listed in the dossier. This verification is one of the items on the Dossier Checklist. If someone other than the POD carries out this responsibility, that individual must be clearly identified on the checklist. The candidate may not verify the accuracy of published and creative works. 

The verification of citations is to be completed before the dossier is released for evaluation and review by the larger faculty bodies.

3.7 Regional campus faculty 

3.7.1 Regional campus faculty deliberative body 

For faculty candidates on a regional campus, the faculty deliberative body is to conduct a detailed assessment of the candidate’s accomplishments in teaching and service and provide recommendations based solely on these aspects of the record. The chair of the regional campus faculty deliberative body must explain the regional campus expectations against which the candidate is being assessed. 

3.7.2 Regional campus dean/director 

For faculty candidates on a regional campus, the dean/director is to conduct a detailed and independent assessment of the candidate’s accomplishments in teaching and service and provide recommendations based solely on these aspects of the record. 

3.7.3 Regional campus comments process  

Only “yes” and “no” are to be considered votes. Consistent with Robert’s Rules of Order, OAA does not consider abstentions to be votes and they may not be counted in determining whether the unit’s recommendation on a case will be positive or negative. OAA strongly encourages TIUs and colleges to exclude abstentions as an option. If a member of the committee of eligible faculty feels they cannot vote for or against a candidate, they should not participate in the discussion and vote. If they are abstaining due to a believed conflict of interest, they should not participate in the discussion or vote. Abstentions have no impact on quorum. That is, the number of eligible faculty members present, regardless of how they vote, represents the count for quorum. Only committee of the eligible faculty members present at the meeting or participating in the meeting by teleconference or videoconference may vote.  

The POD is to verify the number of members needed to constitute a quorum and the percentage of votes needed to recommend a positive decision as defined in the APT document. OAA recommends that departments require a quorum of two-thirds for action on P&T cases. Faculty on approved leave are not considered for quorum unless they declare, in advance and in writing, their intent to participate in all proceedings for which they are eligible during the leave. 

OAA also recommends considering both the percent of the vote and the actual count of positive and negative votes when assessing the disposition of a vote at all levels of review, particularly in smaller units. For example, a 60% positive vote in a unit with 50 people (30 yes, 20 no), is qualitatively different from a 60% positive vote in a unit with 5 people (3 yes, 2 no). In the latter case, a single person voting differently drastically changes the outcome (85% positive with a 4 yes, 1 no vote, versus 62% positive with a 31 yes, 19 no vote).  

3.14 Integrity of review procedures 

The POD is to make reasonable efforts to assure that the review body at the relevant level (TIU or college) follows the written procedures governing its reviews and that its proceedings are carried out in a highly professional manner. The written procedures are to be taken from the current approved TIU APT document (or the alternate document selected by the candidate, see section 3.2 above). The POD is to monitor the review process in respect to equitable treatment for all candidates under review, with special attention to candidates from underrepresented groups, assuring that the proceedings are free of inappropriate comments or assumptions about members of underrepresented groups that could bias their review.  

If the POD has concerns about a review, these concerns are to be brought to the attention of the person or review body that is the source of the concerns. For example, if a dossier is not prepared correctly, the POD is to ask the candidate who prepared the dossier to make needed changes. If appropriate procedures are not being followed by either faculty or staff, then those individuals are to be promptly informed of the problem. 

If concerns cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the POD, then they are to be brought to the attention of the relevant administrator (TIU head or dean, depending on the level of review). The administrator must review the matter and respond in writing to the POD regarding either the actions taken or the reasons that action was judged to be unwarranted. Any documented resolution must be included with the dossier as it moves forward in the review process. 

Although the POD has a primary responsibility ensuring a fair review, it is the responsibility of all members of the eligible faculty to ensure the evaluation process is conducted in a highly professional manner. This includes maintaining confidentiality of the discussion—the record of the deliberation of the eligible faculty is the letter generated by that body.  

3.15 Process differences for clinical/teaching/practice, research, and associated faculty 

3.15.1 Levels of review for clinical/teaching/practice and research faculty 

All promotion cases will be reviewed at the same levels as tenure track faculty and will be forwarded to OAA for review. 

All decisions regarding reappointment and non-reappointments are to follow the Faculty Annual Review and Reappointment Policy. 

Positive decisions by the dean to reappoint clinical/teaching/practice and research faculty to a new contract period will be approved by OAA without review and forwarded to the BOT for final action.  

A decision by the dean not to reappoint is final. 

3.15.2 Non-reappointment notice for clinical/teaching/practice and research faculty 

If a clinical/teaching/practice or research faculty member is not reappointed, they must be informed according to the relevant standards of notice set forth in Faculty Rule 3335-6-08. 

3.15.3 Levels of review for associated faculty 

A negative recommendation at any level means that the final decision is negative and the case does not go forward.  

If the TIU head makes a negative recommendation, the decision is negative.  

If the TIU head makes a positive recommendation and the dean makes a negative recommendation, the decision is negative.  

6.1 Generating the core dossier 

Information on using Faculty Activity Reporting in Interfolio is available on the Faculty Affairs website.  

Faculty are strongly encouraged to keep documentation to support the contents of the core dossier. There is no need to maintain a hard copy record; a digital record is sufficient.  

Examples of documentation include, but is not limited, to the following: 

Teaching: SEI reports (including comments), peer evaluations of instruction, course syllabi for courses taught, records of program development. 

Research and creative activity: communication related to manuscripts under review or in press, communication related to funded grants that haven’t yet been awarded, conference programs, art installations, creative works and performances. 

Service: communication related to ongoing or completed service, documentation of roles and responsibilities of service commitments.  

6.2 Guidance for writing narratives 

OAA offers guidance on writing the narratives that accompany the lists of evidence provided in the core dossier. This Telling Your Story workshop is offered once per year in an in-person workshop as well as through an asynchronous online course.  

6.3 Recommendations related to interdisciplinary scholarship 

This document provides tips and recommendations for creating an interdisciplinary or transciplinary core dossier. Additional recommendations on building a description of one’s inter- or trans-disciplinary work is provided in the online wokshop “Telling Your Story” offered by OAA.