Standards for the Evaluation of Scholarship and Research | Management & Information Systems Handbook | Kent State University

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.

 

Scholarship

 

Definition

Examples of Accomplishments Corresponding to the Assessment Score

 

Excellent

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.

 

Good

Active research program

Some peer-reviewed

publications, 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” 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 http://mis.kent.edu/jl.php, 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.