Office of Academic Affairs
Office of Faculty Affairs

Chapter 3 — Section 3

 

3.0 Roles and process overview

3.1 Notification and confirmation of review and tenure clock extensions

Following the procedures documented in the APT document, each unit is to notify faculty members of the opportunity for nonmandatory review, notify all candidates scheduled for mandatory review of timeline and process, and remind mandatory review candidates of their opportunity to seek a tenure clock extension (exclusion of time). In all cases, a timeline (with due dates) as well as resources related to process, are to be shared by the unit with all candidates for promotion with tenure, promotion, and/or reappointment.

3.2 APT document used for reviews

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 

External evaluations are optional for clinical/teaching/practice faculty for the dimensions of teaching or service. External evaluations are also optional for associated faculty. If research and creative activity are an expectation of the position, then external letters are required. If research and creative activity are an expectation of the position, a sufficient body of research and creative expression must exist to justify the efforts of external evaluators. In the absence of a sufficient body of work, the candidate should not be reviewed. 

External evaluations, when deemed necessary, must meet the criteria set forth in section 3.4.1.2.1 of this chapter. Unless an exception has been approved by OAA, at least five unbiased external evaluations of the individual’s research record are required. 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. 

For associated faculty, in cases where a department or college APT document does not specify that they be solicited, the TIU head should determine whether to solicit them in consultation with the committee of eligible faculty chair and with the approval of the college dean (in colleges with departments). OAA recommends that external evaluations be solicited in cases where the associated faculty member’s responsibilities include a significant expectation of published research or creative activity or when the eligible faculty is not able to provide a thorough peer review of the case without the expertise of faculty outside of the university. In some cases, external evaluation of clinical work and professional service may be appropriate. 

The presence of research or creative activity in the dossier of a faculty member whose assignment consists solely of teaching and service does not create a need for external evaluation of research or creative activity. In such cases, evaluators can provide little useful information. However, in some cases, depending on the TIU’s requirements for promotion, external evaluation of clinical/teaching/practice or associated faculty member’s work—teaching (for associated, clinical, or practice faculty), and/or professional service—may be appropriate. 

3.4.1.2.3 Seeking external letters of evaluation 

The TIU head, chair of the committee of the eligible faculty, or equivalent individual as stated in the TIU’s APT document, is responsible for requesting the external letters of evaluation. 

External evaluation letters must be submitted on institutional letterhead and carry the evaluator’s signature. PDFs submitted electronically are acceptable if they are on letterhead and signed. Letters may also be recruited and submitted via Interfolio. 

Candidates are not to contact prospective or actual external evaluators regarding their case at any stage of the review process, nor are they to discuss their case with any evaluator or provide additional materials to any evaluator even if the evaluator initiates the contact. Such contact compromises the integrity of the review process. Soliciting external evaluators and providing materials to them is solely the responsibility of the TIU head, chair of the committee of the eligible faculty, or equivalent individual as provided in the TIU’s APT document.  

Faculty Rule 3335-6-04(B)(3) requires that no more than one-half of the external evaluation letters contained in the final dossier be from persons suggested by the candidate. Therefore, more letters are to be solicited from persons not suggested by the candidate than from persons suggested by the candidate.  

All letters solicited and received must be included in the dossier unless OAA approves their removal from the review process. 

To assure meaningful and credible external evaluations while meeting the above requirement, the following suggestions are encouraged.  

  • Letters from external evaluators should assess the work of the candidate under review. As the university enters new fields of endeavor, including interdisciplinary endeavors, and places new emphases on its continuing activities, instances will arise in which the proper work of faculty members may depart from established academic patterns. In the case of such faculty members, requests to external evaluators should be clear as to the focus of the evaluation they are seeking, and committees are encouraged to share with evaluators the relevant section of the unit’s APT document describing the TIU’s promotion criteria. 
  • The TIU head and/or P&T committee should generate a lengthy list of prospective evaluators who are not employed at The Ohio State University. The list primarily should be made up of distinguished faculty from peer or near peer programs that are clearly identified in the APT document of each TIU, though it may also include non-academics who have similar research, leadership, teaching, or service credentials and experience. All prospective evaluators must be qualified to comment in an informed way both on the quality of the candidate’s scholarly, leadership, teaching, or service work as well as on its significance to the broader field in which it resides. External evaluators must be able to provide an objective evaluation of the scholarly, leadership, teaching, or service work. They should generally hold the rank of professor or must be at the rank above the candidate being considered unless an exception has been granted by the college (or OAA in the cases of colleges that are TIUs).  
  • External evaluators may not be former advisors, collaborators, post-doctoral supervisors, close personal friends, or others having a relationship with the candidate that could reduce objectivity. The candidate must be shown the list of prospective evaluators and have the opportunity to identify any conflict of interest or other issue that would interfere with the objectivity of the review. This review must occur before letters of invitation are sent to prospective evaluators. 
  • Upon review of the prospective list, candidates should be invited to augment it with several names of persons who meet the criteria for objective, credible evaluators. Unless the persons so identified do not meet these criteria and the candidate cannot offer acceptable alternatives, the TIU should make every reasonable effort to obtain at least one letter from a person suggested by the candidate. OAA does not require that the dossier contain letters from persons suggested by the candidate (see Faculty Rule 3335-6-04). 
  • Letters from collaborators may be appropriate as a means of determining a candidate’s contributions to jointly conducted work, but collaborators must not be asked to write an external evaluation. In reviewing the list of prospective external evaluators, candidates are to identify all who have been collaborators, and to describe the nature and timing of the collaboration. Letters from collaborators may be included in the “Additional letters requested by the candidate and solicited by the TIU head” section. 
  • The TIU head (or dean) may seek the dean’s (or OAA’s) approval of each candidate’s tentative list of prospective evaluators to minimize the risk that the selection of evaluators will subsequently be judged inappropriate. If such approval is sought, the dean (or OAA) must be provided complete and accurate information about the prospective evaluator’s credentials and relationship with the candidate. 
  • Approximately three months before completed evaluations are due, the person designated by the TIU to solicit external evaluations should send out letters of invitation to the prospective evaluators. The letter of invitation should state expectations, due date for receipt of the completed evaluation, and that evaluations are public records and subject to release upon request. A sample letter for tenure-track and research faculty can be found here. A sample letter for clinical/teaching/practice faculty can be found here. 
  • All evaluators are to be sent the same appropriate materials unless there is a substantive reason for differentiating among evaluators. In a case in which evaluators are sent different materials, the TIU head or chair of the P&T committee or committee of eligible faculty must provide an explanation to be included in the dossier. When evaluators are sent different materials (different research papers), TIUs must take care to assure that sufficient letters are obtained regarding the different sets of papers to provide a meaningful body of evaluative information about each set. 
  • The likelihood of obtaining a useful letter is greatly increased when the evaluator is not only given adequate time in which to review the materials, but when the nature of the requested letter is carefully explained. Evaluators should generally be asked to provide only a critical analysis of the candidate’s primary area of focus (at least partly on the basis of provided materials). Evaluators should specifically be asked not to comment on whether the candidate should be promoted and tenured at Ohio State or would be promoted and tenured at their own institution. 

3.4.1.3 Student evaluation of instruction 

Only in individualized teaching situations for relatively small groups, such as grand rounds or clinical teaching, may individual evaluations (one per student) be included in this section. These responses may be summarized on a single form for each clinical teaching group, since numbers are small, but OAA does not require this. 

Candidates under mandatory review are to include evaluations for all courses taught since start date. Candidates under nonmandatory review are to provide evaluations for the most recent five years, or date of last promotion or reappointment, whichever is most recent. 

3.4.1.3.1 Cumulative report 

Provide a summary table for all courses in which the candidate used a type of fixed-response survey (the SEI or comparable unit form) to obtain student evaluations. Complete documentation as described below is required. 

To obtain a Cumulative Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) Report that meets OAA guidelines, click here for a menu of the Registrar’s online services. To access reports after summer 2018, follow the instructions for downloading all reports. To access reports from summer 2018 and earlier, follow the instructions in the section on “SEI Reports for Prior Terms.” 

If a Cumulative SEI Report cannot be generated, results for every term the course was taught are to be presented horizontally across the page in the summary table. The table should not simply list item numbers, but clearly describe the item to which students were responding. The table should be self-explanatory to anyone who reviews it. A fillable report template is available here.  

3.4.1.3.2 Fixed-response student evaluation data and/or SEI summary report 

Copies of individual course response student evaluation reports are to be placed in this section.  

a) If the unit uses SEI instruments, include all individual course reports. For probationary faculty, use start date; for non-probationary faculty use date of last appointment, promotion, or last 5 years, whichever is more recent. 

b) If the unit uses another type of fixed-response survey instrument, include here one page per course/quarter/semester taught, listing: 

  • actual statements to which students responded 
  • full rating scale of possible responses 
  • for each statement, number of students that selected each response choice 

3.4.1.3.3 Summary of open-ended student evaluations 

For all courses in which the candidate used an open-ended evaluation instrument to collect student input (including open-ended questions on fixed-response evaluations if collected by the unit for this purpose), someone other than the candidate must summarize the comments on a course-by-course basis for inclusion in this section of the dossier. The TIU head will assign this task to a faculty member (not the candidate) or qualified staff member. State in the dossier the name and role (such as faculty member or staff member) of the person who wrote the summaries. OAA recommends that the candidate review these summaries prior to inclusion in the dossier. 

State on each course summary the number of students in the course and the number of these who completed evaluations. 

Do not simply quote the comments from students in this section. 

3.5 Managing conflicts of interest and other recusals 

3.5.1 Committee of eligible faculty, college P&T committees, and university P&T committee 

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  

After the letter from the regional campus faculty deliberative body to the regional campus dean/director and the letter from the regional campus dean/director head are completed, the dean/director must immediately inform the candidate of the following through Interfolio:  

  • Nature of the recommendations by the regional campus deliberative body and by the regional campus dean/director. 
  • Availability of the regional campus deliberative body’s letter to the regional campus dean/director and the regional campus dean/director’s letter in Interfolio. 
  • Opportunity, for up to 10 calendar days from receipt of the written notice, to provide written comments on the above letters for inclusion in the dossier when the case is forwarded to the TIU. If the last day of a designated time period falls on a weekend or a day on which the university is closed, the time period shall expire at the close of business on the next succeeding business day. After the regional campus faculty deliberative body and regional campus dean/director complete their recommendations, the candidate is to be informed of the recommendations and given ten calendar days to provide comments. Candidates are advised to use this process to amend, correct, or otherwise comment on factual information or procedural matters. Comments are not appeals but rather an opportunity to further clarify or correct the record. Candidates should understand that the exercise of professional judgment on the part of reviewers is central to the review process. 
  • If the candidate provides comments, that the regional campus faculty deliberative body and/or regional campus dean/director have the opportunity to provide written comments on the candidate’s comments, also for inclusion in the dossier when the case is forwarded to the TIU. 
  • Outline of the remaining steps in the review process. 

The regional campus faculty deliberative body and/or regional campus dean/director will provide a written response to comments by the candidate contesting the original review or alleging procedural errors that might reasonably have affected the review’s outcome. Any response to the candidate is to be included in the dossier.  

3.8 TIU-level review 

3.8.1 Committee of eligible faculty 

3.8.1.1 Eligibility and quorum 

Members of the committee of eligible faculty are determined by the APT document for each unit as defined in Section III.A. Definitions. A quorum of eligible members must be met before a deliberation or vote on the case can take place. The required quorum for each unit is indicated in the unit’s APT document in Section III.C Quorum. 

3.8.1.2 Deliberation and vote 

The TIU committee of eligible faculty is to provide a detailed assessment including each of the following: 

  • a thorough assessment of the candidate’s accomplishments in teaching, research and creative activity, and service, and how they compare to the TIU’s standards as described in the unit’s APT document—both strengths and weaknesses should be discussed; 
  • consideration of all materials related to joint appointments, including Discovery Theme appointments, if applicable, to include annual review letters provided by the joint appointment TIU head and Discovery Theme faculty lead, where appropriate; 
  • report of the discussion by the committee of eligible faculty; 
  • numerical vote of the full committee of eligible faculty and minimum vote required for a positive recommendation (included in 1st paragraph of letter)—see voting procedures below in section 3.13. 

The eligible faculty committee chair (or Promotion and Tenure Committee chair, as appropriate) writes a letter to the TIU head reporting the vote and summarizing the discussion of the eligible faculty. This letter should be evaluative, descriptive, and contextualize the vote, including alternate opinions as appropriate. Although a descriptive summary of a candidate’s accomplishments provides helpful context, it is critical that the letter from the eligible faculty not be solely descriptive. The evaluation should address how a candidate does or does not meet the criteria as set forth in the relevant APT document, including the quality and impact of a candidate’s work.  

3.8.2 TIU head 

The TIU head is to conduct an independent assessment of the candidate’s accomplishments, regarding both strengths and weaknesses, including consideration of a candidate’s joint appointment (including Discovery Theme appointments). This assessment should take into account the faculty deliberative body’s recommendation. If the TIU head’s assessment and/or recommendation differs from that of the faculty, bases for differing judgments must be addressed. 

3.8.3 TIU level comments process 

After the letter from the TIU deliberative body to the TIU head and the letter from the TIU head to the dean are completed, the TIU head must immediately inform the candidate of the following through Interfolio:  

  • Nature of the recommendations by the TIU deliberative body and by the TIU head. 
  • Availability of the TIU deliberative body’s letter to the TIU head and the TIU head’s letter to the dean in Interfolio. 
  • Opportunity for the candidate, for up to 10 calendar days from receipt of the written notice, to provide written comments on the above letters for inclusion in the dossier forwarded to the college. If the last day of a designated time period falls on a weekend or a day on which the university is closed, the time period shall expire at the close of business on the next succeeding business day. Candidates are advised to use this process to amend, correct, or otherwise comment on factual information or procedural matters. Comments are not appeals but rather an opportunity to further clarify or correct the record. Candidates should understand that the exercise of professional judgment on the part of reviewers is central to the review process. 
  • If the candidate provides comments, the TIU deliberative body and the TIU head have the opportunity to respond. Written response(s) from the TIU deliberative body and/or the TIU head are to be included in the dossier and forwarded to the college. 
  • Outline of the remaining steps in the review process (review at the college and university levels of the recommendations originating in the TIU, and, ultimately, approval by the president and the BOT of positive recommendations by the executive vice president and provost). 

The TIU deliberative body and/or TIU head will provide a written response to comments by the candidate contesting the original review or alleging procedural errors that might reasonably have affected the review’s outcome. Any response to the candidate is to be included in the dossier.  

If the college is the TIU, the above steps are to be followed. Once the comments process is complete, the candidate’s materials are to be forwarded to OAA. 

3.9 College-level review 

3.9.1 College promotion and tenure committee 

3.9.1.1 Committee makeup 

In colleges with departments and schools, the process for identifying members of the college promotion and tenure committee is stated in the POA document for each college (see Section VII.C. College Administration). No member of the candidate’s TIU may participate in the deliberation of their case at the college level. 

3.9.1.2 Deliberation and vote 

The college promotion and tenure committee is to conduct an independent assessment. This assessment is to include a statement about how accurately the TIU deliberative body and TIU head followed stated TIU processes, as well as the committee’s numerical vote and recommendation to the dean. If the college committee’s assessment is contrary to the TIU-level assessment, the rationale for differing judgments must be addressed. 

3.9.2 Dean review 

The college dean is to conduct an independent assessment and provide a recommendation to the executive vice president and provost. If the dean’s assessment and/or recommendation differs from any of the prior assessments or recommendations, rationale for differing judgments must be addressed. 

3.9.3 College level comments process 

After the college P&T committee completes the letter to the dean and the dean completes the letter to the executive vice president and provost, the dean immediately informs the candidate and the TIU head of the completion of the college level review and of the availability of these reports. The comments process is repeated as described above. 

The dean will provide a written response to comments by the candidate contesting the original review or alleging procedural errors that might reasonably have affected the review’s outcome. Any response to the candidate is to be included in the dossier.  

3.10 University promotion and tenure committee review 

3.10.1 Membership 

The university promotion and tenure committee is appointed during the summer. The committee consists of nine faculty members from different colleges or University Libraries. Faculty members serve a three-year term with a third of the committee cycling off in a typical year. The vice provost for academic policy and faculty resources serves as the non-voting convener of the committee. 

3.10.2 University promotion and tenure committee procedures 

The university promotion and tenure committee reviews cases when: 

  • the candidates are from the University Libraries or from colleges without departments; 
  • there is concern from OAA regarding the appropriateness of lower-level recommendations (e.g., recommendations that contradict the evidence presented in letters from lower-level committees, recommendations that do not follow the unit’s APT document); 
  • there are unclear or inconsistent recommendations from the previous levels of review; or  
  • all previous recommendations are negative. 

In the case of candidates with positive recommendations from University Libraries or from colleges without departments, a three-member panel reviews each case and makes a recommendation to the vice provost for academic policy and faculty resources. If all panel members are in positive agreement, a positive recommendation is moved forward from OAA. 

For all other cases brought to the committee, the full committee deliberates on each case and votes by secret ballot on a recommendation to the executive vice president and provost. The voting options are: 

  • Recommend approval of proposed action 
  • Recommend disapproval of proposed action 

The vice provost for academic policy and faculty resources prepares a written report of the committee’s assessment and vote for inclusion in the dossier. 

3.11 OAA Review 

OAA reviews all dossiers forwarded for consideration for promotion, promotion with tenure, reappointment, and fourth year reviews from colleges that are the TIU. 

After the executive vice president and provost has made their decision, they will inform the dean, who will inform the TIU head. The TIU head will inform the candidate of the executive vice president and provost’s decision.  

3.12 Board of Trustees final decision 

All positive recommendations for promotion, promotion with tenure, and reappointment are sent to the Board of Trustees for final decision. 

3.13 Voting Procedures 

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.  

The only promotion cases forwarded to OAA for review at the university level are those for which the dean recommends positively. The dean’s decision is final for cases in which promotion is denied. 

3.16 OAA approved exceptions 

OAA has approved certain exceptions to the P&T rules. Any exceptions to the P&T rules must be made in accordance with Faculty Rule 3335-6-09. 

3.16.1 College of Medicine 

3.16.1.1 Department of Internal Medicine 

The Department of Internal Medicine may allow a P&T committee that is not a committee of all eligible faculty members to make recommendations to the TIU head regarding P&T cases. 

3.16.1.2 Department of Pediatrics 

The Department of Pediatrics may allow a P&T committee that is not a committee of all eligible faculty members to make recommendations to the chair regarding P&T cases. 

3.16.2 Department of Extension in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences 

The Department of Extension may allow a P&T committee that is not a committee of all eligible faculty members to make recommendations to the TIU head regarding P&T cases. 

3.17 Flowcharts reflecting process 

Process flow for the various review types.