Attachments

Print the Attachment A and B Template

6.1 Attachment A

Guidelines for Seeking External Reviewers for Promotion and Tenure

Colleges and universities throughout the country commonly solicit external letters of review for faculty members seeking promotion and/or tenure. Such letters are intended to certify the quality and quantity of the professional work by the candidate. In addition, they ensure that College standards are consistent with similar institutions. Outside letters help the School and the College to know that its expectations for promotion and tenure do not exceed or fall below the general standards in academe. It is a validation of unit and College criteria. With this rationale in mind, it is suggested that reviewer letters adhere to the following guidelines:

1. The letter from an external reviewer should focus on the quality of the candidate’s scholarship in relation to the field of study.
2. Academic reviewers should be from institutions of the quality of Ohio University, and from programs similar to the candidate’s program. For example, if there is a strong graduate program in the candidate’s unit, this may be a consideration in selecting the institution of the external reviewers. Similarly, since Ohio University is a Carnegie Doctoral Research University (high research activity), external letters would not normally be sought from institutions that grant only baccalaureate degrees. This may require modification for faculty in baccalaureate-only programs.
3. Academic reviewers should be from university faculty members holding the rank to which the candidate aspires or higher. Letters from faculty members in lower ranks would require the writer to comment on criteria they had not met. Reviewers normally should not be asked to judge promotion standards until they have reached that level themselves. Only then can the reviewer have a full understanding of the quality or merit of the record expected.
4. Letters may be solicited from individuals who are not university faculty if they are judiciously selected and not greater in number than those from the professoriate. Letters from those outside academe should be from professionals who have prominence in the discipline.
5. In consultation with the unit Director/Chair, the Chair of the unit PT and PTAC will consult with the candidate on the appropriate profile of potential reviewers before the list is assembled. If necessary, the Chair of the PTAC and/or PTAC will discuss with the candidate any potential external reviewers who may need to be avoided because of a potential conflict. External reviewers should be objective and knowledgeable about the candidate’s area of research and thus qualified to evaluate his/her scholarly achievements. These individuals should not be former graduate school professors, co-authors, etc. The candidate will not contact the external reviewers at any time during this process. In addition, the candidate will not solicit additional support letters.
6. Candidates are to submit a list of five reviewers to the Chair of the PTAC. The list should include the reviewers’ name, title, institution, phone number, and email address. In some instances, unit guidelines require additional names.
7. The chair of the PTAC, in consultation with the unit Director/Chair, may seek review letters from individuals not included on the list provided by the candidate. This will vary relative to the Chair of the PTAC and unit Director/Chair’s concurrence with the candidate on the qualifications and objectivity of the reviewers. Prior to the Chair of the PTAC or member(s) of the PTAC soliciting the letters, the Chair of the PTAC should notify the candidate as to the persons to be contacted and the letter to be used. If a candidate is being considered for full professor, most colleagues in their field should know their work. Reviewers, therefore, do not need to know the candidate personally.

It must be understood that when external letters are sought, the University is not abdicating its responsibility for independent judgment. Faculty members may be recommended or not recommended for promotion and/or tenure regardless of the opinions of the reviewers. The external letters are simply one part of the dossier and, if the candidate merits promotion and/or tenure, such letters should be approached with confidence. External letters should be seen not as an obstacle, but as an opportunity to show further evidence that promotion and/or tenure is deserved. If not, there may be good reason for waiting until the case is stronger.

6.2 Attachment B: External Reviewer Letter Template

Evaluation of Candidate External Review Packet

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the external review of the candidate’s promotion and/or tenure packet. Your evaluation is an important part of the promotion and/or tenure process at Ohio University. We sincerely thank you for your time, efforts, and consideration in advance.

At Ohio University, candidates seeking advancement in tenure-track ranks are required to have their materials reviewed by four to six reviewers from external academic institutions. To be eligible to serve, external reviewers are expected to meet each of the following qualifications. You will be asked to place a checkmark to confirm you meet each qualification.

Qualifications

1. Hold an academic rank above the candidate’s current academic rank at an academic institution other than Ohio University.
2. Achieved appropriate academic accomplishments in the candidate’s field (or related field).
3. Have adequate disciplinary and professional knowledge to evaluate the candidate’s materials.
4. No preexisting close personal or professional relationship with the candidate (e.g., thesis/dissertation advisor(s); former teachers, co-authors, and collaborators; friends, relatives, or other persons closely aligned with the faculty candidate).

Based on the above criteria, you are being asked to serve as an external reviewer for the candidate’s full name, who is seeking advancement from current title to advancement title. Specifically, you are being asked for your professional judgment about the extent to which you believe the materials by the candidate’s full name indicate they met the standards for advancement described in Ohio University’s Department/School Name Promotion and Tenure Guidelines.

Important Note: Your evaluation is not confidential or anonymous. Your evaluation will become an official record in the candidate’s dossier and may be reviewed by the department or school committee, Department Chair or School Director, college committee, College Dean, University Provost, and University President. Candidates may receive a copy of all evaluations during or at the end of the review process.

Reviewer Information

1. Full Name
2. Academic Title
3. Institution
4. Brief Bio (100-500 words)
5. Relationship with candidate. Please indicate “None” if you do not have a relationship with the candidate.

External Review Evaluation 

Instructions: For each evaluation area, please indicate your evaluation by comparing the candidate’s materials and evidence to the standards of achievement for advancement described in Ohio University’s Department/School Name Promotion and Tenure Guidelines. For each evaluation area, you will also be asked to provide a brief rationale about your judgment.

Research, Scholarship, and/or Creative Activities

As compared to the standards of achievement required for advancement described in the guidelines, do you judge the materials and evidence as not meeting, meeting, or exceeding expectations for the standards of achievement in Research, Scholarship, and/or Creative Activities?

Instructions: You will be asked to indicate your response by placing an “X” in the empty cell next to the response that most closely matches your evaluation.

1. Does Not Meet Expectations: The materials and evidence do not meet the standards of achievement in teaching.
2. Meets Expectations: The materials and evidence meet the standards of achievement in teaching.
3. Exceeds Expectations: The materials and evidence exceed the standard of achievement in teaching.
4. Unable to Render a Judgement: There is insufficient information to judge if the materials and evidence do not meet, meet, or exceed the standards of achievement.

Research, Scholarship, and/or Creative Activities Evaluation Rationale

Instructions: Please provide a brief rationale for your evaluation rating below (≈50–500 words).

Recommendation

Instructions: You will be asked to indicate your response by placing an “X” in the empty cell next to the response that most closely matches your evaluation. You may skip any question do not want to answer.

1. Do you recommend the candidate for advancement?
2. Do you have any concerns about your recommendation?
3. Outside of the materials and evidence, do you have any concerns about the candidate?

(Optional) Recommendation Explanation

Instructions: If appropriate/necessary, please provide any additional comments below.

Optional Evaluation Areas

Teaching

As compared to the standards of achievement required for advancement described in the guidelines, do you judge the materials and evidence as not meeting, meeting, or exceeding expectations for the standards of achievement in TEACHING?

Instructions: You will be asked to indicate your response by placing an “X” in the empty cell next to the response that most closely matches your evaluation.

Teaching Evaluation Rationale

Instructions: Please provide a brief rationale for your evaluation rating below (≈50–500 words).

Service

As compared to the standards of achievement required for advancement described in the guidelines, do you judge the materials and evidence as not meeting, meeting, or exceeding expectations for the standards of achievement in SERVICE?

Instructions: You will be asked to indicate your response by placing an “X” in the empty cell next to the response that most closely matches your evaluation.

Service Evaluation Rationale

Instructions: Please provide a brief rationale for your evaluation rating below (≈50–500 words).