Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship and Research

Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of scholarship activity is based for the Kent and Regional campuses are provided in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. 

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 university mission. The attributes of an individual faculty member’s scholarly activity will vary across disciplines.

To achieve “excellent” in the category of the scholarship (as detailed in Table 2 for the Kent campus and Table 3 for regional campus) 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.   

Table 2. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure at the Kent Campus.

Scholarship

Definition

Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

Minimum Points

Excellent

Nationally/ Internationally recognized research program

Demonstrated record of publications,1 invitations to give presentations, research-related service to external organizations, awards, recognition from scientific societies2

21

Very Good

Emerging nationally recognized research program

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

16

Good

Active research program

Some peer-reviewed publications, some presentations at meetings/seminars

10

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" and "recognition” throughout Table 2.
1Publications include: papers in peer-reviewed journals of recognized quality, "A+, A, B, or C (a maximum of 2 C journals may be counted toward promotion and tenure)" [see, Table 1] 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 3. Evaluation Components for Assessment of Scholarship for Promotion and Tenure at Regional Campuses.

Scholarship

Definition

Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

Minimum Points

Excellent

Nationally/ Internationally recognized research program

Demonstrated record of publications,1 invitations to give presentations, research-related service to external organizations, awards, recognition from scientific societies2

11

Very Good

Emerging nationally recognized research program

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

8

Good

Active research program

Some peer-reviewed publications, some presentations at meetings/seminars

4

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" and "recognition” throughout Table 3.
1Publications include: papers in peer-reviewed journals of recognized quality, "A+, A, B, or C, published proceedings, 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.