Criteria for Tenure and Promotion | Management & Information Systems Handbook | Kent State University

Criteria for Tenure and Promotion

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 developmental assistance and projection of future success in achieving 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 use in the evaluation of candidates.  For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor at the Kent Campus the faculty member must meet the criteria for a “very good” rating or better in both scholarship and teaching. At the Regional Campuses the faculty member must meet the criteria for “Good” rating or better in scholarship and a “very good” rating or better in teaching. University citizenship must at least meet the minimum Department criteria as outlined in Table 3.  These same categories and assessment tools apply for tenure decisions.

A candidate for promotion to Professor at the Kent Campus must meet the criteria for an “excellent” rating in scholarship and “very good” or better in teaching. At the Regional Campuses the Faculty member must meet the criteria for a “very good” rating or better for scholarship and a “very good” rating or better in teaching. University citizenship must exceed the minimum Department criteria. A candidate for promotion to Professor may not have equal activity in scholarship, teaching and service as she/he becomes more specialized.

Documentation of a Faculty member’s achievements will include a record of presentations in Department organized research seminars prior to a faculty member’s application for tenure or promotion. For Assistant Professors, this seminar will typically be presented during the faculty member’s third full year in this rank.  For promotion to Associate Professor and Professor, the seminar should be the year prior to an anticipated promotion application.

  1. Scholarship

    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 her/his scholarly activity.

    In addition to scholarly publications, other scholarly activities including, but not limited to serving on national professional organizations, presenting at refereed professional meetings, chairing society committees, and presenting papers before learned societies should be considered.  These latter 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. 

  2. Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship and Research

    All faculty of the department 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 1A and 1B.

    Indicators of the quality of a faculty member’s research record include the quality and quantity of published work.  All faculty members in the Department 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.

    Table 1A. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for promotion and tenure.





    Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score



    Nationally/ Internationally recognized research program

    Demonstrated record of publications1, invitations to give presentations, research-related service to external organizations, awards, recognition from scientific societies2


    Very Good

    Emerging nationally recognized research program

    Demonstrated record of publications, presentations at well recognized meetings with rigorous criteria for paper review.



    Active research program

    Some peer-reviewed

    publications, 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” and “recognition” throughout Table 1 A.

    1Publications include: papers in peer-reviewed journals of recognized quality (“A+, A or B” (See, Table 1-B)) and book chapters.  Evaluation of publication record will include an assessment of quality and impact on the field as well as quantity. 

    2Recognitions from scientific societies include, for example, election to office, editorial board membership, editorship, etc.

    Table 1B

    Journal Ranking for Guidance in RTP Decisions is listed in the Department’s web site at, or through the Department office.

    A+ Journals

    Highest ranking journals in discipline as measured by established criteria

    A Journals

    High ranking journals in discipline as measured by established criteria

    B Journals

    Middle tier journals

    C Journals

    Low tier journals

    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 her/his discipline.

    Within this context, during annual reappointment reviews, each faculty member who will seek tenure or promotion is obligated to provide evidence supporting her/his scholarly record.  This obligation will be met by providing specific information about article and journal quality and impact, 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 Department’s Ad Hoc RTP Committee and the Chair shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the Department’s expectations for a successful tenure decision.   

  3. Teaching

    Faculty members must prepare a syllabus for distribution at the beginning of each semester in each course they are teaching. A copy of the syllabus is to be on file in Department office by the end of the second week of the semester.  The syllabus must specify course prerequisites, department-approved learning objectives, last date to withdraw, the materials to be covered in the course, grading scale, assignments, approximate dates and number of examinations, and other details relevant to the effective management of the class.

    Criteria for the evaluation of teaching are listed in Table 2.  Course revision is defined as making a substantial modification to a course such as developing of web courses and 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 (particularly at the doctoral level) and/or postdoctoral students. 

    Table 2. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Teaching for promotion and tenure





    Examples of 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, work with graduate and/or undergraduate students in research




    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



  4. University Citizenship

    A faculty member's contributions as a University citizen include service to the Department, the Campus, the College, and the University as outlined in Table 3, and are required of all faculty members as part of their regular workload. Service responsibilities should be distributed as equitably as possible to all members of the department.  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.  Citizenship also includes active participation in department events such as faculty and student recruitment, 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 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 may differ in their importance among faculty members depending on each faculty member’s duties and responsibilities within the Department.