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.
