CEHS Promotion and Tenure Overview

Promotion and Tenure Resources

Packet Preparation – General Comments
  • For purposes of tenure and promotion, the Faculty Code specifies that performance in the major area of emphasis must be judged to be “excellent” and performance in the remaining area(s) of emphasis must be judged to be “effective.” Note that this is true for tenured/tenure-track faculty and term appointment faculty.
    • Tenured Faculty who are being considered for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor are also required to have “an outstanding reputation” in the major area of emphasis. Code specifies that “excellence is measured by standards for professors within the national professional peer group."
    • Term Appointment Faculty who are being considered for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor are also required to have “an established reputation for excellence in teaching, and/or research and service, according to the role statement. Excellence is to be judged by national standards within the professional peer group.”
  • For pre-tenure faculty the packet should be a work in progress throughout the pre-tenure period with regular revisions and updates. At a minimum, it should be updated annually ahead of the fall Tenure & Promotion Committee meeting.   
  • For post-tenure faculty and term appointment faculty, the packet should be a work in progress and updated regularly prior to developing the final packet.
  • The goal is not only to document excellence/effectiveness, but also to show your professional trajectory over time. Incorporate your responses to challenges (research problems, course evaluations, new goals for courses, etc.) in appropriate sections of packet.
    • For faculty who are being considered for promotion to Professor (or Principal Lecturer), there should be a clear focus on your trajectory since tenure/promotion to Associate Professor (or promotion to Senior Lecturer).
  • Openly address any gaps, inconsistencies, or shortcomings, providing underlying perspectives as appropriate.
  • Review your role statement for potential milestones in your areas of excellence/effectiveness.
  • Do not pad your accomplishments. Reviewers will recognize this and question the veracity of your dossier. Be clear and honest about your accomplishments and your contributions to team accomplishments.
  • Brevity and efficiency are appreciated by the reviewers. Think of your packet (or the individual teaching, research, extension, and service sections) as being analogous to a well-written scientific paper or grant, where data are condensed in charts, tables, and graphs along with clear explanations. Your materials should make the case that you should be tenured and/or promoted given your productivity and impact in your field.
  • The guidance provided here should be considered advisory – it is based on considerable experience, but these are not formal requirements. Read the Faculty Code closely for formal requirements. In the end, it is the candidate’s responsibility to construct an e-dossier that describes accomplishments effectively.

Self-Assessment Letter

Not to exceed 5 pages

This should clearly and succinctly articulate your accomplishments and impacts in the respective areas of your role statement. It serves as the executive summary of the outcomes/impacts that are further detailed in the packet. Focus on your achievements that support promotion, making sure to put these in context within your field. Also, succinctly and openly contextualize any gaps or weaknesses and put them in context. Because this is an executive summary, address a gap or weakness briefly and, if needed, expand on it in the appropriate section of your portfolio. Tables and graphs should be incorporated to summarize data and demonstrate impact. Additional tables and graphs that provide greater detail can be incorporated in other sections of the dossier. 

Clearly define your area of emphasis (i.e., research, teaching, or extension) and provide summaries of other areas. If your role statement does not allocate any evaluative weight to a certain area, you do not need to address that area. For each area that is part of your role statement, have a subsection addressing accomplishments/impact in that domain.


  • Use terminology that is understandable to a non-specialist – the central tenure and promotion committee is comprised of faculty from every college on campus.
  • Describe your research area and why it is important.
  • Describe how your efforts have led to achieving excellence/effectiveness in research. What is the impact of your research? Why is what you do important?
  • Explain the outcomes (support with data in the packet) of your research efforts. If you have two (or more) related lines of research, a graphic may be helpful for clearly showing how the lines and the products from those lines of work are related.
  • Address any difficulties and how you have worked, or are working, to overcome them.
  • Demonstrate how your achievements to date position you for future successes.
  • Include a citation analysis (or summary of one) and other information that helps demonstrate your impact and national/international reputation in your field.
  • For faculty being considered for promotion to Professor, be clear on your trajectory and accomplishments since being promoted to Associate Professor.


  • Include a condensed version of your teaching philosophy.
  • Discuss your approach to achieving excellence/effectiveness in teaching.
  • Provide a high-level summary of the outcomes of your efforts including in-class settings as well as mentorship of students, clinical supervision, etc.
  • For teaching excellence, be clear how you have made an impact beyond simply receiving good course evaluations; include a summary of outcomes for other teaching activities.
  • For clinical faculty with direct services as part of their teaching, present summary data that highlight skills as a clinician. This may include feedback from client surveys, clinic referral patterns, etc.


  • Provide information on your programs (e.g., needs assessment, innovative approaches, impacts, and recruitment).
  • Discuss your ability to reach diverse audiences.
  • Provide information on your work with county agents and/or other specialists.
  • Discuss your efforts in disseminating information.
  • Offer evidence for how your work has been impactful.


  • This section can be brief and summarize key service activities. Include service to the department, college/university, profession, and community as appropriate.

Research Documentation

List All Publications
  • List publications in APA or other appropriate format.
  • Separate out different types of publications (e.g., refereed journal articles under one heading; book chapters under another heading; non-refereed articles under another, etc.).
  • Make it easy for reviewers to see which articles are published, in press, under review, etc. Headings can be helpful in organizing the list of publications.
  • If publications are available on-line ahead of being in print, note this.
  • Use special notation to identify student or postdoctoral co-authors (e.g., * by graduate students; ** by undergraduate students).
  • Clearly differentiate publications/creative activities performed at USU versus those of prior appointments, including graduate student and postdoctoral accomplishments. When discussing research accomplishments, talk both about your total body of publications and publications since being at USU.
  • For faculty being considered for promotion to Professor, clearly differentiate publications/creative activities performed since being promoted to Associate Professor, talk both about your total body of publications and publications since being promoted.
  • Include a citation analysis (e.g., total number of citations to your work, h-index, i10 index, m-index) and, when possible, provide field-specific context for the h-index.
    • Explicitly call out high-impact papers.
    • Put your citation rate in context in your field via normative data, comparison to peers, etc.
  • Clearly explain authorship sequence and practice in your field (e.g., if last author indicates senior author, state that). Remember that reviewers on central committee come from a variety of fields and most/all will not know the standards in your field – so be explicit about this.
  • Use brief (1-2 sentence) annotations to:
    • Identify the outcomes and activities for which you are primarily responsible.
    • Explain your contribution to multi-authored papers.
  • Provide evidence for the quality of your research publications/creative activities, including:
    • Journal impact factor and/or ranking in area.
    • Number of citations to your work.
    • Other evidence of impact.

Research Funding

External Funding

  • List all funded grants using the following format (or something similar):
    • Grant Title and Number.
    • Funding Agency.
    • Start and End Dates of Grant.
    • Role and Percent Effort.
    • Total funding amount (and total amount responsible for if not PI).
  • Specify if funding was competitive or non-competitive; if there is a mix of competitive/non-competitive funding, list these separately.
  • Offer additional clarification on role where your titling (e.g., PI, Co-I) does not in itself capture your contribution to securing funds or executing the associated project.
  • List all proposals submitted including those not funded as well as any currently under review. Make sure these are under a separate heading from funded grants.
    • For proposals not funded, include information such as scores, reviewer comments, funding agency pay lines (if known), and strategy for resubmission.

Internal Funding

  • List any internal funds received for your research; do not include student grants (such as URCOs) in this section.

List Scholarly Presentations

  • Clearly list all presentations at professional meetings using APA or other appropriate citation method.
  • For faculty being considered for promotion to Professor, clearly differentiate presentations performed since promotion to Associate Professor.
  • List International/National and Regional presentations under separate headings.
  • List invited presentations separately.
  • Include notation regarding student presenters.
  • Note any contextual factors (e.g., low acceptance rate for certain conferences; conferences that put more credence on presentations than posters) that may be important in understanding your impact.

Other Research Activities

  • List/discuss impact of other research activities. This may include patents, multi-media materials, creative accomplishments, etc.


  • If research is the main area of the role statement, include the 3-4 refereed publications or book chapters that were submitted to external reviewers as part of your external review packet.

Teaching Documentation

Teaching Philosophy

Topics that may be included:

  • What do you believe about teaching and learning? What are your guiding principles for instruction? What has influenced your teaching approach and perspective?
  • What is your approach to instruction? Why do you utilize this particular approach?
  • (Teaching excellence) How do you practice a scholarly approach to teaching? What guides your teaching development? Literature; colleagues and mentors; workshops; conferences, etc.?
  • What are your expectations of students? What do you want them to learn? State how your expectations shape your practice.
  • How do you think students learn in your discipline; how do you facilitate learning? Discuss techniques and methods you use to maximize the probability of learning.
  • How do you motivate and establish rapport with students?
  • Your theory of assessment; how does your philosophy inform your assessment strategies?
  • How does your philosophy inform the kind and timing of the feedback you give students?
  • How does your philsophy shape your responsiveness to feedback, self-reflection, and reconsideration of your approach?

Teacher/Course Load and Evaluations

  • Discuss teaching load and provide departmental context for this load; if load is not reflected in a student evaluation table summary, include a table with course load by semester. Make sure to differentiate between teaching as part of load and overload teaching.
  • In discussing your teaching load, refer to your engagement in curriculum development (i.e., development of new courses/programs, noteworthy revisions of courses/programs).
  • For faculty being considered for promotion to Professor, clearly differentiate teaching that has occurred since promotion to Associate Professor.
  • Provide a table or graphical summary of student evaluation data; summarize, explain, and provide context for these data (e.g., provide an explanation for low or anomalous scores on student/course evaluations).
  • Include original IDEA reports (quantitative and qualitative responses) in your dossier.
  • When communicating about IDEA scores, use t-scores and discuss the broad categories in which these scores fall (e.g., similar, higher, etc.).
  • Share themes from qualitative student feedback that have informed your teaching practice; however, resist "cherry picking" direct quotes in ways that only showcase highy positive appraisals. Offer a balanced presentation of themes and share how this has informed your subsequent teaching approach.
  • Include a self-evaluation of teaching that reflects your commitment to continuous improvement:
    • Report any mid-course student surveys or evaluations you used. How did you change your practice?
    • Report any pre- and post-course testing and how these resulted in course changes.
    • Carefully document changes made over time in response to evaluations.

Peer Evaluation

  • Peer reviews of teaching should be completed annually. It is best-practice to have one of your peer evaluators visit the same class over multiple years so that the evaluation can include comments regarding modifications in and development of teaching over time.
  • Peer evaluators should include constructive comments. A written summary of the peer evaluation should be provided in a timely manner to the candidate. All written peer evaluations should appear in the dossier.
  • Address how comments made by peers have informed your subsequent teaching approach.
  • (Teaching excellence) Invite off-campus colleagues to review your syllabi or teaching approachesand provide their written appraisals in your dossier. 

Student Mentoring

  • Where your student mentoring philosophy and approach are unique from your classroom instruction philosophy and approach, share your perspective on mentoring here.
  • Report on undergraduate students, graduate students (indicate degree level if still in the program and degrees completed under your advisement), and post-docs (provide dates) who worked with you on research activities.
  • List publications and presentations co-authored with students. Make sure to differentiate between students you directly mentor and students on publications who are directly mentored by someone else.
  • Note any unique accomplishments of these students (placement following graduation, awards received, contributions to your research, co-authorship, etc.).
  • Provide summary of thesis/dissertation committees on which you were a member including student name, department, degree, and date completed.
  • If other types of mentoring/advising are provided to students, describe this and outcomes.

Curriculum/Program Oversight (if applicable)

  • If your role statement includes leadership in delivery of an academic program (e.g., undergraduate program director), describe your role in this program and provide data to demonstrate your impact.

Clinical Supervision (if applicable)

  • Clearly explain what clinical supervision looks like in your field (e.g., what do you do with students?, what is the time involved?). Because many outside CEHS will not understand what clinical supervision involves, providing this context is important.
  • Provide documentation of the volume of your supervision activity (e.g., number of supervisees over a particular time period).
  • Provide documentation of the impact of your supervision.

Direct Clinical Services (if applicable)

  • Clearly explain the nature and amount of direct clinical services you provide and offer data that document the impact of your services.

Teaching Innovations

  • Describe teaching innovations or unique approaches you use; how students respond to those innovations; discuss data that support student learning as a result of this innovation or approach.
  • Describe any funding obtained for pedagogical research or to improve your course (e.g., Excellence in Teaching and Learning Grant).
  • Describe how you respond to student and peer course feedback in constructive and innovative ways.
  • For those whose primary area is teaching, this section can be critical. Good IDEA scores are not sufficient to demonstrate excellence in teaching. Documentation of teaching improvement and innovation is critical. Documentation of outputs (e.g., peer reviewed papers, conference presentations, curriculum development) provides helpful evidence of innovation and that teaching excellence has been achieved.

Teaching Awards or Other Achievements

  • List awards or other significant recognitions you have received for teaching/mentoring.
  • Describe service outside of your program area that is tied to fostering teaching innovation and excellence.
  • Share other achievements in teaching that are not captured in other subsections described above.

Supporting Materials (In Appendices)

  • Full IDEA PDF files for all courses taught.
    • For faculty being considered for promotion to Professor, if many courses have been taught, it may make sense to include only files for classes since promotion to Associate Professor.
  • Original peer evaluations of teaching.
  • Details of evidence of student learning (e.g., pre/post scores before and after a course).
  • Evidence that you are continually working to refine your teaching skills and to understand student learning. Document workshops that you have attended, books you have read, and data you have collected from your classes.
  • External reviews of online courses and/or syllabi (if any).

Service Documentation

  • Clearly list all committee service (both external and internal to USU) with start/end dates.
  • Community service may include presentations to lay-audiences, work within the community that aligns with your professional responsibilities, etc.
  • Professional service includes reviewing manuscripts and grant proposals, chairing sessions at professional meetings, chairing symposia, serving on professional boards, leadership roles, and so forth.
  • Note any awards received for service activities.

Other Comments on the e-Dossier

  • You are writing to a general audience; avoid acronyms and jargon whenever possible. If acronyms are used, make sure to define each when first used.
  • When uploading documents to the e-dossier, make sure the main document is first in each section and that support materials/appendices are listed after this.
  • Make sure to provide context for any awards received so that it is clear to reviewers how prestigious the award really was.
  • Throughout the e-dossier, context is key to ensuring reviewers from outside your field truly understand your accomplishments and their impact.
  • Once any materials are submitted for any level of review, they should not be changed from that point forward. For instance, if the CV and self-assessment letter are submitted for external review, they should not be changed. Any significant accomplishments made after materials are submitted for review can be included in an appendix or a letter from the candidate’s committee and/or department head.

Brief Guidance on External Reviewers

In the year that faculty go forward for promotion and/or tenure, they will need to submit a list of possible external reviewers to their department head. [Note that external reviewers are not required for Lecturers. In certain circumstances external reviewers may be waived for other term appointment faculty, but this is the rare exception.] Code indicates that external peer reviewers should be “of rank equivalent to or higher than that sought by the candidate.” Thus, for tenure-track faculty seeking tenure/promotion to Associate Professor, reviewers must be tenured Associate Professors or Professors and for tenured faculty seeking promotion to Professor, reviewers must be tenured Professors. Candidates are encouraged to submit a strong list of senior scholars who can provide insightful comments on their record. External reviewers should be respected scholars in the candidate’s discipline and should have sufficient rank, experience and perspective to judge the candidate’s record and compare it to others of equivalent experience in the field. Candidates are advised to recommend external reviewers who will not have, or be perceived as having, a conflict of interest and/or a close personal relationship with the candidate. As examples, candidates should not recommend a former mentor, former or current collaborator, relative, close friend, or former classmate as reviewers.

The ideal external reviewers are not invested in the career of the candidate but, rather, have sufficient distance to serve as objective external reviewers. Candidates should avoid any appearance of close personal relationships with suggested reviewers.

The below should be considered guidance regarding what materials to include in each section in the e-dossier. These lists are not inclusive and candidates should remember that ultimately it is their responsibility to develop their e-dossier. For all materials (other than current year letters which are submitted after the annual meeting) it is solely the candidate’s responsibility to upload needed documents into e-dossier.

Role Statement, Self-Assessment Letter, and Vita

Role Statement

  • Current, signed role statement (must have all signatures for the current academic year) 

Self-Assessment letter

  • Self-Assessment (recommended length 4-5 pages)

Curriculum vita

  • CV

Additional documents

  • [most candidates will not have information in this section] 

Annual Reviews

[Note:  These are the annual Promotion/Tenure letters; not annual spring performance reviews conducted by the department head. Promotion-only candidates often do not have letters for each year.  The only dean letter will be for year 3 tenure-track faculty.]

Advisory Committee Annual Review Letters

  • Put annual letters from P&T committee in chronological order with clear titles (e.g., LastName Committee Letter 2022)

Department Head Annual Review Letters

  • Put annual P&T letters from Department Head in chronological order with clear titles (e.g., LastName DH Letter 2022)
  • Do not include spring annual evaluations

Dean Annual Review Letter(s) If Applicable

  • Put Dean letter from Year 3 (Note that Dean only writes letter in year 3 and year someone goes up)

Additional Documents

  • [most candidate will have no information in this section]


Teaching Documentation

  • Teaching narrative

Additional Documents

  • IDEA teaching evaluations (in order and clearly labeled)
  • Peer teaching evaluations
  • Additional supporting materials as appropriate to case

Research/Creative Activity

Research/Creative Activity Documentation

  • Research narrative

Additional Documents

  • Example publications (when going up, include the 3-4 sent to external reviewers)
  • Grant information (cover page/grant summary)


Extension Documentation

  • Extension narrative

Additional Documents


Service Documentation

  • Service narrative

General Appendix

Appendix Materials Additional Documents

[most candidates will not have materials here; additional materials should be in above appropriate sections]

Decisions to promote faculty members and award tenure are among the most important made by the university because they determine the quality of the faculty for decades to come. USU Policy 405 must be followed to ensure protection of faculty rights and the university during the promotion and tenure process. All candidates, committee members, department heads, and the dean should be familiar with the specifics related to the promotion and tenure processes as outlined in this policy.

Resources provided by the Provost’s office and dates for submission of materials should be reviewed annually: https://www.usu.edu/provost/promotion-and-tenure/. Note that dates referenced below in this document will be adjusted if they fall on a weekend or holiday.

Candidate Responsibilities and Timelines

  • Ahead of all tenure/promotion meetings, develops materials needed for Interfolio/e-dossier (https://interfolio.usu.edu) and uploads these documents at least 2 weeks prior to a tenure/promotion meeting. Materials to be uploaded are as follows:
    • Tenure Track Faculty (must meet with P&T committee every fall semester):
      • Year 1 – CV, role statement, and self-assessment.
      • Interim-year ("Third-year") review and Final-year review - complete set of finalized materials.
      • All other years  – updates to full set of materials.
      • Approaching Final-year review - materials sent to external reviewers must be finalized by mid-summer (candidates should check with their department heads for specific dates) and cannot be changed after distribution to external reviewers.
    • Term Appointment and Promotion only Faculty:
      • First meeting (held Year 1 for term faculty and no later than Year 3 for tenured faculty) – CV, role statement, self-assessment.
      • Other meetings held prior to the calendar year to go up – strongly encourage updates to full set of materials.
      • Spring meeting in the calendar year the candidate is seeking promotion – updated and complete set of all materials.
      • Fall of year promotion is sought – complete set of finalized materials.
        • Materials sent to external reviewers must be finalized by mid-summer (candidates should check with their department heads for specific dates) and cannot be changed after distribution to external reviewers.
  • Coordinates with department head to ensure meetings are scheduled in a timely manner and verifies with department head how and who schedules meeting.
    • Committee meetings must take place enough ahead of letter dates to give the committee time to write/review/revise the letter. Candidates should verify with their department heads how meetings are scheduled (e.g., do candidates schedule meetings, does a department administrative assistant schedule meetings?).
    • An Ombudsperson is required at all tenure/promotion meetings. The Ombudsperson will be assigned by the college and included in the scheduling of the meeting. (See Ombudsperson list on the CEHS website under the Faculty and Staff tab).
  • Coordinates with department head to ensure role statement is signed each year. Candidate then uploads signed role statement.
  • In the year that tenure/promotion materials will be submitted:
    • In early- to mid-Spring – puts together list of possible external reviewers; final list sent to the department head should include names, university affiliations, contact information, links to on-line bios/google scholar pages, statement of candidate’s association with the proposed reviewers, and brief statement about why reviewer would be appropriate.

Committee Chair Responsibilities

  • Checks in with candidate prior to meeting to answer any questions regarding e-dossier/Interfolio and meeting.
  • Checks that all needed materials of candidate are uploaded.
  • Coordinates, as needed, with department head and candidate to ensure meetings are scheduled in a timely manner and seeks clarification from the department head when there are questions about responsibility for scheduling meetings.
  • Directs meeting.
  • Drafts letter, coordinates feedback from committee members, and arranges for letter to be sent for electronic signatures (including to Ombudsperson).
  • Submits signed letter to department head and college e-dossier admin by the required date.
    • For tenure-track faculty:
      • In all years but the Interim-year review (currently referred to as the Third-year review) the committee letter is due to the department head no later than December 1st.
      • In year 3, or alternative year specified in the role statement for completion of the interim review, the committee letter is due to department head no later than October 26th.
    • For Promotion only committees for tenured faculty:
      • A meeting must take place no later than spring of the 3rd year following tenure. (Faculty may request an earlier meeting.) A letter summarizing the meeting must be sent to the department head within 30 days of the meeting.
      • During the spring semester before the fall in which a tenured faculty member wants to be considered for promotion, a Promotion Advisory committee meeting must be held. The committee letter must be to the department head within 30 days of the meeting. 
      • In the semester the faculty member goes forward for promotion, the committee letter is due to the department head no later than December 1st.
    • For term appointment faculty:
      • Promotion Advisory committee is formed during a faculty member’s first fall semester on campus and the committee must meet with the candidate during that semester.
      • The committee meets annually, at the faculty member’s request, until promotion is achieved. It is strongly recommended that faculty meet annually with their committees.
      • The committee must meet during the spring semester of the fall before the faculty member intends to submit materials for promotion consideration.
      • The committee must submit a letter summarizing the meeting and guidance provided within 30 days of any promotion committee meeting held prior to the fall the person goes up for promotion.
      • In the semester the faculty member goes forward for promotion, the committee letter is due to the department head no later than December 1st.

Committee Member Responsibilities

  • Reviews all materials in e-dossier prior to meeting.
  • Actively participates in meetings – asks questions and provides feedback to candidate. Seeks clarifications and verification of candidate contributions and accomplishments when unclear in the dossier materials. Committee members should be intellectually curious regarding the candidate’s accomplishments.
  • At request of the candidate, may provide feedback on e-dossier materials prior to the candidate finalizing and uploading materials.
    • It is important to remember that materials are ultimately the responsibility of the candidate. While committee members can provide feedback, it is candidates who ultimately decide what their materials will look like. Committee members are not responsible for ensuring that candidate’s materials are well-written and well-organized.
  • In the year a candidate is under consideration for promotion, responds to requests from the department head regarding external reviewers and letter sent to external reviewers.

Department Head Responsibilities

  • Work with faculty members to form tenure/promotion committees and submit to dean for approval.
    • Tenure committee is formed during a faculty member’s first semester on campus.
    • For tenured faculty, a Promotion committee must be formed no later than the 3rd year after the faculty member received tenure/promotion. (Faculty may request a committee/meeting earlier.)
    • For term appointment faculty, a Promotion committee is formed during a faculty member’s first fall semester on campus and a meeting must occur that semester.
  • Reviews all materials in e-dossier each year (for untenured faculty) and anytime a review meeting occurs (for promotion only/term appointment faculty).
  • Writes letter evaluating candidate following each committee review meeting and receipt of committee letter. Meets with each candidate to go over content of review letter and progress toward tenure/promotion. Ensures college e-dossier admin receives a copy of the final letter.
    • For tenure-track faculty:
      • In all years but the Interim-year review (currently referred to as the Third-year review) the department head letter is due to the dean no later than December 15th.
      • In year 3, or alternative year specified in the role statement for completion of the interim review, the department letter is due to the dean no later than November 10th.
    • For tenured faculty seeking promotion:
      • During the spring semester before the fall in which a tenured faculty wants to be considered for promotion, a Promotion committee meeting must be held. The committee letter must be to the department head within 30 days of the meeting. The department head must also write a letter within 30 days of the meeting.
      • In the semester the faculty member goes forward for promotion the department head letter is due to the dean no later than December 15th.
    • For term faculty:
      • In the semester the faculty member goes forward for promotion the department head letter is due to the dean no later than December 15th.
      • Note that code does not require the department head to write a letter after the spring meeting but this is highly encouraged.
      • The department head is not required to write a letter after the initial meeting for term faculty or after other committee meetings. However, this is good practice and the department head at minimum should keep the candidate apprised of the department head’s opinion regarding progress toward promotion.
  • In the year a candidate is being considered for promotion:
    • Solicits from candidate list of possible external reviewers (usually completed in Spring).
    • Consults with committee about possible reviewers, solicits recommendations from committee for reviewers and generates ideas for reviewers.
      • Department head and committee decide on list of who will be asked (candidate is not involved in these discussions and is not told of who is asked); at least half of reviewers must come from candidate’s list.
      • Suggest rank-ordered list (that may have branching in ordering to ensure diversity of reviewers) so the department head can just go to next name on list when a “no” or non-response is given.
    • E-mails possible external reviewers to get commitments from 4 reviewers (suggest doing this in late spring/early summer).
    • Consults with committee and candidate regarding letter that will be sent to external reviewers.
      • Final letter must be mutually agreed upon by candidate, committee, and department head.
    • Send materials to external reviews prior to September 15th (encourage sending of materials in August to ensure a timely return).
    • Follows up on external reviews to ensure all are received back in a timely manner.
    • Provides copies of external review letters (and bio/CV of reviewers), letter of instruction sent to external reviewers, and summary of external reviewer solicitations and responses to college e-dossier admin to upload prior to the committee meeting.

Dean Responsibilities

  • In the Interim-year review (currently referred to as the Third-year review) and the Final-year (or a promotion evaluation year for promotion-only candidates) review, examines the materials in e-dossier and completes review letter by the required date.  The Interim- (Third-) year letter is due November 20th; all other letters are due January 11th.

  • Solicited by department head prior to September 15th
    • In practice, do this much earlier (e.g., solicit mid-July; send materials in early September).
  • Need at least 4 external reviewers (rank the same or higher than that for which candidate is being considered).
  • Candidate submits names of potential reviewers to Department Head.
    • Candidate may talk to committee members ahead of time about external reviewers and seek input. Committee members should encourage use of strong external reviewers. It is not in the best interest of candidates to submit names of reviewers who do not meet the general guidelines below.
    • Along with names, candidate should include the following for each reviewer:
      • University affiliation of reviewer
      • Contact information for reviewer
      • Links to reviewers’ university page, google scholar page, etc.
      • Relationship with reviewer
      • A brief explanation of why the reviewer would be appropriate
    • Recommend asking candidate for 10-15 names.
    • Candidate can also submit names of people candidate does not want asked (although code says this is not binding).
    • Code language is that reviewers should be at rank equivalent or higher than sought by candidate. We recommend that reviewers be at the Professor rank whenever possible, or at the rank the candidate seeks when uniquely qualified to serve as an external reviewer. Those of greater experience are generally better equipped to gauge the trajectory of the candidate’s accomplishments from a career perspective.
    • Reviewers should be at comparable universities to USU. For research-emphasis candidates, this will be R1 institutions.
    • Reviewers should be well-respected in their fields.
    • Reviewers should be individuals who will be objective and not have close personal or professional relationships with the candidate.
  • Once names are submitted to DH, DH will reach out to committee to ask for input and suggestions. Committee members should review suggested names, provide input, and provide additional suggestions for reviewers to the DH (who is to produce an independent list from the candidate and may select from that list).
  • Department Head and committee “mutually agree” on who will be asked; at least one half of reviewers must be from candidate’s list.
  • “Pertinent information” in file is sent to reviewers.
    • For research faculty this is generally CV, self-assessment, role statement, and 3-4 pubs.
    • For teaching faculty this is generally CV, self-assessment, role statement, and materials from the teaching section in eDossier.
  • Cover letter drafted by DH, and mutually agreed on by DH, committee, and candidate, is sent with materials to the external reviewers.
  • External reviewers must evaluate primary area of role statement; can be asked to evaluate secondary area if DH, committee, and candidate all agree.
  • Note: external reviewer names or other identifying information should not be shared with candidates and should never be included in committee, department head, or dean letters.