Criteria for Tenure and Promotion of TT faculty on the Kent Campus

The Ad Hoc RTP Committee shall consider the following areas of faculty performance 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 projection of the candidate’s likelihood of future success to achieve tenure and promotion.

Tables 2 (A and B), 3 and 4 provide guidelines for the assessment of a faculty member’s performance and a rating scale for use in the evaluation of candidates. For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor the faculty member must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in scholarship and at least a “very good” rating in teaching. University citizenship must meet the minimum Department criteria as outlined in Table 3. These same categories and assessments apply for tenure decisions.        

A candidate for promotion to Professor must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in scholarship and teaching. University citizenship must meet the minimum Department criteria. A candidate for promotion to Professor is not required to have equal activity in scholarship, teaching and service.

  1. Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship

    Scholarship is an essential component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact, and value of the candidate’s academic work must be assessed.  To assist this process, the candidate may submit the names of experts in her/his field who he or she considers capable of judging the candidate's work.  Moreover, the candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample evidence of his/her scholarly activity. Such evidence shall include copies or reprints of all papers, grant applications, reviews of grant applications, books, book chapters, and other similar academic materials. A faculty member's specific area of specialization is an important factor in determining the appropriate number and size of grants received and the scope and time required for research and the resulting publications. Major theoretical and/or original analytical/descriptive reports in internationally recognized journals will be given precedence in most decisions.

    Additional scholarly activities that may be considered in tenure and promotion decisions include but are not limited to service on national grant reviewing bodies, presentations at regional, national, and international professional meetings, and paper presentations before learned societies.  These latter activities should be viewed as complementing primary scholarly publications and grant funded research. Faculty members are expected to hold membership in professional societies, to attend and participate in and/or organize institutes, seminars, and workshops, insofar as such activities enhance their professional competency. However, such activities are again to be considered secondary to those listed above in the previous paragraph. 

    All faculty are expected to demonstrate excellence in scholarly activities and the criteria for their assessment are provided in Tables 2A & 2B. During annual reappointment reviews prior to the granting of tenure or completion of the tenure review period, each faculty member seeking  tenure or promotion must provide a formal summary of his/her scholarly record to the RTP Committee and Chair. The candidate should also provide relevant information about journal quality and impact and funding success levels in his/her discipline. The candidate may also provide supplementary materials of any other evidence of scholarship that he/she deems appropriate.  The Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee and Chair shall evaluate a candidate’s achievements in light of the Department’s expectations for a successful tenure decision. Reappointment will be dependent upon successful and appropriate progress toward that decision.    

    Table 2A. Kent Campus: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure



    Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score


    Nationally/Internationally recognized research program

    Publications1 and grants2, presentations, research-related service to federal/state organizations, awards, recognition from scientific societies3

     Very Good

    Emerging nationally

    recognized research program

    Publications and ”seed” grants, presentations at meetings of well-recognized societies


    Active research program

    Some peer-reviewed publications or ”seed” grants, some presentations at meetings / seminars


    Limited research program

    Occasional publications or meeting presentations


    No research program

    No publications, presentations, or grants

    Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of “publications,” “grants,” and “recognition” throughout Table 2A.

    1Publications include: articles in peer-reviewed journals of demonstrable quality (usually “A or B” quality journals (See, Table  2B), books, book chapters, and books edited. International Presses of long standing and academic presses shall be the principal acceptable venues for books of all types (e.g., chapter contributed or book edited). Evidence of book quality shall be provided, whenever possible, by reviews of the volume in appropriate venues (journals, national newspapers, etc.). Evaluation of publications will consider quality and impact as well as quantity.  Papers of exceptional quality and impact will be given particular consideration. 

    2“Grants” refers to extramural funding where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated (normally PI or co-PI) and which are of sufficient magnitude to fully support research at a level and duration appropriate for the discipline, including funds for supplies, materials and personnel (graduate students, research technicians and/or post-doctoral associates).  For NIH grants, this includes R01s, AREA grants, and others of sufficient magnitude as described herein.  “Seed Grants” are extramural grants that are not of sufficient magnitude to fully support doctoral students or are intramural grants.  "Seed Grants" should be designed to lead to successful applications for “Grants.” Grant monies provided by the university (i.e., “in house”) shall be considered as encouragement to the candidate and not as an accomplishment for reward.  Grantsmanship should be commensurate with the field of research with stipulation that the dollar amounts of awards vary among fields. 

    3Recognition from scientific societies may include, for example, election to office, editorial board membership, editorship, etc.  Service to federal/state institutions includes service on federal proposal panels, site visits, and other research related activities.

    Table 2B. Journal Ranking for Guidance in RTP Decisions


    A Journals

    Cell; Science; Nature; PNAS; Genome Res.; Mol. Biol. & Evol.; American Anthropologist; American Antiquity, Social Science and Medicine, Neuroscience, J. Comparative Neurology, Cerebral Cortex, Current Biology, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, J. Roy. Anthropological Inst., American Ethnologist, J. Polynesian Soc., Oceania

    B Journals

    Genetics; Molec. Phylo. & Evol.; Am. J. Phys. Anthro.; J. Hum. Evol.; Latin Am. Antiqu.; Am. J. Prim.; Int. J. Prim.; Panamerican J. of  Epidemiology, J. Social Medicine, Brain, Behavior, and Evolution, Animal Cognition, J. Anthrop. Research, Anthro. Quarterly, Evolution, Ethnology, Anthro. Forum, Ethos, Cultural Anthro., Contemporary Pacific, Anthro and Humanism, People Culture Oceania,

    C Journals

    Human Evolution, J. Cognition & Culture, Dialectical Anthro, Intern. Rev. Asian and Pacific ; Pacific Studies“on line journals” which are associated with a substantial, recognized, publisher and/or national or international society

    D Journals

    Micronesia; Bikmaus; AnthroGlobe Journal; “on line journals” of limited age and which are not associated with a substantial, recognized, publisher and/or national or international society





  2. Standards for Evaluating Teaching

    Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 3.  Course revision is defined as a substantial modification to a course such as developing several new laboratories, addition of distance learning options, formally proposing to change course content/format, etc.

    Other 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 training should be included in materials provided by a candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion.  Faculty members are expected to mentor graduate students and/or postdoctoral students.  Evaluation of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations across campuses. 

    Table 3. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure



    Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score


    Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional


    Develop/revise courses where appropriate, develop research projects for students (undergraduate and/or graduate), work with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research, excellent student and peer perceptions, instructional creativity, actively taking the lead in curricular revisions where appropriate.

    Very Good

    Innovative teacher

    Develop/revise courses where appropriate, good student and peer perceptions, work with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research


    Meets obligations well

    Good student and peer perceptions; participation in curricular revisions where appropriate.


    Substandard teacher

    Below average student and peer perceptions


    Substandard, ineffective teacher

    Below average student and peer perceptions, consistent pattern of complaints





  3. Standards for Evaluating Citizenship

    A faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Department, Campus, College, and University as outlined in Table 4.  The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) whether or not the candidate chaired the committee listed and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served.  Less tangible components of citizenship include active participation in department events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, department meetings and seminars, etc.

    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

    Exceeds obligations

    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

    Meets obligations

    Meets the minimal Department/Campus obligations such  as membership in assigned committees, active participation in significant departmental events and activities, occasional public and campus outreach.

    Does not meet obligations

    Does not meet Department/Campus obligations in a timely manner or does not actively participate in significant departmental/campus events

    Other components of service 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.