RTP and processes relating to personnel matters | Department of Biological Sciences Handbook | Kent State University

RTP and processes relating to personnel matters

  1. Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion

    The Department's role in matters of reappointment, the granting of indefinite tenure, and promotion in rank is defined by the policies stated in the University Promotion and Tenure Policy (Tenure (UPR 3342-6-06) and Promotion (UPR 3342-6-08)).  The following is supplemental and specific to the Department.  Instructions for completion of reappointment, tenure and promotion files are given below. 

    1. Reappointment

      Each academic year, a set of reappointment guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost.  Probationary tenure-track faculty members are reviewed by the Reappointment Committee (defined in Section III).  The FAC, in consultation with the Chairperson, assigns two faculty members to visit the classes of each probationary faculty member, interview students in the classes, and generally evaluate the teaching performance.   A written report is submitted to the Chairperson for placement in the candidate's file.  Probationary faculty will also create an updated file that is presented to the Chairperson who will make these materials available to the Reappointment Committee (Appendix VII).  Each probationary faculty member is discussed by the Reappointment Committee which then votes on a recommendation for reappointment.  The Chairperson independently assesses the accomplishments of each probationary faculty member and forwards the Chairperson's recommendation and the committee's recommendation to the Dean.  The Chairperson informs probationary faculty of the reappointment committee's deliberations and provides a copy of the recommendation made to the Dean of the College.  The Chairperson's recommendations are also available to the committee.  Probationary faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified according to the schedule established by the "Notification of Nonreappointment" in the CBA.  For faculty members at Regional campuses, reappointment, tenure, and promotion recommendations from the Chairperson are forwarded to the Dean of the College, the Vice President for Regional Campuses, and the appropriate Regional Campus Dean as described in Section IX.

      Reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress toward the requirements for tenure.  Moreover, the individual must have established and articulated short and long term plans for achieving these goals.  For faculty following the traditional tenure clock for Assistant Professors, the review after completion of three full years at Kent State (referred to below as the 3rd year review) is particularly critical.  For reappointment, these individuals should be at least at the “good” level for the Scholarship of Discovery, Integration and Application and the Scholarship of Teaching as defined in Section B, Tables 1 and 2.   Specific concerns expressed by the Ad Hoc Advisory committee and/or Chair during this stage of the probationary period should be addressed by the candidate in the subsequent reviews. Finally, the overall evaluation of a candidate for reappointment must include consideration of the individual's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek reappointment in the department.

      In the event that concerns about the candidate’s performance are raised during the reappointment process, the ad hoc committee and Chairperson shall provide detailed, prescriptive comments to serve as constructive feedback.  If such concerns arise during the review that occurs after completion of three full years, the chair, with the guidance of the FAC, will advise and work with the candidate on a suitable, positive plan for realignment with the tenure and promotion expectations; ultimately, the candidate is responsible for their success in implementing this plan.

    2. Tenure and Promotion

      Tenure and promotion are separate decisions.  Promotion is a reward based on accomplishments completed during the review period; tenure is based on the projected potential career development.  For Kent campus faculty, promotion considerations are based on papers published, grants received and graduate students graduated during the review period, as well as teaching evaluations and service to the University and the scientific field.  For Regional campus faculty, promotion considerations include evaluation of research accomplishments, multiple aspects of citizenship and various evaluations of teaching.  In contrast to promotion, the tenure decision is based on all of the evidence available to determine the candidate’s potential to develop a successful career likely to result in eventual promotion to Full Professor.  Tenure considerations can include evaluation of accomplishments prior to arrival at Kent State to examine consistency as well as grant proposals submitted but not funded, proposals pending, papers “in review” or “in press”, graduate students currently advised, and any other materials that may reflect on the candidate’s potential for a long-term successful career.

      Consideration for promotion to Full Professor differs from consideration for promotion to Associate Professor.  Promotion to Associate Professor is a reward for establishing a career likely to achieve national/international prominence as evidenced by extramural grants received, papers published in the refereed scientific literature, students graduated, etc.  Promotion to Full Professor is a reward to an individual for bringing their career to national/international prominence.  For Kent campus faculty, evidence for this prominence includes a record of sustained major extramural funding from highly competitive funding sources and a record of increased prominence in the field.  For Regional campus faculty, promotion to Full Professor requires demonstrated excellence in teaching and service to the campus and university, including assuming leadership responsibilities typical of senior faculty, and documented activity in the individual’s field of research.

      It is recognized that there are many factors and criteria, both subjective and objective, to be considered in recommending an individual for academic advancement.  The criteria are related to the individual’s performance in the areas of Scholarship of Discovery, Integration, Application, and Teaching, as well as University Citizenship in the Department, the Campus, the College, the University, and to the Public (Appendix III).  It is also recognized the faculty differ in the nature of their appointments and that those that have administrative assignments devote a significant amount of time to those duties. For faculty who have administrative appointments, qualifications for tenure and promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor will be evaluated in light of the time assigned for administrative duties.

      The overall evaluation of a candidate for tenure and promotion must include consideration of the individual's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek promotion and tenure in the Department.

    3. Areas of Evaluation

      The following are the areas of performance to be considered by Tenure and Promotion Committees and the Chairperson when making their recommendations (Appendix II, Appendix III, Appendix IV, Appendix VII, UPR 3342-6-06, UPR 3342-6-08).  The tables and text below are designed to facilitate assessment of performance of those under evaluation.  During reappointment evaluations these tools are to be used for developmental assistance and projection of future success in tenure and promotion.

      Tables 1 (A and B), 2, and 3 provide guidelines for the assessment of faculty member performance and a rating scale for use in evaluation of candidates.  For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor it is required that the individual meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in the Scholarship of Discovery, Integration and Application or the Scholarship of Teaching with at least “very good” in the other. University Citizenship must at least meet the minimal departmental obligations as outlined in Table 3.  These same categories and assessment tools apply for tenure.

      A candidate for promotion to full Professor must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in either the Scholarship of Discovery, Integration, and Application and the Scholarship of Teaching with at least “very good” in the other.   The University Citizenship assessment must exceed minimal departmental obligations.

      Documentation of achievement will be demonstrated in a seminar presented to the department on accomplishments prior to application for tenure or promotion; for Assistant Professors, this will typically be done during the 3rd full year of employment at this rank.  For senior promotions, the presentation should be the year prior to an anticipated promotion application.

      a. Scholarship of Discovery, Integration and Application

      Scholarship of Discovery, Integration, and Application are a crucial component of scholarly activity with Discovery a major focus area of Biological Sciences.  While it is easy to count items used to document scholarly activity, the originality, quality, and value of the work may be difficult to assess.  Thus, the candidate must submit the names of at least three experts in an appropriate field considered capable of judging the candidate's work.  Moreover, the candidate must provide the committee with ample descriptive evidence of his or her scholarly activity (Appendix VII).  It is recognized that an individual'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.  Significant scholarly activities in addition to funded research projects and scholarly publications include for example attending and participating in professional meetings, chairing society committees, presenting papers before learned societies, holding membership in professional societies, attending and participating in institutes and seminars, organizing institutes, seminars, and workshops, insofar as such activities enhance professional competency. 

      Standards for Evaluation of Scholarship Research:  

      It is the stated expectation of the department that all faculty seek excellence in Scholarly activity.  Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of Scholarly activity are based are provided in Tables 1A (Kent campus Faculty) and 1B (Regional Campus Faculty). 

      Kent Campus Faculty:

      Indicators of the quality of the research record include the quality and quantity of published work as well as the generation of extramural funds.  It is expected that faculty will produce records of scholarship that reflect their disciplinary focus and that the attributes of the body of work that represents an individual’s scholarly activity will vary among disciplines.

      To achieve “excellent” in the category of the Scholarship of Discovery, Integration and Application, at the time faculty stand for tenure and promotion, they should have established a research program that generates, on average, two or more peer-reviewed articles per year in journals of demonstrated excellence as well as attracting extramural grant funding sufficient to support a productive research program.   

      These expectations are guidelines for achieving tenure and promotion.  Because of the diverse nature of the disciplinary backgrounds of the BSCI faculty, quantitative differences in the records of successful candidates are expected.  For example, an excellent publication record is reflective of both the quality of the published work and the number of articles appearing in peer-reviewed journals.  Likewise, an excellent extramural funding record reflects the specific requirements of a faculty member’s research program in light of the fact that requirements vary among disciplines.  Both of these factors create variation in the number of publications and amount of extramural funding by faculty who are demonstrably excellent in the Scholarship of Discovery, Integration and Application.  Even with the inadequacy of straight quantitative evaluation, it is nevertheless emphasized that the department has firm expectations in terms of the Scholarship of Discovery and that the assessment of performance in this area is based on standards in the field.  Whether the candidate meets these standards is determined via evaluation by the ad hoc committee and department chair.

       

      Within this context, during the annual review period, each faculty member seeking tenure or promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting their assessment of their 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 supplementary materials of any other evidence of the scholarship of discovery they deem appropriate.  In turn, the members of the departmental Ad Hoc reappointment, tenure and promotion committee and the chair have the responsibility to evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the department’s expectations for a successful tenure decision.  Hence, it is incumbent upon the candidate, the members of the Ad Hoc reappointment, tenure and promotion committee, and the Chair to make their evaluation of the candidate’s record clearly reflect departmental expectations.  

      Table 1A. Kent campus faculty: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship of Discovery, Integration and Application for promotion and tenure.

      Scholarship of Discovery, Integration and Application Assessment

       

             Definition

      Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

      Excellent

      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 at meetings/seminars

      Good

      Active research program

      Some peer-reviewed

      publications or ‘seed’ grants, some presentations at meetings/seminars

      Fair

      Limited research program

      Occasional publications or

      meeting presentations

      Poor

      No research program

      No publications,

      presentations, or grants

      Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of “publications”, “grants,” and “recognition” through out Table 1 A.

      1Publications include: papers in peer-reviewed journals of recognized quality, 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 here.  “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.

                  Regional Campus Faculty: 

      The components and assessment of scholarship differs between the Kent campus and Regional campuses reflecting differences in the mission of the units, resources available, and variation in the nature of faculty appointments.  Table 1B provides quantitative and qualitative information about expectations for different levels of performance in the Scholarship of Discovery, Integration and Application for Regional campus faculty.

      Quantification of scholarly success must be tempered by quality of the work.  In addition, the nature of scholarship varies among fields and, as such, the faculty member’s record should be appropriate for the particular disciplinary field and mission.  Quality of the work, impact on the field and the role of the faculty member are central components of the assessment of performance in this field.  Thus, while two publications in the probationary period may be sufficient for tenure and promotion if they are of clear quality and the faculty member played a central role in their completion, this may be insufficient if they do not meet the standards for a particular field.  In the case of publications, in particular, both peer and non-peer reviewed articles are considered given that in some fields non-peer reviewer papers are standard.

      Table 1B. Regional Campus Faculty: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship of Discovery, Integration and Application for promotion and tenure.

      Scholarship of Discovery, Integration and Application Assessment

      Definition

      Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

            Excellent

      clear line of inquiry and established research program, meaningful integration and application

      Meets 4 of these 5 criteria, including #1:

      1) publications commensurate with expectations in the discipline

      2) Presentation of work at state/Regional/national/international meetings

      3) submission of extramural/intramural proposals

      4) receiving extramural/intramural funds

      5) meaningful applied work on community projects

       

          Very Good

      clear line of inquiry and established research program

      Meets 3 of the 5 criteria for “excellent” including #1.

             Good

      Active scholarship

      Meets less than 3 of criteria for “excellent” but partially meets others

              Fair

      Limited scholarship

      Partially meets some of the criteria for “excellent”

              Poor

      No research program

      No publications,

      presentations, proposals, or grants

      b. Scholarship of Teaching

      Criteria for evaluation of the scholarship of teaching are listed in Table 2.  Course revision is defined as making a substantial modification in 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, or University administrators shall be considered when available.  Peer reviews and student evaluation results (including all student comments) must be a part of the submitted record of candidates for tenure and promotion.  Copies of representative syllabi, examinations, and other relevant material should be available for review.  Documentation related to graduate student, undergraduate, and post-doctoral student training should be included in materials provided by the candidates for evaluation.  Faculty on the Kent Campus are expected to mentor graduate (particularly at the doctoral level) and/or postdoctoral students, while faculty on Regional campuses do not have this same expectation.  Evaluation of the scholarship of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations across campuses.  In particular, on the Kent campus seeking and/or securing educational program/instructional grant funds are more critical for a rating of “excellent” than on the Regional campuses.

      Table 2. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship of Teaching for promotion and tenure for Kent and Regional campus faculty.

      Scholarship of Teaching Assessment

      Definition

      Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

      Excellent

      Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional

      development

      Develop/revise courses, develop research projects for students (undergraduate and/or graduate), excellent student and peer perceptions, instructional creativity, actively participate in curricular revisions

       

                 Very Good

      Innovative teacher

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

       Good

      Meets obligations well

      good student and peer perceptions

       

        Fair

      substandard teacher

      Below average student and peer perceptions

        Poor

      substandard,

      ineffective teacher

      Below average student and peer perceptions, pattern of

      complaints

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      Citizen

      A.  A candidate's contributions as a University citizen includes service to the Department, the Campus, the College, and the University as outlined in Table 3.  The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) whether or not the candidate chaired the committee and (2) the importance of the service to the mission of the unit served.  Less tangible components of citizenship includes active participation in departmental events such as faculty and graduate student recruitment, seminars, departmental meetings, etc.

      Being a useful and active citizen of the Department and University is expected and of genuine value; however, service of any magnitude cannot be considered more important than a candidate's research and instructional responsibilities.  Expectations in service for promotion to Full Professor are higher than for promotion to Associate Professor.

      The components of university citizenship and expectations for faculty may differ between those with Regional and Kent campus appointments; details on Regional campus faculty expectations can be found in the Regional Campus Faculty Handbook as well as, in some cases, the faculty handbook for a particular campus. 

      Table 3. Assessment of University Citizenship for promotion and tenure for Kent and Regional campus faculty.

      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 Departmental/Campus

      obligations

      Does not meet obligations

      Does not meet Departmental/Campus

      obligations in a timely manner or does not actively participate in significant departmental/campus events

      B.  Other components of service are also considered (including public outreach and public and professional service) in tenure and promotion decisions and may differ in their importance among individuals with different appointments.  

       

  2. Reappointment and Third-Year Full Performance Review of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty

    The Department's role in matters of reappointment of full-time non-tenure track (FT-NTT) faculty, is defined by the policies stated in the Principles for the Evaluation and Reward of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty (Appendix IIIB).  The following is supplemental and specific to the Department.

    A.        Reappointment

    Appointments for full-time non-tenure track faculty are made annually and the terms of each appointment is limited to a single academic year.  Reappointment is contingent upon programmatic need, satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities, and budgeted resources to support the position.

    B.         Third-Year Full Performance Review

    The third-year full performance review will follow the procedures and timetable established by the University for reappointment reviews of tenure-track faculty in the first probationary year of tenure track appointment concluding with the college or, if applicable, the division of the regional campuses’ level of review and determination.  The period of performance to be reviewed is the three years of appointments including that portion of the third appointment which is subject to evaluation and assessment at the time of the review.

    Each fall these guidelines are distributed by the Office of the Provost.  Full-time non-tenure track faculty are reviewed by the Reappointment Committee (defined in Section III).  The Chairperson, in consultation with the FAC, assigns two faculty to visit the classes of probationary faculty, interview students in the classes, and generally evaluate the teaching performance.  One of the assigned faculty must be a member of the Reappointment Committee.  A written report is submitted to the Chairperson for placement in the candidate's file.  Full-time non-tenure track faculty will also create an updated file that is presented to the Chairperson who will make these materials available to the Reappointment Committee (Appendix VII).  Each FT-NTT faculty member is discussed by the Reappointment Committee which votes on a recommendation for a fourth annual appointment.  The Chairperson independently assesses the accomplishments of each FT-NTT faculty member and forwards to the Dean a Chairperson's recommendation and the committee's recommendation.  The Chairperson informs FT-NTT faculty of the committee's deliberations and provides a copy of the recommendation made to the Dean of the College.  The Chairperson's recommendations are also available to the committee.  Full-time non-tenure track faculty members who are not to be reappointed must be notified whether lack of adequate satisfaction with performance or the absence of anticipated continuing programmatic need or budgeted resources to support the position is the reason.

    The overall evaluation of a candidate for review must include consideration of the individual's personal integrity and professional behavior as recognized by the University community.  A sound ethical approach to all aspects of teaching, research, publication, and the academic profession are expected of all who seek reappointment in the Department

    Approved by BSCI FAC 4/10/97.

    Approved by BSCI full faculty 4/25/97.

  3. Criteria for the Evaluation of Technical Degree Program Faculty

    Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion

    The general criteria for reappointment, tenure and promotion embrace three areas.  The first area includes the Scholarship of Teaching, advising (which is a part of the Scholarship of Application), and University Citizenship.  The Scholarship of Teaching will be assessed through student evaluations, peer reviews, and administrative review.  Advising (including curriculum, career, and placement advising) will be assessed based on the quantity and/or quality of time spent advising students in the related associate degree program.  Assessment of University Citizenship will be based on contributions to the Campus, the Department, the College, the University, the local community, and industry, primarily through committee service and action. 

    If applicable, the second area is the administrative component of the position in the associate degree program.  This includes all components of administration of the program such as student recruitment, student placement, articulation of the program to different constituencies, development of scholarship funds, maintenance of community and industry involvement, and activity in professional trade organizations and educational organizations related to the program.

    The third area is scholarly activity and professional development.  Scholarly activity refers to activities included in the Scholarship of Discovery, Integration and/or Application (excluding advising).  Scholarly activity will be evaluated by:  (1) publication in the accepted trade journals or magazines (normally nonrefereed articles) and (2) publication in peer-reviewed journals either in original research or in pedagogy.  In consideration of the administrative responsibilities, publication in research or pedagogical journals would be less than the normal expectation for a probationary tenure track faculty member.  The scholarly activity requirement may be met by publication of peer-reviewed articles alone, or in combination with publication in trade journals or magazines.  The critical consideration is that there must be some publication in peer-reviewed journals.  Professional development includes, but is not limited to, activity in professional trade organizations, attending professional trade meetings, presenting workshops, and presenting papers at professional trade meetings, symposiums, educational meetings, or workshops. 

    Approved BSCI FAC, 4/15/98.

    Approved BSCI full faculty 5/14/98.

  4. Criteria for Graduate Faculty Membership

    1. Associate Membership

      1. Membership Criteria and Privileges

        Associate membership on the Graduate Faculty will be granted to those permanent faculty members who possess a terminal degree in the discipline.  In most cases this would be the Ph.D.  In some instances other qualifications may serve in lieu of the terminal degree.  Exceptions must be recommended by a majority vote of the Graduate Faculty and approved by the Chairperson of the Department and the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

        Associate Graduate Faculty membership also requires scholarly research of sufficient quality to merit publication in refereed journals.  Ancillary criteria may also be considered in support of application for Associate Graduate Faculty Membership, such as:

      • Activity in developing innovative teaching programs
      • Member of a review board for research grants
      • Member of the editorial board of a scholarly journal
      • Officer of a scientific society
      • Presentation of research papers at regional, national, and international meetings.

        Associate Graduate Faculty Membership is granted with the approval of those eligible to direct dissertations (Graduate Faculty Committee), the Chairperson of the Department and the Dean.

      1. Membership Duties and Privileges
         
        1. Eligibility to teach graduate level courses in the Department and serve on masters committees requires a history of research of sufficient quality to merit publication in refereed journals (A-1).
        2. Eligibility to direct master's theses requires evidence of publication of at least two articles in peer-reviewed journals during the review period*.  Efforts to obtain appropriate extramural funding of research activities during the review period are expected (A-2).
    2. Full Membership

      1. Membership Criteria

        Eligibility to direct dissertations shall be limited to those Graduate Faculty Members who have demonstrated a strong record of current scholarly research activity.  Full Graduate Faculty Membership is granted with the approval of the Graduate Faculty Committee to direct dissertation, the Chairperson of the Department and the Dean.
         

      2. Membership Duties and Privileges
        1. Faculty members who meet the criteria described above and who meet most but not all of the criteria for the direction of dissertations may be approved to direct master's theses, serve on doctoral committees, co-direct doctoral dissertations, and serve on College and University graduate faculty committees.  An F3 advisor of a doctoral student must have an F4 co-advisor. The F4 co-advisor should participate fully in the professional development and progress of the doctoral student (F-3).
        2. Eligibility to direct dissertations is limited to those Graduate Faculty members who have a record of strong scholarship.  At least five publications in peer-reviewed journals or peer-reviewed books and funding of an extramural grant proposal (or submission of at least three extramural grant proposals) of sufficient magnitude to support doctoral student research are typically expected in the review period*.  Significant participation in the graduate program, as evidenced by activities such as teaching at the graduate level, direction of graduate students, co-authoring peer-reviewed articles with graduate students, or service on academic committees, is also required (F-4).
    3. Graduate Faculty Membership for Adjunct Faculty

      Associate or Full Graduate Faculty Membership for adjunct members is for those whose primary professional appointments are elsewhere, but who desire to participate fully in one of the sub-discipline programs of the department. Adjunct faculty are limited to F3 status so they need a fully involved co-advisor from the appropriate BSCI program.  Membership criteria are as stated above, but voting privileges are limited to the departmental program in which they participate. Membership is granted with the approval of the Graduate Faculty Committee, the Chairperson of the Department and the Dean.

    4. Temporary Associate Graduate Faculty Membership

      Temporary membership is designed for persons who serve temporarily as instructors of graduate level courses or as members of a graduate advisory committee, or in rare instances, as a co-adviser of a student.  Membership requires academic and professional credentials at least equal to those of Associate Graduate Faculty Membership (A-1, A-2). Permission is granted ad hoc and is limited to the specific task requested.  This category may include faculty at Kent State University as well as other professional persons outside the University who are recognized as having unique capabilities of benefit to the graduate program.  Approval for Temporary Associate Graduate Faculty Membership is granted with the approval of the Chairperson of the Department and the Dean.

    5. Ex Officio Membership

      In accordance with university policy, administrators who are members of BSCI are ex officio full members of the graduate faculty.

      *The University Policy Register specifies that the graduate faculty review should take place every 5 years, individual faculty members can request to be considered for a change in graduate faculty level at anytime.

  5. Reappointment, Tenure, Promotion Files

    The candidate file for reappointment, tenure, or promotion is the primary means for conveying the activity and productivity of the candidate to the Review Committee.  A file structure has evolved in Biological Sciences which provides the Review Committee with specifically requested information and allows the candidate a degree of flexibility in providing supplementary information to the Review Committee.   A primary purpose underlying a well-structured candidate file from the first reappointment review through the ultimate review is to provide a cumulative continuum of development throughout all review periods.  From the first reappointment review through the probationary period to tenure and/or promotion review, the structured file also makes it easier for the candidate to assemble the file each year.  The candidate need only to update the prior year review file for the current review period.  A candidate is to maintain a documented record of each and every accomplishment or service during the year which can then be added easily to the prior year file.  Each first year probationary faculty member is given a copy of a faculty member's candidate file which was considered excellent as a model.  The format, style, and content is discussed with the Chairperson.

                The file should be maintained in a three-ring, loose-leaf notebook which has pockets in the front and back.  Information placed in the file by the Chair (Student Evaluations of Teaching and letters of reference) is placed in the front and/or back pockets.  Supporting documentation should be identified clearly and referenced to the curriculum vitae in the notebook.  Supplementary materials should be identified clearly and referenced to the curriculum vitae and may be in the notebook, in a separate notebook, or in a separate file.  The completed file should be in a form so that a reviewer can find documentation referenced in the curriculum vitae. 

    FILE CONTENTS

    I.          Statement of Accomplishments

                A candidate shall provide a detailed statement describing specific accomplishments in Scholarly activity in the context of guidelines presented in Section V of the Handbook. For reappointment, this should highlight the particular academic year under review whereas for promotion and/or tenure the entire review period should be discussed. 

    II.         Curriculum Vitae

                This must follow the specified format and is the second item in the file.

    III.       Supporting Documentation

                This portion of the file contains documentation of specific portions of the curriculum vitae and must be specifically referenced to the curriculum vitae.  Folders with pockets placed in the three-ring notebook are excellent for these materials.

             A.     Research

                      Publications (reprints, reviews of manuscripts under revision), presentations (abstracts, dates, letter of acceptance, et cetera), manuscripts in press (copy of editorial acceptance with pagination, et cetera, as available), grant proposals (transmittal form with budget and abstract), and any other specific documentation as necessary.  It is incumbent upon the candidate to provide information on research quality such as peer reviews of papers/proposals, record of paper citations and impact, etc.  Additionally, any specific documentation relative to graduate program activities may be included (service on student committees, advisees, et cetera).

                B.     Instruction

                         Student Evaluations of Teaching, representative copies of course syllabi, copies of representative examinations for each course taught, peer reviews of teaching (copies of the written evaluations by the peer reviewers placed in the file by the Chair), any grant proposals directly related to teaching, teaching development, curriculum development (transmittal form with budget, title page, and abstract), and any other documentation related to instruction as necessary.  All student comments from evaluations must be made available to the ad hoc committee.

                C.     Service

                         Service contributions (appointment notices to committees, task forces, et cetera) and any other documentation for specific other services noted in the curriculum vitae.  

    IV.       Supplementary Materials

                The candidate may add any documentation or evidence of additional activities which he/she may want the Review Committee to view.

    V.        Letters of Reference

                Outside letters of reference are required only for tenure and promotion reviews.  The specific means for acquiring these letters are detailed in the Tenure and Promotions Guidelines as well as in the University Policy Register.  The Chair is responsible for meeting this specific requirement and for placing these letters in the candidate file.

                The candidate file should meet several specifics:  1) it should be in a format which is easy for the reviewer to follow; 2) it should be complete; 3) it should be placed in a three ring notebook with front and back pockets for adding materials if necessary; 4) it should be in a form where updating for the next review period is simple and relatively easy; 5) if possible, an indexing scheme of the various sections should be developed (e.g., a color-coded index system is extremely helpful for the reviewers); and, 6) it should be "reviewer friendly" (this is especially important as the file moves through the different review levels further removed from the Department and/or Regional Campus). 

                According to policy, the candidate file is reviewed with the Chairperson for completeness and accuracy prior to acceptance for review.   

  6. Promotion Files

    The candidate file for promotion is the primary means for conveying the activity and productivity of the candidate to the Review Committee.  A file structure has evolved in Biological Sciences which provides the Review Committee with specifically requested information and allows the candidate a degree of flexibility in providing supplementary information to the Review Committee.   A primary purpose underlying a well-structured candidate file from the first reappointment review through the ultimate review is to provide a continuum of development throughout all review periods.  From the first reappointment review through tenure to promotion review, the structured file also makes it easier for the candidate to assemble the file each year.  The candidate need only update the prior year review file for the current review period.  A candidate is urged to maintain a record of each and every accomplishment or service during the year which can then be added easily to the prior year file.  Each faculty member standing for promotion may request a faculty member’s candidate file to use as a model.  The format, style, and content is discussed with the Chairperson.

    The file should be maintained in a three-ring, loose-leaf notebook which has pockets in the front and back.  Information placed in the file by the Chair (Student Evaluations of Teaching and letters of reference) is placed in the front and/or back pockets.  Supporting documentation should be identified clearly and referenced to the curriculum vitae in the notebook.  Supplementary materials should be identified clearly and referenced to the curriculum vitae and may be in the notebook, in a separate notebook, or in a separate file.  The completed file should be in a form so that a reviewer can find documentation referenced in the curriculum vitae. 

    FILE CONTENTS

    I.          Statement of Accomplishments (optional)

                A candidate may provide a one or two page statement describing specific accomplishments in scholarship and/or University Citizenship for the review period.  If presented, this is the first item in the file.

    II.         Curriculum Vitae

                This must follow the specified format and is the second item in the file.

    III.       Supporting Documentation This portion of the file contains documentation of specific portions of the curriculum vitae and must be specifically referenced to the curriculum vitae

     

    A.        Scholarship of Discovery, Integration, and Application

    Publications (reprints), presentations (abstracts with dates, announcements, et cetera), grant proposals (transmittal form with budget and abstract, evidence of submission such as signature page), and any other specific documentation as necessary should be provided. Additionally, any specific documentation relative to graduate theses and dissertations directed may be included.

    B.     Scholarship of Teaching

             Student Evaluations of Teaching (placed in the file by the Chair or the Dean of the Regional Campus along with the norming group for each course), copies of each course syllabus, copies of representative examinations for each course taught, peer reviews of teaching (copies of the written evaluations by the peer reviewers placed in the file by the Chair), evidence of service on student committees, advisees, et cetera, and any other documentation related to instruction as necessary should be provided.

    C.     University Citizenship

             Service contributions (appointment notices to committees, task forces, et cetera) and any other documentation for specific other services noted in the curriculum vitae should be provided.

    IV.       Supplementary Materials

                The candidate may add any documentation or evidence of additional activities which he/she may want the Review Committee to view.

    V.        Letters of Reference

                Outside letters of reference are required for promotion reviews.  The specific means for acquiring these letters are detailed in the Promotions Guidelines as well as in the University Policy Register.  The Chair is responsible for meeting this specific requirement and for placing these letters in the candidate’s file.

    The candidate’s file should meet several specifics:  1) it should be in a format which is easy for the reviewer to follow; 2) it should be complete; 3) it should be placed in a three ring notebook with front and back pockets for adding materials if necessary; 4) it should be in a form where updating for the next review period is simple and relatively easy; 5) if possible, an indexing scheme of the various sections should be developed (e.g., a color-coded index system is extremely helpful for the reviewers); and, 6) it should be "reviewer friendly" (this is especially important as the file moves through the different review levels further removed from the Department and/or Regional Campus).  The candidate’s file is reviewed with the Chairperson for completeness and accuracy prior to acceptance for review.