Scholarship is an essential and critical component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact and value of the work must be assessed.  To assist this process, the candidate shall submit the names of at least five (5) experts in her/his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work.  Moreover, the candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTP Committee with ample descriptive evidence of his/her scholarly activity.  A faculty member's specific area of specialization may be a factor in the number and size of grants received and in the scope and time required for research and the resulting publications.

In addition to funded research and scholarly publications, other scholarly activities including but not limited to serving on national grant review bodies, presenting at refereed professional meetings, chairing society committees, and presenting papers before learned societies should be considered.  These later activities complement scholarly publications and grant funded research. Faculty members are expected to hold membership in professional societies, attend and participate in institutes and seminars, organize institutes, seminars, and workshops, insofar as such activities enhance their professional competency.

Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship and Research: 

All faculty of the program are expected to seek excellence in scholarly activity.  Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of scholarly activity is based are provided in Tables 2A and 2B.

Indicators of the quality of a faculty member’s research record include the quality and quantity of published work as well as the faculty member’s success in obtaining extramural funds.  All faculty members in the Program are expected to produce records of scholarship that reflect their disciplinary focus and the attributes of an individual faculty member’s scholarly activity will vary across disciplines.

To achieve “excellent” in the category of the scholarship at the time a faculty member stands for tenure and promotion, she/he should have established a research program which demonstrates an impact upon his/her discipline.

Within this context, during annual reappointment reviews, each faculty member who will seek tenure or promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting his/her scholarly record.  This obligation will be met by providing specific information about article and journal quality and impact, funding history and plans, and description in the faculty member’s supplementary materials of any other evidence of scholarship that the faculty member deems appropriate.  In turn, the members of the Program’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the Program’s expectations for a successful tenure decision.

Specific criteria for the evaluation include:

  1. Publications (printed, accepted, submitted, in preparation).
  2. Citations of publications.
  3. Papers presented at scientific meetings.
  4. Off campus colloquia and talks.
  5. Dissertations directed (number and quality of dissertations directed with degrees awarded; number of graduate students being supervised currently).
  6. A long term commitment to research and scholarship as demonstrated, for example, by active research programs and by ongoing supervision of doctoral students.
  7. External support (grants and contracts awarded).
  8. Proposals for external support submitted during each year at KSU (principal investigator type versus program or institutional proposals; status of each).
  9. KSU support (e.g., research time grants).
  10. Scholarly and creative activity not necessarily leading to publications (e.g., proposals referred to external organizations; papers reviewed for scientific journals; editorships).
  11. Consulting experience.
  12. Other professional experience (e.g., chairing conference sessions; professional group and committee activities).
  13. Published books or monographs.
  14. Patents, copyrights and other intellectual property.


Table 2. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure

Scholarship Assessment


Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score


Nationally/internationally recognized research program

Demonstrated record of publications1 and grants2, invitations to give presentations, research-related service to federal/state organizations, awards, recognition from scientific societies3

Very Good

Emerging nationally recognized research program

Demonstrated record of publications and ”seed” grants, presentations well recognized  meetings with rigorous criteria for paper review.


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 2.


1Publications include: papers in peer-reviewed journals of recognized quality (taking into account the scientific reputation and impact factor of the journal), books, and book chapters.  Evaluation of publication record will include an assessment of quality and impact on the field as well as quantity.  Papers of exceptional length, impact and quality are given particular consideration. 

2“Grants” refers to extramural funding where the role of the faculty member in securing the funding is clearly demonstrated 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.” Grantsmanship should be commensurate with the field of research with the recognition that the dollar amount of awards varies among fields. 

3Recognitions from scientific societies 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.