Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

The Ad Hoc RTP Committees of the Department or School or Colleges and Campus 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 Tables 1 (A and B), 2, and 3 provide guidelines for the assessment of a Faculty member’s performance and a rating scale for the evaluation of candidates.

  1. Table 1A. Geauga Campus Faculty: Evaluation Components for Assessment of Promotion and Tenure

     

    Scholarship 

    Definition

    Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

    Excellent

    Nationally/Internationally recognized research program

    Demonstrated record of publications1 and grants2 (if applicable to the discipline), invitations to give presentations, research-related service to federal/state organizations, awards, and recognition from societies3 in the discipline.

     

    Very Good

     

    Emerging nationally recognized research program

     

    Demonstrated record of publications and “seed” grants (if applicable to the discipline), presentations at well-recognized meetings with rigorous criteria for paper review.

    Good

    Active research program

    Some peer-reviewed publications or ”seed” grants, (if applicable to the discipline) some presentations at meetings/seminars

    Weak

    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” throughout 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 wherein 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.

  2. Table 1B: Journal Ranking for Guidance in RTP Decisions

    Refer to the list of journals as approved by the concerned department of a Faculty member.

     

    Journal

    Ranking

    A Journals

    Highest-ranking journals in discipline as measured by impact or recognized as top tier journals in the discipline.

    B Journals

    Middle-tier journals as measured by impact or recognized as second tier journals in the discipline.

    C Journals

    Lower-tier journals.

     

     

  3. Teaching

    Criteria for the evaluation of the teaching are listed in Table 2. Course revision is defined as making 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 Campus, Department, School, 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 the 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 the candidate for reappointment, tenure and promotion. Evaluation of teaching will account for differences in missions and expectations across campuses. 

    1. Table 2. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for Promotion and Tenure

       

      Scholarship 

      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

      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

  4. University Citizenship

    A Faculty member’s contributions as a University citizen include service to the Department, the Campus, School, College, and the University as outlined in Table 3. The merits of University service should be evaluated as to (1) whether 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 Campus events such as faculty and student recruitment, seminars, campus meetings and seminars, etc.

    Being an active and useful citizen of the Department, Campus, College, School 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.

    1. Table 3. 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

       

      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 differs in their importance among Faculty members depending on each Faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the Campus.