Weighting of Reappointment, Tenure & Promotion Criteria, and the Criteria & Processes Relating to Other Faculty Personnel Actions

  1. Faculty Appointments

    Normally, an earned doctoral or terminal degree in the discipline is required for all Faculty appointments to a tenure-track position on the Campus. For non-tenure-track appointments, an earned doctoral degree or equivalent in a related field is preferred.

    The Campus supports the goals of equal opportunity and affirmative action in recruiting and in making appointments to the faculty. Search committees are appointed by the Dean after consultation with FC, and faculty members in the specific area or discipline, along with administrators as appointed by the Dean, conduct the search for candidates. Search committees for the Dean and Assistant/Associate Dean may include a student member selected by the Committee Chair. However, as per the TT CBA guidelines, a majority of tenure-track Faculty members shall constitute any designated FC subcommittee on all academic matters; and so any full-time faculty search committee shall have a majority TT Faculty members.

    Following the search, the search committee recommends to the Dean that two or three candidates be invited to campus for an interview. Each candidate who is invited to campus for an interview will present a seminar before the campus. The search committee provides a list of the candidate’s strengths and weaknesses to the Dean. Committee recommendations are advisory to the Dean who makes a recommendation to the Vice President of Systems Integration, and if his/ her recommendation is different from the committee’s recommendation, he/she should provide reasons. Should the Dean find it necessary to hire full-time faculty (TT and/or FTNTT), he or she shall notify the FC Chair. The FC Chair will inform the faculty and invite their participation.

    1. Tenure-Track and Tenured Faculty Appointments

      The goal of this Campus is to provide excellence in teaching, research, and service to the University and its community. For the sake of consistency, standards, quality research and teaching, Faculty expect that the majority of full-time Faculty be TT and reduce the ratio of FTNTT faculty, part-time, and adjunct faculty.

    2. Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty Appointments

      Full Time Non-Tenure Track (FTNTT) appointments are made on a three-year term of annually renewable contracts. FTNTT faculty members are not entitled to any rights with regard to tenure.

  2. Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion of Tenure-Track Faculty

    1. Reappointment

      Each academic year, reappointment guidelines for Kent and Regional Campus Faculty are distributed by the Office of the Provost. Probationary tenure-track Gaculty members are reviewed by the Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee and Campus RTP Committee. Reappointment is contingent upon demonstration of adequate progress toward the requirements for tenure. Moreover, the Faculty member must have established and articulated short- and long-term plans for achieving these goals.

      • Committees discuss the probationary Faculty member and vote on the Faculty member’s reappointment.
      • The FC Chair at the candidate’s campus will convene the Ad Hoc RTP Committee during the review period to discuss and vote on reappointment files, and the FC Chair will write a summary for each candidate to the Campus Dean.
      • The Campus Dean forwards his/her recommendation and the campus RTP committee’s recommendation to the Provost.
    2. 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




        Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score


        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.


        Active research program

        Some peer-reviewed publications or ”seed” grants, (if applicable to the discipline) 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 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.




        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




          Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score


          Innovative teacher; provides leadership in instructional


          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


          Meets obligations well

          good student and peer perceptions


          substandard teacher

          Below average student and peer perceptions



          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. 

  3. Renewal of Full Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty

    1. Renewal of Appointment

      Appointments for FTNTT faculty are governed by the FTNTT CBA and are made annually. Renewal of appointment is contingent upon programmatic need, satisfactory performance of previously assigned responsibilities, and budgeted resources to support the position.

    2. First and Second Year Review

      Although it is not required for FTNTT faculty in their first and second year of employment to submit a file, it is, however, recommended to prepare reappointment materials early. Submitting a renewal file to the home department in some cases is optional (the faculty member should check with his/her home department). Files are submitted electronically via FlashFolio.

    3. Third and Sixth Year Full Performance Review

      • FTNTT faculty who have completed three or six consecutive academic years of annually renewable contracts shall be subject to a Full Performance Review during the third and sixth year respectively before an additional appointment can be anticipated or authorized. Files are submitted on FlashFolio for the Full Performance Review. 
      • The performance review, according to the FTNTT CBA, will follow the procedures and timelines established by the University as annually distributed through the Office of the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs. The FC Chair will convene the Ad Hoc RPT Committee, comprised of tenure-track and one non-voting FTNTT member during the review period to discuss and vote on reappointment files, and the FC Chair will submit a written summary for each candidate and forward it to the Campus Dean. 

      Materials for the Full Performance Review include but are not limited to the following:

      • cover letter providing an overview of the candidate’s activities;
      • up-to-date curriculum vitae;
      • list of courses taught during the review period;
      • most recent syllabi;
      • complete student evaluations from the last year and summaries of student evaluations for the review period;
      • one peer review from the last year (the reviewer is chosen by the candidate, should be tenured, and have knowledge of the subject area);
      • other materials as the candidate chooses, such as self-evaluation, unsolicited letters of commendation, information pertaining to instructional effectiveness; for example, multi-media presentations, innovative teaching strategies, significant handouts, and other responsibilities, such as program administration and advising.

      If the FTNTT faculty member has any administrative responsibilities, documentation associated with these duties should also be included. If the FTNTT faculty member has participated in any professional conferences and/or published in professional journals, these are also considered. However, because of the instructional nature of FTNTT positions, instructional quality will be the primary criterion for the review. Therefore, any service to the Campus, University, and/or professional organizations will be considered as extraordinary effort. The FC Chair will convene the Ad Hoc Renewal Committee during the review period to discuss and vote on reappointment files, and the FC Chair will submit a written summary for each candidate and forward it to the Campus Dean.

    4. Simplified Performance Review

      The FTNTT CBA also provides for a “Simplified” Performance Review” for faculty who are in their ninth year of consecutive employment or in the third year of a three-year term of annual appointment beyond the ninth year. This “Simplified” Performance Review” requires electronic submission on Flash Folio of the documents described in the FTNTT CBA.

      Review of FTNTT faculty in the ninth and subsequent period of three years is a simplified review.

    5. Full Administrative Review

      The FTNTT CBA also provides for a “Full Administrative Review” for faculty who are in their eighteenth year of consecutive employment. This “Full Administrative Review” requires electronic submission on Flash Folio of the documents described in the FTNTT CBA.