Template for Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure (APT) Criteria and Procedures for The Ohio State University

Appointments, Promotion, and

Tenure

Criteria and Procedures for

The Ohio State University

College of Dentistry

Approved by the Office of Academic Affairs: August 15, 2022

Revision Approved by the Office of Academic Affairs: February 23, 2023

Table of Contents

I Preamble .................................................................................................................................................... 4

II College Mission ......................................................................................................................................... 4

III Definitions ................................................................................................................................................ 4

A Committee of the Eligible Faculty ...................................................................................................... 4

1 Tenure-track Faculty ...................................................................................................................... 5

2 Clinical Faculty .............................................................................................................................. 5

3 Research Faculty ............................................................................................................................ 5

4 Associated Faculty ......................................................................................................................... 6

5 Conflict of Interest ......................................................................................................................... 7

6 Minimum Composition .................................................................................................................. 7

B Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee ............................................................................. 7

C Quorum ................................................................................................................................................ 7

D Recommendation from the Committee of the Eligible Faculty .......................................................... 7

1 Appointment .................................................................................................................................. 7

2 Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure, Promotion, and Contract Renewal ................................ 8

IV Appointments ........................................................................................................................................... 8

A Criteria ................................................................................................................................................. 8

1 Tenure-track Faculty ...................................................................................................................... 8

2 Clinical Faculty ............................................................................................................................ 10

3 Research Faculty .......................................................................................................................... 10

4 Associated Faculty ....................................................................................................................... 11

5 Emeritus Faculty .......................................................................................................................... 12

6 Courtesy Appointments for Faculty............................................................................................. 12

B Procedures ......................................................................................................................................... 12

1 Tenure-track Faculty ................................................................................................................... 12

2 ClinicalFaculty ............................................................................................................................ 14

3 Research Faculty .......................................................................................................................... 14

4 Transfer from the Tenure Track .................................................................................................. 14

5 Associated Faculty ...................................................................................................................... 15

6 Courtesy Appointments for Faculty............................................................................................. 15

V Annual Performance and Merit Review .................................................................................................. 15

A Documentation .................................................................................................................................. 16

B Probationary Tenure-track Faculty ................................................................................................... 16

1 Fourth-Year Review .................................................................................................................... 17

2 Exclusion of Time from Probationary Period .............................................................................. 17

C Tenured Faculty ................................................................................................................................ 17

D Clinical Faculty ................................................................................................................................. 18

E Research Faculty ........................................................................................................................... 1919

F Associated Faculty ............................................................................................................................ 19

G Salary Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 19

VI Promotion and Tenure and Promotion Reviews ..................................................................................... 20

A Criteria and Documentation that Support Promotion ........................................................................ 20

1 Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure ........................................................................... 21

2 Promotion to Professor ................................................................................................................ 22

3 Clinical Faculty ............................................................................................................................ 25

4 Research Faculty .......................................................................................................................... 25

5 Associated Faculty ....................................................................................................................... 26

B Procedures ......................................................................................................................................... 27

1 Tenure-Track, Clinical, and Research Faculty ........................................................................... 27

a Candidate Responsibilities .................................................................................................... 27

b Division Chair Responsibilities............................................................................................. 32

c College of Dentistry Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee Responsibilities .. 29

d College Eligible Faculty Responsibilities ............................................................................. 31

e Dean’s Responsibilities ......................................................................................................... 32

2 Procedures for Associated Faculty .............................................................................................. 33

3 External Evaluations .................................................................................................................... 33

VII Appeals .................................................................................................................................................. 34

VIII Seventh-Year Reviews ......................................................................................................................... 34

IX Procedures for Student and Peer Evaluation of Teaching ...................................................................... 34

A Student Evaluation of Teaching ........................................................................................................ 35

B Peer Evaluation of Teaching.............................................................................................................. 35

I Preamble

This document is a supplement to Chapters 6 and 7 of the Rules of the University Faculty; the annually

updated procedural guidelines for promotion and tenure reviews in Volume 3 of the Office of Academic

Affairs Policies and Procedures Handbook; and other policies and procedures of the college and

University to which the college and its faculty are subject.

Should those rules and policies change, the college will follow the new rules and policies until such time

as it can update this document to reflect the changes. In addition, this document must be reviewed, and

either reaffirmed or revised, at least every five years on the appointment or reappointment of the dean.

This document must be approved by the OSU Office of Academic Affairs before it may be implemented.

It sets forth the college’s mission and, in the context of that mission and the mission of the University, its

criteria and procedures for faculty appointments and for faculty promotion, tenure and rewards, including

salary increases. In approving this document, the OSU Office of Academic Affairs accepts the mission

and criteria of the college and delegate to it the responsibility to apply high standards in evaluating

current faculty and faculty candidates in relation to college mission and criteria.

The faculty and the administration are bound by the principles articulated in Faculty Rule 3335-6-01 of

the Administrative Code. In particular, all faculty members accept the responsibility to participate fully

and knowledgeably in review processes; to exercise the standards established in Faculty Rule 3335-6-02

and other standards specific to this college; and to make negative recommendations when these are

warranted in order to maintain and improve the quality of the faculty.

Decisions considering appointment, reappointment, and promotion and tenure will be free of

discrimination in accordance with the University’s policy on affirmative action and equal employment

opportunity.

II College Mission

The College of Dentistry is dedicated to addressing the evolving health care needs of communities in

Ohio, the nation, and the world by:

• Providing comprehensive oral and craniofacial health care in an inter-professional health science

community

• Educating health care professionals and scientists in a collaborative and diverse academic

environment

• Creating, discovering, and sharing knowledge

• Preparing socially responsible and engaged citizens

• Promoting a culture of excellence, respect, and inclusiveness

III Definitions

A Committee of the Eligible Faculty

The eligible faculty for all appointment (hiring), reappointment, contract renewal, promotion, or

promotion and tenure reviews must have their tenure home or primary appointment in the tenure

initiating unit (TIU). The Ohio State University College of Dentistry is the tenure initiating unit

referenced in this document and will be referred to as OSUCOD or the college throughout.

The dean and assistant and associate deans of the college, the executive vice president and provost,

and the president may not participate as eligible faculty members in reviews for appointment,

reappointment, promotion, promotion and tenure, or contract renewal.

1 Tenure-track Faculty

Initial Appointment Reviews

• For an appointment (hiring or appointment change from another faculty type) review at senior

rank (associate professor or professor), the eligible faculty consists of all tenure-track faculty

in the college.

• A vote on the appropriateness of the proposed rank must be cast by all tenured faculty of

equal or higher rank than the position requested.

Reappointment, Promotion, or Promotion and Tenure Reviews

• For the reappointment and promotion and tenure reviews of assistant professors, the eligible

faculty consists of all tenured associate professors and professors.

• For the promotion reviews of associate professors, the eligible faculty consists of all tenured

professors.

2 Clinical Faculty

Initial Appointment Reviews

• For an appointment (hiring or appointment change from another faculty type) review at senior

rank (associate clinical professor, clinical professor), the eligible faculty consists of all

tenure-track and all clinical faculty in the college.

• A vote on the appropriateness of the proposed rank must be cast by all tenured faculty of

equal or higher rank than the position requested, and all nonprobationary clinical faculty of

equal or higher rank than the position requested (a faculty member is no longer probationary

once they have been reappointed following the initial probationary appointment term).

Reappointment, Contract Renewal, and Promotion Reviews

• For the promotion reviews of assistant clinical professors, the eligible faculty consists of all

tenured associate professors and professors, all nonprobationary associate clinical professors,

and all nonprobationary clinical professors.

• For the promotion reviews of associate professors and the reappointment and contract

renewal reviews of clinical professors, the eligible faculty consists of all tenured professors

and all nonprobationary clinical professors.

3 Research Faculty

Initial Appointment Reviews

• For an appointment (hiring or appointment change from another faculty type) review at senior

rank (research associate professor or research professor), the eligible faculty consists of all

tenure-track and all research faculty in the college.

• A vote on the appropriateness of the proposed rank must be cast by all tenured faculty of

equal or higher rank than the position requested and all nonprobationary research faculty of

equal or higher rank than the position requested.

Reappointment, Contract Renewal, and Promotion Reviews

• For the reappointment, contract renewal, and promotion reviews of research assistant

professors, the eligible faculty consists of all tenured associate professors and professors and

all nonprobationary research associate professors and professors.

• For the reappointment, contract renewal, and promotion reviews of research associate

professors and the reappointment and contract renewal reviews of research professors, the

eligible faculty consists of all tenured professors and all nonprobationary research professors.

4 Associated Faculty

Initial Appointment, Reappointment, and Contract Renewal

• Initial appointment (hiring or appointment change from another faculty type), reappointment,

and contract renewal of associated faculty members are decided by the division chair in

consultation with the dean.

Initial appointments at senior rank require a vote by the eligible faculty (all non-probationary

clinical faculty and tenured faculty of equal or higher rank than the position requested) and

prior approval of the OSU Office of Academic Affairs.

Promotion Reviews

• Associated faculty are eligible for promotion but not tenure if they have adjunct titles, tenure-

track titles with service at 49% FTE or below, clinical titles, and lecturer titles.

For the promotion reviews of associated faculty with adjunct titles, the eligible faculty shall

be the same as for tenure-track, clinical, or research faculty, as appropriate to the

appointment, as described in Sections III.A.1, 2 or 3 above.

For the promotion reviews of associated faculty with tenure-track titles, the eligible faculty

shall be the same as for tenure-track faculty as described in Section III.A.1 above.

For the promotion reviews of associated clinical faculty, the eligible faculty shall be the same

as for clinical faculty as described in Section IIII.A.2 above.

The promotion of a lecturer to senior lecturer is decided by the division chair in consultation

with the dean.

5 Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when an eligible faculty member is related to a candidate or has a

comparable close interpersonal relationship, has substantive financial ties with the candidate, is

dependent in some way on the candidate's services or success for his/her/their own success, has a

close professional relationship with the candidate (dissertation advisor), or has collaborated so

extensively with the candidate that an objective review of the candidate's work is not possible.

Generally, faculty members who have collaborated with a candidate on at least 50% of the

candidate's published work since the last promotion will be expected to withdraw from a

promotion or reappointment review of that candidate.

6 Minimum Composition

In the event that a college does not have at least three eligible faculty members who can

undertake a review, the dean, after consulting with OSU Office of Academic Affairs, will appoint

a faculty member from another unit within the university.

B Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee

The college has an Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee that reviews the appointment,

promotion, tenure and reappointment or renewal of college faculty and provides an evaluative written

assessment to the dean. The committee’s assessment is advisory to the dean. The college committee

provides a vote regarding promotion and/or tenure and consensus that all earlier review processes met

written university and college’s procedures. A quorum of five committee members is required to

discuss business and vote. The committee’s membership is described in the college Pattern of

Administration.

C Quorum

The quorum required for the college to discuss and vote on all personnel decisions is two thirds of the

eligible faculty. The eligible faculty includes those not on an approved leave of absence. Faculty on

approved leave are not considered for quorum unless they declare, in advance and in writing, their

intent to participate in all proceedings for which they are eligible during the leave. A member of the

eligible faculty on Special Assignment may be excluded from the count for the purposes of

determining quorum only if the dean has approved an off-campus assignment. Faculty members who

withdraw or recuse themselves because of a conflict of interest are not counted when determining

quorum.

D Recommendation from the Committee of the Eligible Faculty

In all votes taken on personnel matters only “yes” and “no” votes are counted. Abstentions are not

votes. Faculty members are strongly encouraged to consider whether they are participating fully in the

review process when abstaining from a vote on a personnel matter.

Absentee ballots and proxy votes are not permitted, but participating fully in discussions and voting

via remote two-way electronic connection are allowed.

1 Appointment

A positive recommendation from the eligible faculty for appointment at senior rank is secured

when two-thirds of the votes cast are positive.

• In the case of joint appointments, the college must seek input from the joint-appointment

college prior to the appointment of that candidate.

2 Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure, Promotion, and Contract Renewal

A positive recommendation from the eligible faculty for reappointment, promotion and tenure,

promotion, and contract renewal is secured when a simple majority of the votes cast is positive.

• In the case of joint appointments, the college must seek input from the joint-appointment

college prior to the reappointment, promotion and/or tenure, or contract renewal of that

candidate.

IV Appointments

A Criteria

The college is committed to making only faculty appointments that enhance or have strong potential

to enhance the quality of the faculty. Important considerations include an individual's record to date in

teaching, scholarship and service; the potential for professional growth in each of these areas; and the

potential for interacting with colleagues and students in a way that will enhance their academic work

and attract other outstanding faculty and students to the college. No offer will be extended in the

event that the search process does not yield one or more candidates who would enhance faculty

quality. The search is either cancelled or continued, as appropriate to the circumstances.

For appointments that have teaching responsibilities, the candidate will be expected to demonstrate

potential to meet the following criteria that will be used for evaluation of teaching effectiveness:

•

content expert

•

ability to organize and present subject matter with clarity, logic, and enthusiasm.

•

capacity to interact effectively with trainees in order to motivate and inspire them.

1 Tenure-track Faculty

The College of Dentistry has two types of tenure-track faculty:

• Faculty with a research emphasis that typically have a PhD degree but may not have a

DDS or equivalent degree. They are not typically involved in the clinical teaching of

students but may be involved with preclinical and didactic instruction.

• Dental faculty with both clinical and research emphasis. These dentist faculty have a

DDS or equivalent degree and may also have the PhD degree. The dental hygiene faculty

have MS degrees and may also have the PhD degree. The responsibilities of this category

of faculty include the clinical teaching of students, and these faculty may participate in

the college Dental Faculty Practice. Board certification is a positive factor for faculty

appointment in clinical areas where such certification is available.

The appointment criteria and the promotion criteria (see sections VI.A.1 and VI.A.2) vary for

these two types of faculty and their areas of expertise. Scholarship is required for all tenure-track

faculty members.

Instructor. Appointment at the rank of instructor is made only when the offered appointment is

that of assistant professor, but requirements for the terminal degree have not been completed by

the candidate at the time of appointment. Procedures for appointment are identical to that of

assistant professor. A college will make every effort to avoid such appointments. An

appointment at the instructor level is limited to three years. Promotion to assistant professor

occurs without review the semester following completion of the required credentialing. When an

instructor has not completed requirements for promotion to the rank of assistant professor by the

end of the third year of appointment, the third year is a terminal year of employment.

Upon promotion to assistant professor, the faculty member may request prior service credit for

time spent as an instructor. This request must be approved by the college’s eligible faculty, the

dean, and the OSU Office of Academic Affairs. Faculty members should carefully consider

whether prior service credit is appropriate since prior service credit cannot be revoked once

granted except through an approved request to exclude time from the probationary period. In

addition all probationary faculty members have the option to be considered for early promotion.

Assistant Professor. An earned terminal degree (DDS, DMD or the equivalent; PhD, MD, EdD,

or MS for dental hygiene) is the minimum requirement for appointment at the rank of assistant

professor. Evidence of potential for scholarly productivity, high-quality teaching, and high-

quality service to the college and the profession is highly desirable. Appointment at the rank of

assistant professor is always probationary, with mandatory tenure review occurring in the sixth

year of service. All faculty starting within the same calendar year are in the same cohort for

promotion and tenure reviews. Review for tenure prior to the mandatory review year is possible

when the college’s Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee determines such a review to

be appropriate. A non-tenured faculty member may be denied a non-mandatory promotion and

tenure review each year up to the year of the mandatory review. There will be no penalty for an

unsuccessful review. The granting of prior service credit, which requires approval of the OSU

Office of Academic Affairs, may reduce the length of the probationary period, but is strongly

discouraged as it cannot be revoked once granted except through an approved request to exclude

time from the probationary period.

Associate Professor and Professor. Appointment offers at the rank of Associate Professor or

Professor and offers of prior service credit require prior approval of the OSU Office of Academic

Affairs.

Appointment at the rank of associate professor normally entails tenure. A probationary

appointment at the rank of associate professor is appropriate only under unusual circumstances,

such as when the candidate has limited prior teaching experience or has taught only in a foreign

country. A probationary period of up to four years is possible, on approval of the OSU Office of

Academic Affairs, with review for tenure occurring in the final year of the probationary

appointment. If tenure is not granted, an additional (terminal) year of employment is offered.

Appointments at the rank of professor without tenure should not occur.

Offers to foreign nationals require prior consultation with the Office of International Affairs.

2 Clinical Faculty

Except for those appointed at the rank of instructor, for whom a contract is limited to three years,

the initial contract for all other clinical faculty members must be for a period of five years. The

initial contract is probationary, with reappointment considered annually. Second and subsequent

contracts for assistant and associate clinical professors must be for a period of at least three years

and for no more than five years. Second and subsequent contracts for clinical professors must be

for a period of at least three years and no more than eight years. Tenure is not granted to clinical

faculty. There is also no presumption that subsequent contracts will be offered, regardless of

performance. If the college wishes to consider contract renewal, a reappointment review of the

faculty member is required in the penultimate year of the current contract period according to

procedures set forth in the Faculty Annual Review and Reappointment Policy, III, A-G.

Clinical Instructor. Appointment is normally made at the rank of clinical instructor when the

appointee has not completed the requirements for the terminal degree. The college will make

every effort to avoid such appointments. As noted above, an appointment at the instructor level is

limited to a three-year contract. In such cases, if the instructor has not completed requirements for

promotion to the rank of assistant professor by the end of the penultimate year of the three-year

contract period, a new contract will not be considered even if performance is otherwise adequate

and the position itself will continue.

Assistant Clinical Professor. An earned doctorate (DDS, DMD, or the equivalent; PhD, MD,

EdD; or MS or the equivalent for dental hygiene) and the required licensure/certification in

his/her/their specialty (if applicable) are the minimum requirements for appointment at the rank

of assistant professor. Evidence of ability to teach is highly desirable. In clinical areas where

appropriate, board certification is a positive factor.

Associate Clinical Professor, Clinical Professor. Appointment at the rank of associate clinical

or clinical professor requires that the individual have an earned doctorate (or appropriate

terminal degree) (DDS, DMD, or the equivalent; PhD, MD, EdD; or MS or the equivalent for

dental hygiene) and the required licensure/certification in his/her/their specialty (if applicable),

and meet, at a minimum, the colleges’s criteria—in teaching, professional practice and other

service, and scholarship—for promotion to these ranks. In clinical areas where appropriate, board

certification is a positive factor.

3 Research Faculty

Appointment of research faculty entails one- to five-year appointments. The initial appointment is

probationary, with reappointment considered annually. Tenure is not granted to research faculty.

There is also no presumption that subsequent appointments will be offered, regardless of

performance.

External appointees at the research associate professor or research professor level will

demonstrate the same accomplishments in research and service as persons promoted within the

college.

Research Assistant Professor. Appointment at the rank of research assistant professor requires

that the individual have a doctorate and a record of high-quality publications that strongly

indicate the ability to to support an externally funded research program of a principal investigator

(PI).

Research Associate Professor and Research Professor. Appointment at the rank of research

associate professor or research professor requires that the individual have a doctorate and meet, at

a minimum, the colleges’s criteria for promotion to these ranks.

4 Associated Faculty

Associated faculty appointments may be as short as a few weeks to assist with a focused project,

a semester to teach one or more courses, or for up to three years when a longer contract is useful

for long-term planning and retention. Associated faculty may be reappointed.

Adjunct Assistant Professor, Adjunct Associate Professor, Adjunct Professor. Adjunct

appointments may be compensated or uncompensated. Adjunct faculty appointments are given to

individuals who give academic service to the college, such as teaching a course or serving on

graduate student committees, for which a faculty title is appropriate. The adjunct faculty rank is

determined by applying the criteria for appointment of tenure-track, clinical, or research faculty,

as appropriate to the appointment. Adjunct faculty members are eligible for promotion (but not

tenure) and the relevant criteria are those for promotion of tenure-track, clinical, or research

faculty, as appropriate to the appointment.

Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor with FTE below 50%. Appointment at

tenure-track titles is for individuals at 49% FTE or below, either compensated (1 – 49% FTE) or

uncompensated (0% FTE). The rank of associated faculty with tenure-track titles is determined by

applying the criteria for appointment of tenure-track faculty. Associated faculty members with

tenure-track titles are eligible for promotion (but not tenure) and the relevant criteria are those for

promotion of tenure-track faculty.

Clinical Instructor of Practice, Clinical Assistant Professor of Practice, Clinical Associate

Professor of Practice, Clinical Professor of Practice. Associated clinical appointments may

either be compensated or uncompensated. Uncompensated appointments are given to individuals

who volunteer uncompensated academic service to a college, for which a faculty title is

appropriate. Associated clinical practice rank is determined by applying the criteria for

appointment of clinical faculty. Associated clinical practice faculty members are eligible for

promotion (but not tenure) and the relevant criteria are those for promotion of clinical faculty.

Lecturer. Appointment as lecturer requires that the individual have, at a minimum, a Master’s

degree in a field appropriate to the subject matter to be taught. Evidence of ability to provide

high-quality instruction is desirable. Lecturers are not eligible for tenure, but may be promoted to

senior lecturer if they meet the criteria for appointment at that rank. The initial appointment for a

lecturer should generally not exceed one year.

Senior Lecturer. Appointment as senior lecturer requires that the individual have, at a minimum,

a doctorate in a field appropriate to the subject matter to be taught, along with evidence of ability

to provide high-quality instruction; or a Master’s degree and at least five years of teaching

experience with documentation of high quality. Senior lecturers are not eligible for tenure or

promotion. The initial appointment for a senior lecturer should generally not exceed one year.

Visiting Instructor, Visiting Assistant Professor, Visiting Associate Professor, Visiting

Professor. Visiting faculty appointments may either be compensated or uncompensated. Visiting

faculty members on leave from an academic appointment at another institution are appointed at

the rank held in that position. The rank at which other (non-faculty) individuals are appointed is

determined by applying the criteria for appointment of tenure-track faculty. Visiting faculty

members are not eligible for tenure or promotion. Visiting faculty appointments may be renewed

annually for only three consecutive years.

5 Emeritus Faculty

Emeritus faculty status is an honor given in recognition of sustained academic contributions to

the university as described in Faculty Rule 3335-5-36. Full-time tenure track, clinical, research,

or associated faculty may request emeritus status upon retirement or resignation at the age of

sixty or older with ten or more years of service or at any age with twenty-five or more years of

service.

Faculty will send a request for emeritus faculty status to the college head outlining academic

performance and citizenship. The Committee of Eligible faculty (tenured associate professors

and professors, nonprobationary associate clinical professors, and nonprobationary clinical

professors) will review the application and make a recommendation to the dean. The dean will

decide upon the request, and if appropriate submit it to OSU OAA, who will forward a

recommendation to the executive vice president and provost. If the faculty member requesting

emeritus status has in the 10 years prior to the application engaged in serious dishonorable

conduct in violation of law, rule, or policy and/or caused harm to the university’s reputation or

is retiring pending a procedure according to Faculty Rule 3335-05-04, emeritus status will not

be considered.

See the OAA Policies and Procedures Handbook Volume 1, Chapter 1, for information about

the types of perquisites that may be offered to emeritus faculty, provided resources are available.

Emeritus faculty may not vote at any level of governance and may not participate in promotion

and tenure matters.

6 Courtesy Appointments for Faculty

Occasionally the college finds that the active academic involvement by a tenure-track, clinical, or

research faculty member from another unit at Ohio State warrants the offer of a 0% FTE

(courtesy) appointment. Appropriate active involvement includes research collaboration, graduate

student advising, teaching some or all of a course from time to time, or a combination of these. A

courtesy appointment is made at the individual’s current Ohio State rank, with promotion in rank

recognized.

B Procedures

See the Policy on Faculty Recruitment and Selection and the Policy on Faculty Appointments for

information on the following topics:

• recruitment of tenure-track, clinical, research, and associated faculty

• appointments at senior rank or with prior service credit

• hiring faculty from other institutions after April 30

• appointment of foreign nationals

• letters of offer

1 Tenure-track Faculty

A national search is required to ensure a diverse pool of highly qualified candidates for all tenure-

track positions. Colleges must seek exceptions to this policy from the college and the Office of

Academic Affairs in advance. Search procedures must entail substantial faculty involvement and

be consistent with the OSU OAA Policy on Faculty Recruitment and Selection.

Within all divisions of the college, searches for tenure-track faculty proceed as follows:

The dean provides approval for a division to commence a search process. This approval may or

may not be accompanied by constraints with regard to salary, rank, and field of expertise.

The dean appoints a search committee consisting of three or more faculty who reflect the field of

expertise that is the focus of the search (if relevant) as well as other fields within the unit.

Prior to any search, members of all search committees must undergo inclusive hiring practices

training available through the college with resources from the Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

Implicit bias training, such as that available through the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race

and Ethnicity, is also required of all search committee members prior to any search.

The search committee:

• Appoints a Diversity Advocate who is responsible for providing leadership in assuring that

vigorous efforts are made to achieve a diverse pool of qualified applicants.

• Develops a search announcement for internal posting in the University Job Postings through

the Office of Human Resources and external advertising, subject to the dean’s approval. The

announcement will be no more specific than is necessary to accomplish the goals of the

search, since an offer cannot be made that is contrary to the content of the announcement with

respect to rank, field, credentials, salary. In addition, timing for the receipt of applications

will be stated as a preferred date, not a precise closing date, in order to allow consideration of

any applications that arrive before the conclusion of the search.

• Develops and implements a plan for external advertising and direct solicitation of

nominations and applications.

• Screens applications and letters of recommendation and presents to the dean a summary of

those applicants (usually three to five) judged worthy of interview. If the dean agrees with

this judgment, virtual or on-campus interviews are arranged by the search committee chair,

assisted by the dean’s office. If the dean does not agree, the division chair in consultation

with the faculty determines the appropriate next steps (solicit new applications, review other

applications already received, cancel the search for the time being).

Virtual or on-campus interviews with candidates must include opportunities for interaction

with faculty groups, including the search committee; students; the division chair; and the

dean or designee. In addition, all candidates make a presentation to the faculty and students

on their scholarship or area of expertise which may be administrative in nature. The latter

could be an actual class or a mock instructional situation. All candidates interviewing for a

particular position must follow the same interview format, and relevant accommodations for

disability/impairment should be provided.

Following completion of virtual/on-campus interviews, the search committee meets to discuss

perceptions and preferences, and to vote on each candidate. The search committee reports a

recommendation on each candidate to the dean.

If the offer involves senior rank, the eligible faculty members must vote on the

appropriateness of the proposed rank. If the offer may involve prior service credit, the eligible

faculty members vote on the appropriateness of such credit. The eligible faculty reports a

recommendation on the appropriateness of the proposed rank or the appropriateness of prior

service credit to the dean. Appointment offers at the rank of associate professor or professor,

with or without tenure, and/or offers of prior service credit require prior approval of the

Office of Academic Affairs.

In the event that more than one candidate achieves the level of support required to extend an

offer, the dean decides which candidate to approach first. The details of the offer, including

compensation, are determined by the dean.

The college will discuss potential appointment of a candidate requiring sponsorship

for permanent residence or nonimmigrant work-authorized status with the Office of

International Affairs. An MOU must be signed by faculty eligible for tenured positions who

are not U.S. citizens or nationals, permanent residents, asylees, or refugees.

2 Clinical Faculty

Searches for clinical faculty generally proceed identically as for tenure-track faculty, with the

exception that the candidate’s presentation during the virtual or on-campus interview is on

clinical practice rather than scholarship, and exceptions to a national search require approval only

by the dean.

3 Research Faculty

Searches for research faculty generally proceed identically as for tenure-track faculty, with the

exception that during the on-campus interview the candidate is asked to make a research

presentation and exceptions to a national search require approval only by the dean.

4 Transfer from the Tenure Track

Tenure-track faculty may transfer to a clinical or research appointment if appropriate

circumstances exist. Tenure or tenure eligibility is lost upon transfer, and transfers must be

approved by the division chair, the dean, and the executive vice president and provost.

The request for transfer must be initiated by the faculty member in writing and must state clearly

how the individual’s career goals and activities have changed. Publications and activities accrued

on the tenure track may count towards promotion on the clinical faculty unless the work is

categorically different.

Transfers from a clinical appointment and from a research appointment to the tenure-track are not

permitted. Clinical faculty members and research faculty members may apply for tenure-track

positions and compete in regular national searches for such positions.

5 Associated Faculty

The appointment, reappointment, and contract renewal of all compensated associated faculty are

decided by the division chair in consultation with dean.

Compensated associated appointments are generally made for a period of one to three years,

unless a shorter or longer period is appropriate to the circumstances.

Appointment and reappointment of uncompensated adjunct or visiting faculty may be proposed

by any faculty member in the unit and are decided by the division chair in consultation with the

dean.

Visiting appointments may be made for one term of up to three years or on an annual basis for up

to three years.

Lecturer and senior lecturer appointments are made on an annual basis and rarely semester by

semester. After the initial appointment, and if a college’s curricular needs warrant it, a multiple

year appointment may be offered.

All associated appointments expire at the end of the appointment term and must be formally

renewed to be continued.

6 Courtesy Appointments for Faculty

Any faculty member within a college may propose a 0% FTE (courtesy) appointment for a

tenure-track, clinical, or research faculty member from another Ohio State unit. A proposal

describing the uncompensated academic service that justifies the appointment is considered at a

division faculty meeting. If the proposal is approved by simple majority of division faculty and

division chair, the recommendation is then forwarded to the dean for consideration. The division

head reviews all courtesy appointments every three years to determine whether they continue to

be justified, and takes recommendations for nonrenewal before the faculty for a vote at a regular

meeting.

V Annual Performance and Merit Review

The annual performance and merit review of a faculty member is the responsibility of that faculty

member’s division chair and dean.

The purposes of the review are to:

• Assist faculty in improving professional productivity through candid and constructive feedback

and through the establishment of professional development plans;

• Establish the goals against which a faculty member’s performance will be assessed in the

foreseeable future; and

• Document faculty performance in the achievement of stated goals in order to determine salary

increases and other resource allocations, progress toward promotion, and, in the event of poor

performance, the need for remedial steps.

• Depending on their appointment type, the review is based on expected performance in teaching,

scholarship, and service as set forth in the colleges’s guidelines on faculty duties and

responsibilities; on any additional assignments and goals specific to the individual; and on

progress toward promotion where relevant.

• Meritorious performance in teaching, scholarship, and service is assessed in accordance with the

same criteria that form the basis for promotion decisions.

• Annual performance and merit reviews must include a scheduled opportunity for a face-to-face

meeting as well as a written assessment.

• Per Faculty Rule 3335-3-35, division chairs are required to include a reminder in annual review

letters that all faculty have the right (per Faculty Rule 3335-5-04) to view their primary personnel

file and to provide written comment on any material therein for inclusion in the file.

All divisions within the college must follow the requirements for annual performance and merit reviews

as set forth in the Policy on Faculty Annual Review and Reappointment. It is the expectation of the

college that annual performance and merit reviews will also be consistent with the colleges’s APT

document and other relevant policies, procedures, practices, and standards established by: (1) the college,

(2) the Faculty Rules, (3) the Office of Academic Affairs, and (4) the Office of Human Resources.

The dean must assess an annual performance and merit review when a division chair has submitted (1) a

Report of Non-Renewal of Probationary Appointment of Faculty; (2) the fourth-year review of a

probationary faculty member; or (3) a Report of Contract Renewal or Non-Renewal for clinical faculty or

research faculty. The dean conducts an independent assessment of performance and prepares a written

evaluation that includes a recommendation on whether to renew the probationary appointment. The dean

then forwards the case to the OSU OAA, which makes the final decision on renewal or nonrenewal of the

probationary appointment.

A. Documentation

For their annual performance and merit review, the college requires faculty members to submit the

following documents to their division chair no later than April 30:

• Office of Academic Affairs dossier outline, Policies and Procedures Handbook, Volume 3

(required for probationary faculty) or updated documentation of performance and

accomplishments (non-probationary faculty)

• updated CV, which will be made available to all faculty in an accessible place (all faculty)

Other documentation for the annual performance and merit review will be the same as that for

consideration for promotion and/or tenure (see Section VI).

Under no circumstances should faculty solicit evaluations from any party for purposes of the annual

performance and merit review, as such solicitation places its recipient in an awkward position and

produces a result that is unlikely to be candid.

B Probationary Tenure-track Faculty

Every probationary tenure-track faculty member is reviewed annually by the division chair, who

meets with the faculty member to discuss performance, future plans, and goals; and prepares a written

evaluation that includes a recommendation on whether to renew the probationary appointment.

If the division chair recommends renewal of the appointment, this recommendation is final. The

division chair’s annual review letter to the faculty member renews the probationary appointment for

another year and includes content on future plans and goals. The faculty member may provide written

comments on the review. The division chair’s letter (along with the faculty member’s comments, if

received) is forwarded to the dean. In addition, the annual review letter becomes part of the

cumulative dossier for promotion and tenure (along with the faculty member’s comments, if

provided).

If the division chair recommends nonrenewal, the Fourth-Year Review process (per Faculty Rule

3335-6-03) is invoked. Following completion of the comments process, the complete dossier is

forwarded to the dean for review. The dean conducts an independent assessment of performance and

prepares a written evaluation that includes a recommendation on whether to renew the probationary

appointment. The dean then forwards the case to the OSU OAA, which makes the final decision on

renewal or nonrenewal of the probationary appointment.

1 Fourth-Year Review

During the fourth year of the probationary period the annual review follows the same procedures

as the mandatory tenure review, with the exception that external evaluations are optional and

OSU OAA makes the final decision regarding renewal or nonrenewal of the probationary

appointment.

Internal and external evaluations are solicited only when either the division chair, in consultation

with the chair of the Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee determine that they are

necessary to conduct the Fourth-Year Review. This may occur when the candidate’s scholarship

is in an emergent field, is interdisciplinary, or the eligible faculty do not feel otherwise capable of

evaluating the scholarship without outside input.

The Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee will review the dossier for completeness

and consistency. The eligible faculty conducts a review of the candidate. On completion of the

review, the eligible faculty votes by written ballot on whether to renew the probationary

appointment.

The eligible faculty forwards a record of the vote and a written performance review to the dean,

who conducts an independent assessment of performance and prepares a written evaluation that

includes a recommendation on whether to renew the probationary appointment. At the conclusion

of the college review, the formal comments process (per Faculty Rule 3335-6-04) is followed and

the case is forwarded to OSU Office of Academic Affairs for review, regardless of whether the

dean head recommends renewal or nonrenewal.

2 Exclusion of Time from Probationary Period

Faculty Rule 3335-6-03 (D) sets forth the conditions under which a probationary tenure-track

faculty member may exclude time from the probationary period. Additional procedures and

guidelines can be found in the Office of Academic Affairs Policies and Procedures Handbook.

C Tenured Faculty

Associate professors are reviewed annually by the division chair. In a large division, the division

chair may designate the responsibility for the annual review of associate professors to a vice chair.

Accountability for the annual review process resides with the division chair. The division chair or

designee conducts an independent assessment; meets with the faculty member to discuss his/her/their

performance and future plans and goals; and prepares a written evaluation on these topics. The faculty

member may provide written comments on the review.

Professors are reviewed annually by the division chair, or designee in a large division, who meets

with the faculty member to discuss his/her/their performance and future plans and goals. The annual

review of professors is based on their having achieved sustained excellence and ongoing outcomes in

the discovery and dissemination of new knowledge relevant to the mission of the tenure initiating

unit, as demonstrated by ongoing national and international recognition of their scholarship; ongoing

excellence in teaching, including their leadership in graduate education in both teaching and

mentoring students; and ongoing outstanding service to the college, the university, and their

profession, including their support for the professional development of assistant and associate

professors. Professors are expected to be role models in their academic work, interaction with

colleagues and students, and in the recruitment and retention of junior colleagues. As the highest

ranking members of the faculty, the expectations for academic leadership and mentoring for

professors exceed those for all other members of the faculty.

If a professor has an administrative role, the impact of that role and other assignments will be

considered in the annual review. The division chair or designee prepares a written evaluation of

performance against these expectations. The faculty member may provide written comments on the

review.

D Clinical Faculty

The annual performance and merit review process for clinical probationary and nonprobationary

faculty is identical to that for tenure-track probationary and tenured faculty respectively, except that

non-probationary clinical faculty may participate in the review of clinical faculty of lower rank.

In the penultimate contract year of a clinical faculty member’s appointment, the division chair, in

consultation with the dean, must determine whether the position held by the faculty member will

continue. If the position will not continue, the faculty member is informed that the final contract year

will be a terminal year of employment. The standards of notice set forth in Faculty Rule 3335-6-08

must be observed.

Reappointment in the College of Dentistry follow procedures set forth in the Faculty Annual Review

and Reappointment Policy, III, A-G. For a clinical faculty member applying for initial

reappointment, the division chair assigns the Peer Review of Teaching Committee to evaluate

effective skills as a teacher,through student evaluation of teaching, reports from Peer Review of

Teaching Committee, and outcomes (see Section IX).

In addition the division chair will then prepare and submit a letter assessing teaching, service, and

scholarship (if applicable). This letter becomes part of the official dossier. For the first reappointment

without promotion, the dossier is reviewed by all eligible faculty in the college at the same or higher

rank as the candidate. The timeline and responsibilities are the same as promotion and tenure reviews

(see Section VI B1).

For cases where the clinical faculty member is seeking subsequent reappointment without promotion,

the dossier is only reviewed at the division level by the process described in the preceding section and

presented directly to the dean for reappointment consideration. A clinical faculty member applying

for a subsequent reappointment without promotion may submit a complete core dossier with

attachments and letters or, alternatively, a reappointment document containing a CV, personal

statement, peer evaluations of teaching, student evaluations of teaching, and information about course

administration, lecturing, seminar, clinical and/or laboratory teaching.

There is no presumption of renewal of contract.

E Research Faculty

The annual performance and merit review process for research probationary and nonprobationary

faculty is identical to that for tenure-track probationary and tenured faculty, respectively, except that

non-probationary research faculty may participate in the review of research faculty of lower rank.

In the penultimate contract year of a research faculty member’s appointment, the division chair, in

consultation with the dean, must determine whether the position held by the faculty member will

continue. If it will not continue, the faculty member is informed that the final contract year will be a

terminal year of employment. The standards of notice set forth in Faculty Rule 3335-6-08 must be

observed.

In accordance with procedures set forth in the Faculty Annual Review and Reappointment Policy, III,

A-G, the initial decision about reappointment for a research faculty member is first made by the

division chair, in consultation with the Principal Investigator if they are providing salary support for

the research faculty member. Performance during the entire period since the initial appointment is

evaluated. The division chair writes a letter with the recommendation which is forwarded to the dean,

who makes the final decision about reappointment. The timeline and responsibilities are the same as

promotion and tenure reviews (see Section VI B 1).

There is no presumption of renewal of contract.

F Associated Faculty

Compensated associated faculty members in their initial appointment must be reviewed before

reappointment. The division chair, or designee, prepares a written evaluation and meets with the

faculty member to discuss his/her/their performance, future plans, and goals.

The division chair’s decision, after consultation with the dean, on renewal of the initial appointment is

final. If the decision is to renew, the division chair may extend a multiple year appointment.

Compensated associated faculty members on a multiple year appointment (or hired annually for

multiple years) are reviewed annually by the division chair or designee. The division chair or

designee prepares a written evaluation and meets with the faculty member to discuss his/her/their

performance, future plans, and goals. Unless the division chair decides to reappoint an associated

faculty, the date on the existing faculty offer will serve as the final date of appointment. The division

chair’s decision, in consultation with the dean, on reappointment is final.

G Salary Recommendations

Division chairs make annual salary recommendations to the dean, who may modify them. The

recommendations are based on the current annual performance and merit review as well as on the

performance and merit reviews of the preceding 24 months.

The criteria for performance in teaching, scholarship, and service are the same as for promotion and

reappointment decisions for faculty. Merit salary increases and other rewards made by a college are

consistent with relevant policies, procedures, practices, and standards established by: (1) the college,

(2) the Faculty Rules, (3) the Office of Academic Affairs, and (4) the Office of Human Resources.

Faculty members who wish to discuss dissatisfaction with their salary increase with the dean should

be prepared to explain how their salary (rather than the increase) is inappropriately low, since

increases are solely a means to the end of an optimal distribution of salaries.

Faculty who fail to submit the required documentation (see Section V-A above) for an annual

performance and merit review at the required time will receive no salary increase in the year for

which documentation was not provided, except in extenuating circumstances, and may not expect to

recoup the foregone raise at a later time.

VI Promotion and Tenure and Promotion Reviews

Faculty Rule 3335-6-02 provides the following context for promotion and tenure and promotion reviews:

In evaluating the candidate’s qualifications in teaching, scholarship, and service, reasonable

flexibility shall be exercised, balancing, where the case requires, heavier commitments and

responsibilities in one area against lighter commitments and responsibilities in another. In

addition, as the University enters new fields of endeavor, including interdisciplinary endeavors,

and places new emphases on its continuing activities, instances will arise in which the proper

work of faculty members may depart from established academic patterns. In such cases care must

be taken to apply the criteria with sufficient flexibility. In all instances superior intellectual

attainment, in accordance with the criteria set forth in these rules, is an essential qualification for

promotion to tenured positions. Clearly, insistence upon this standard for continuing members of

the faculty is necessary for maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the University as an

institution dedicated to the discovery and transmission of knowledge.

In accordance with Faculty Rule 3335-6-02(E), this section outlines the established criteria, procedures,

and evidence for the award of promotion and tenure.

A. Criteria and Documentation that Support Promotion

For each category of faculty appropriate to a college, this document describes (1) the criteria for

promotion and tenure, as appropriate to the college; (2) the types of documentation that demonstrate

impact and show that criteria have been met; (3) the levels of achievement necessary to meet the

stated criteria within the context of the college’s mission, the standards of Chapters 6 and 7 of the

Faculty Rules, the standards and mission of the college, and the mission of the University; and (4)

criteria for evaluation of joint appointment candidates.

The standards of quality and effectiveness required must be representative of high performance.

When the college forwards the dossier of a candidate for review and has recommended that

promotion and tenure or promotion be granted, OSU Office of Academic Affairs expects that the

college has ensured that the evidence of the qualifications and performance of the candidate meet or

exceed the college criteria applicable to the nomination.

The purposes of the OSU Office of Academic Affairs-level promotion and tenure and promotion

reviews are: (1) to determine whether the college has conducted its review and reached a

recommendation consistent with university and college standards, criteria, policies, and rules; and (2)

to determine where the weight of the evidence lies in cases in which there is not a clear or consistent

recommendation from the college. If the conclusion of the OSU Office of Academic Affairs-level

review is that the recommendation of the unit is not consistent with university or college standards,

criteria, policies, and rules, OSU Office of Academic Affairs may make a recommendation that is

contrary to the recommendation of the college.

1 Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure

Tenure is not awarded below the rank of associate professor at The Ohio State University.

Promotion to associate professor with tenure in the College of Dentistry requires excellence in

both scholarship and teaching, where scholarship is defined as research and scholarly work.

Candidates should show promise of excellence in service.

Excellence in scholarship means attainment of measurable national or international recognition

based on an appropriate amount and rate of high-quality published research. A successful

candidate will have an emerging national reputation. Excellence in teaching means the

provision to all students of the opportunity to realize their full capabilities for learning and, to

the most capable and motivated students, an enhanced learning experience. Excellence in

service means the provision of a high level of professional expertise and experience to the

University, the community, the state and nation, and professional organizations. The service

contribution during the probationary period of assistant professors is limited by design. The

most important judgment is that the candidate will achieve excellence in service in the future.

The substantial probability that a high rate of quality scholarship and and excellence in teaching

and service will continue needs to be established. The claim that retention of the candidate will

improve the overall quality and standing of the college needs to be supported.

Excellence in teaching, research and service is moreover defined to include professional ethical

conduct in each area of responsibility, consistent with the American Association of University

Professors’ Statement on Professional Ethics.

In the evaluation of untenured associate professors for tenure, the same criteria apply, along with

any others established in writing at the time a senior rank appointment without tenure was

offered.

Tenure Track – Research Emphasis (see Section IV A 1)

Evidence of teaching must include:

• Demonstration of effective skills as a teacher, including evidence of achieving a level

of excellence in teaching through student evaluation of teaching, reports from Peer

Review of Teaching Committees, and outcomes (see Section IX).

• Participation in teaching activities to a degree that is consistent with division goals

and adequate in quantity and frequency to permit a fair and meaningful evaluation of

the candidate's skills and development. The quantity and teaching role (ie. lecturer,

director) will be considered.

Evidence of scholarship must include:

• Demonstration of an independent scholarly program that is likely to be sustainable

and establishes the candidate's expertise and ability.

• Primary authorship of scholarly publications that are predominantly data-based

appearing in well- respected refereed journals.

• Nationally competitive peer-reviewed funding from federal entities (e.g., NIH or

NSF), charitable foundations, industry, and/or other highly regarded external entities.

• Publications should indicate sustained productivity and allow evaluation of

scholarship by external reviewers. The number of publications will vary with the

work and discipline.

Evidence of service must include:

• Participation on college and/or university committees during most of the time in rank.

• Membership in professional organizations and contributions to professional activities

outside of the university.

Tenure Track – Clinical and Research Emphasis (see Section IV A 1)

Evidence of teaching must include:

• Demonstration of effective skills as a teacher, including evidence of achieving a level

of excellence in teaching through student evaluation of teaching, reports from Peer

Review of Teaching Committees, and outcomes (see Section IX).

• Participation in teaching activities to a degree that is consistent with division goals

and adequate in quantity and frequency to permit a fair and meaningful evaluation of

the candidate’s skills and development. The quantity and teaching role (ie. lecturer,

director) will be considered.

• Course directorship, which includes oversight on preparation and distribution of

course materials, management of lecture/laboratory schedules, and conducting of all

examinations.

Evidence of scholarship must include:

• Demonstration of an independent scholarly program that is likely to be sustainable

and establishes the candidate’s expertise and ability.

• Primary or major authorship of scholarly publications that include a significant

portion that is data-based, appearing in well-respected refereed journals.

• Competitive peer-reviewed funding from federal entities (e.g., NIH or NSF),

charitable foundations, industry, university/college granting body, and/or other

regarded entities.

Evidence of service must include:

• Participation on college and/or university committees during most of the time in rank.

• Membership in professional organizations and contributions to professional activities

outside of the university.

• Demonstration of outstanding clinical skill in patient care if appropriate. Examples

include board certification if applicable, peer review observations from faculty

colleagues, and unsolicited letters of commendation from patients.

A minimum of five external letters of evaluation are required for promotion to Associate

Professor (see Section VI B 4).

2 Promotion to Professor

Faculty Rule 3335-6-02 establishes the following general criteria for promotion to the rank of

professor:

Promotion to the rank of professor must be based on convincing evidence that the faculty

member has a sustained record of excellence in teaching; has produced a significant body of

scholarship that is recognized nationally or internationally; and has demonstrated leadership

in service.

The specific criteria in teaching, scholarship, and service for promotion to professor are similar to

those for promotion to associate professor with tenure, with the added expectation of sustained

accomplishment and quality of contributions, a record of continuing professional growth, and

evidence of established national or international reputation in the field.

When assessing a candidate’s national and international reputation in the field, a national and

international reputation for the scholarship of teaching may be counted as either teaching or

scholarship.

In addition, as further specified by Faculty Rule 3335-6-02, assessment is in relation to specific

assigned responsibilities with reasonable flexibility being exercised in order to balance, where the

case requires, heavier responsibilities and commitment in one area against lighter ones in another.

Promotion should reflect the reality that (a) not all faculty members have the same distribution of

assignments (b) not all faculty members will be able to contribute excellence equally in all

evaluation dimensions; and (c) there is a multi-faceted institutional responsibility that must be

achieved by the skills of the faculty collectively. Promotion to professor should be awarded not

only to those faculty who have demonstrated impact in their scholarship of research, teaching and

learning, and service, but also to those who have exhibited excellence in the scholarship of

leadership to make visible and demonstrable impact upon the mission of the college and

university.

Tenure Track – Research Emphasis (see Section IV A 1)

Evidence of teaching ability must include:

• Demonstration of effective skills as a teacher, including a sustained level of

excellence in teaching through student evaluation of teaching, reports from Peer

Review of Teaching Committees, and outcomes (see Section IX)

• Mentoring of PhD students or postdoctoral researchers or faculty.

Evidence of scholarship must include:

• A sustained and continuous record of scholarship throughout the post-tenure period

that is recognized as excellent by peers.

• Primary authorship of scholarly publications that are predominantly data-based

appearing in refereed journals. When research is performed as part of a team, the role

of the candidate should be specified.

• Major responsibility for the design and execution of the candidate's scholarly

program.

• Sustained nationally competitive peer-reviewed funding from federal entities (e.g.,

National Institutes of Health or National Science Foundation), charitable foundations,

industry, and/or other highly regarded entities.

• Invitations to participate in scientific presentations and forums, or to contribute to

publications in the discipline.

• Publications with PhD students, postdoctoral researchers, and faculty as a mentoring

outcome.

• Publications should indicate sustained productivity and allow evaluation of

scholarship by external reviewers. The number of post-tenure publications will vary

with the work and discipline.

Evidence of service must include:

• Leadership role on college and/or university committees with significant, recognized

contributions.

• Leadership role in professional organizations outside the university with major

recognized contributions.

• Participation in study sections or equivalent reviewing bodies for grant applications

(e.g., NIH or NSF), if appropriate to the candidate’s field of research.

• Peer-reviewing of manuscripts for journals with national/international reputations,

and/or membership on editorial boards.

Tenure Track – Clinical and Research Emphasis (see Section IV A 1)

Evidence of teaching must include:

• Demonstration of effective skills as a teacher, including a sustained level of

excellence in teaching through student evaluation of teaching, reports from Peer

Review of Teaching Committees, and outcomes (see Section IX)

• Significant contributions in the following areas:

o Advancing the teaching program through curriculum revision.

o Management of a significant portion of the teaching program.

o Mentoring predoctoral or master’s students.

o Developing and presenting continuing college-sponsored education is highly

favored.

Evidence of scholarship must include:

• A sustained and continuous record of scholarship throughout the post-tenure period

that is recognized as excellent by peers.

• Primary or major authorship of scholarly publications that include a significant

portion that is data-based appearing in refereed journals.

• Major responsibility for the design and execution of the candidate's scholarly

program.

• Sustained competitive peer-reviewed funding from federal entities (e.g., NIH or

NSF), charitable foundations, industry, university/college granting body, and/or other

regarded entities.

• Publications should indicate sustained productivity and allow evaluation of

scholarship by external reviewers. The number of post-tenure publications will vary

with the work and discipline.

Evidence of service must include:

• Member of the Graduate Faculty.

• Leadership role on college and/or university committees with significant, recognized

contributions.

• Leadership role in professional organizations outside the university with major

recognized contributions.

• Peer-reviewing of manuscripts for journals with national/international reputations,

and/or memberships on editorial boards.

• Demonstration of excellent clinical service in patient care if appropriate.

• Leadership in an administration role that demonstrates impact to the College and is

evidenced in presentations across the profession nationally.

A minimum of five external letters of evaluation are required for promotion to Professor (see

Section VI B 4).

3 Clinical Faculty

Promotion to Assistant Clinical Professor in the College of Dentistry requires that a faculty

member have completed his/her/their DDS, DMD, or the equivalent; PhD, MD, EdD; or MS or

the equivalent for dental hygiene and meet the required licensure/certification in his/her/their

specialty and be performing satisfactorily in teaching, professional practice, and service.

Promotion to Associate Clinical Professor in the College of Dentistry requires that a faculty

member show convincing evidence of excellence as a teacher and a provider of effective service;

have a documented high level of competence in professional practice; and display the potential

for continuing a program of high-quality teaching and service relevant to the mission of the

college. Specific criteria in teaching and service for promotion to associate clinical professor are

similar to those for promotion to associate professor with tenure – clinical and research emphasis

(see Section VI A 1).

Evidence of scholarship must be demonstrated with evidence of peer review publication that is

one or more of the following: data-based, laboratory or clinical technique, literature review, case

report, educational methods, or novel teaching materials. External presentations in these areas are

further evidence of scholarly activity.

Promotion to Clinical Professor in the College of Dentistry requires that a faculty member have

a record of continuing professional growth and increasing quality of contributions, including a

sustained record of excellence in teaching and professional practice; leadership in service to the

college and to the profession; and production and dissemination of scholarly materials pertinent

to pedagogy and/or professional practice.

Specific criteria in teaching and service for promotion to clinical professor are similar to those for

promotion to professor with tenure – clinical and research emphasis (see Section VI A 2).

Evidence of scholarship must be demonstrated with sustained peer-reviewed publications and

external presentations that are one or more of the following: data-based, laboratory or clinical

technique, literature review, case report, educational methods, or novel teaching materials.

4 Research Faculty

Promotion to Research Associate Professor in the College of Dentistry requires excellence in

scholarship. There is an expectation of a record of significant external support for research and

a substantial probability that external support for research will continue. The claim that

retention of the candidate will improve the overall scholarly quality and standing of the unit

needs to be supported.

Evidence must include:

• Evidence of sustained scholarship with recognized expertise.

• Primary/senior author of articles in high-quality refereed journals reporting data-based

research.

• Funding from competitive external sources, with evidence of substantial role (PI or

Co-Investigator), such as federal entities (e.g., NIH or NSF), foundations, and industry

that has provided salary support.

• Evidence of research mentoring of undergraduate and/or graduate students. (Graduate

faculty status is needed for service as director of an MS or PhD thesis, or as a member

of an MS or PhD thesis committee, and requires approval of appropriate Graduate

Studies Committee and the Graduate School).

• Research service activities at the local or national level.

A minimum of five external letters of evaluation are required for promotion to Research

Associate Professor (see Section VI B 4).

Promotion to Research Professor in the College of Dentistry requires excellence in

scholarship. There is an established record of significant external support for research and a

substantial probability that external support for research will continue. The claim that promotion

of the candidate will improve the overall scholarly quality and standing of the unit needs to be

supported.

Evidence must include:

• Sustained scholarship judged to be excellent by peers.

• Substantial primary or senior authorship of publications in high-quality refereed journals

reporting data-based research

• Major responsibility for design and execution of scholarship.

• Sustained and substantial funding from competitive external sources, with evidence of

leadership role (PI or Co-Investigator), such as federal entities (e.g., NIH or NSF),

foundations, and industry that has provided salary support.

• Invitations to present lectures and participate in research forums (NIH study sections are

particularly noteworthy).

• Evidence of research mentoring at a high level. Examples are PhD students,

postdoctoral researchers and faculty. (Graduate faculty status is needed for service as

director of a PhD thesis, or as a member of a PhD thesis committee, and requires

nomination by the appropriate Graduate Studies Committee and approval by the

Graduate School).

• Leadership role in college, university, national or international research committees or

organizations.

A minimum of five external letters of evaluation are required for promotion to Research

Professor (see Section VI B 4).

5 Associated Faculty

Promotion to Adjunct Associate Professor and Adjunct Professor. The relevant criteria for

the promotion of adjunct faculty members shall be the same as those for the promotion of tenure-

track, clinical, or research faculty, as appropriate to the appointment, above.

Promotion to Associate Professor and Professor with FTE below 50%. The relevant criteria

for the promotion of associated faculty members with tenure-track titles are those for the

promotion of tenure-track faculty above.

Promotion to Clinical Associate Professor of Practice and Clinical Professor of Practice.

The relevant criteria for the promotion of associated clinical faculty members shall be the same as

those for the promotion of clinical faculty above.

Promotion to Senior Lecturer. Lecturers may be promoted to senior lecturer if they meet the

criteria for appointment at that rank as described in Section IV.A.4.

Promotion of Visiting Faculty. Visiting faculty members are not eligible for promotion.

B Procedures

The college's procedures for promotion and tenure and promotion reviews are fully consistent with

those set forth in Faculty Rule 3335-6-04 and the Office Academic Affairs annually updated

procedural guidelines for promotion and tenure reviews found in Volume 3 of the Policies and

Procedures Handbook.

1 Tenure-Track, Clinical, and Research Faculty

a Candidate Responsibilities

Candidates for promotion and tenure or promotion within the College of Dentistry are

responsible for submitting a complete, accurate dossier and providing a copy of the APT

document under which they wish to be reviewed. If external evaluations are required,

candidates are responsible for reviewing the list of potential external evaluators compiled for

their case according to their colleges’s guidelines. Each of these elements is described in detail

below.

Promotion/tenure discussions should be ongoing between faculty and their division chair

throughout their career. Candidates should schedule a meeting with their division chair at

least one month prior to submitting for promotion/tenure action to discuss the

promotion/tenure process and evaluate the candidate’s credentials and advanced notice is

preferred.

• Dossier

Every candidate must submit a complete and accurate dossier that follows the Office of

Academic Affairs dossier outline. Candidates should not sign the Office of Academic

Affairs Candidate Checklist without ascertaining that they have fully met the requirements

set forth in the Office of Academic Affairs core dossier outline including, but not limited

to, those highlighted on the checklist. The dossier should also contain administration

responsibility information when appropriate and complete teaching information, which

includes a detailed summary of the student evaluations and a detailed summary of the peer

evaluations of teaching from the division peer review of teaching chair. Approved college

forms for evaluation in the areas of course administration, lecturing, clinical teaching,

laboratory, and seminar must also be included.

While the college’s Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee will make

reasonable efforts to check the dossier for accuracy and completeness, the candidate bears

full responsibility for all parts of the dossier that are to be completed by him/her/them.

In addition to the dossier the following materials are required:

Personal Statement letter to the college Appointments, Promotion and Tenure Committee

outlining major accomplishments in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service.

Curriculum Vitae ― The CV should include items listed in the Appendix, as appropriate

for the candidate.

Appendices: letters of acceptance for publications in press, representative reprints of

publications.

It is the responsibility of the college to evaluate and verify this documentation.

The time period for teaching documentation to be included in the dossier for probationary

faculty is the start date to present. For tenured or nonprobationary faculty it is the date of

last promotion or the last five years, whichever is more recent, to present. The eligible

faculty may allow a tenured or nonprobationary candidate to include information prior to

the date of last promotion if it believes such information would be relevant to the review.

Any such material should be clearly indicated.

For scholarship documentation, a full history of publications should be included, as this

information provides context to the more recent and relevant research record and/or

demonstrates scholarly independence. Information about scholarship produced prior to the

start date (for probationary faculty) or date of last promotion (for tenured or

nonprobationary faculty) may be provided. Any such material should be clearly indicated.

However, it is the scholarship performance since the start date or date of last promotion that

is to be the focus of the evaluating parties.

The time period for service documentation to be included in the dossier for probationary

faculty is the start date to present. For tenured or nonprobationary faculty it is the date of

last promotion or the last five years, whichever is more recent, to present. The eligible

faculty may allow a candidate to include information prior to the date of last promotion if it

believes such information would be relevant to the review. Any such material should be

clearly indicated.

The complete dossier is forwarded when the review moves beyond the college. The

documentation of teaching is forwarded along with the dossier. The documentation of

scholarship and service is for use during the college review only, unless reviewers at the

college and university levels specifically request it.

This dossier must be submitted to the division chair by July 1.

• Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure (APT) Document

Candidates must also indicate the APT under which they wish to be reviewed. Candidates

may elect to be reviewed under (a) the colleges’s current APT document; (b) the APT

document that was in effect on their start date; or (c) the APT document that was in

effect on the date of their last promotion, whichever of these two latter documents is

the more recent. However, the current APT document must be used if the letter of offer

or last promotion, whichever is more recent, was more than 10 years before April 1 of

the review year. If a candidate wishes to be reviewed under an APT other than the current

approved version available here, a copy of the APT document under which the candidate

has elected to be reviewed must be submitted when the dossier is submitted to the college.

• External Evaluations (see also External Evaluations below in Section VI B 4)

As noted above, if external evaluations are required, candidates are responsible for

reviewing the list of potential external evaluators developed according to the colleges’s

guidelines. The candidate may add no more than three additional names, but is not

required to do so. The candidate may request the removal of no more than two names,

providing the reasons for the request. The division chair decides whether removal is

justified.

b Division Chair Responsibilities

The responsibilities of the division chair in the College of Dentistry during promotion

and tenure reviews are as follows:

• Appoint a minimum of three faculty in the division to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of

the faculty candidate. This should be informed by Student Evaluation of Teaching and Peer

Evaluation of teaching reports. These faculty will draft a letter summarizing teaching

effectiveness which is included in the dossier for promotion and tenure if applicable.

• Provide an independent written evaluation and recommendation for each candidate. This

letter should summarize achievements in teaching, scholarship, and service that reflect the

criteria for which the candidate is seeking promotion or reappointment, and should explicitly

state the degree of success or failure on the part of the candidate in meeting yearly goals in

the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service that were established by the division chair and

candidate. This letter is expected to provide an assessment of the faculty candidate and

explain whether the candidate has met the effort allocation established by the division chair,

along with reporting the achievement details.

• Forward the completed dossier to the dean’s office by August.

• If the candidate for promotion and tenure is a division chair, the dean fulfills or

delegates the roles of the division chair.

c College of Dentistry Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee Responsibilities

The committee will:

• Review this APT document annually and to recommend proposed revisions to the faculty.

• Consider annually, in spring semester, requests from faculty members seeking a non-

mandatory review in the following academic year and to decide whether it is appropriate

for such a review to take place. Only professors on the committee may consider promotion

review requests to the rank of professor. A two-thirds majority of those eligible to vote on a

request must vote affirmatively for the review to proceed.

o The committee bases its decision on assessment of the record as presented in the faculty

member's CV and on a determination of the availability of all required documentation for

a full review (student and peer evaluations of teaching). Lack of the required

documentation is necessary and sufficient grounds on which to deny a non-mandatory

review.

o A tenured faculty member may be denied a formal promotion review under Faculty Rule

3335-6-04 for only one year. If the denial is based on lack of required documentation and

the faculty member insists that the review go forward in the following year despite

incomplete documentation, the individual should be advised that such a review is

unlikely to be successful.

o A decision by the committee to permit a review to take place in no way commits the

eligible faculty, the dean, or any other party to the review to making a positive

recommendation during the review itself.

• Annually, in late spring through early autumn semester, provide administrative support for

the promotion and tenure review process as described below.

• The committee chair will appoint a Procedures Oversight Designee (POD), who cannot be the

same individual who chairs the committee. The Procedures Oversight Designee's

responsibilities are described in the Office of Academic Affairs annual procedural guidelines.

The committee chair also appoints at least one primary reader and one secondary reader for

each case. It is expected that all committee members have examined all dossiers being

discussed. A draft of the report outlining the case may be prepared by the primary reader in

advance and serve as the basis for the discussion of each case.

• The committee chair or designee on the committee will solicit external evaluations

from a list including names suggested by the Appointments, Promotion and Tenure

Committee, the division chair, and the candidate. (Also see External Evaluations

below.)

• The committee chair or designee on the committee will solicit an evaluation from a head of

any division in which the candidate has a joint appointment.

• The committee will review the dossier provided by the college for promotion and tenure

consideration for completeness, accuracy (including citations), and consistency with Office of

Academic Affairs requirements; and work with candidates to assure that needed revisions are

made in the dossier before the formal review process begins. The dossier will be prepared in a

manner spelled out in this document.

• The committee will meet with each candidate for clarification as necessary and provide the

candidate an opportunity to comment on his/her/their dossier. This meeting is not an occasion

to debate the candidate's record.

Once materials are submitted to the college for review, with the exception of questions

regarding procedural errors and/or the availability of significant new information, the

committee should engage in no further consultation with division chairs on substantive

matters. This assures that the levels of review are independent.

Should questions arise with respect to procedural errors (those that reasonably could have

affected the outcome), they should be addressed before the review continues. The error

should be corrected at the level of the review at which it occurred. The case should be fully

reconsidered from that point on. If internal letters have been generated at that level of review

and beyond, they should be saved but not included in the dossier. The new written

evaluations should note that reconsideration took place because of a procedural error and

state the nature of that error. The comments process must be repeated for the new internal

letters.

Should there be significant new information, the record may be amended; however, all parties

to the review process must review an amended record. If the information becomes available

after a case has left the college, OSU Office of Academic Affairs may return the case to the

college.

• The chair or designee on the committee will draft an analysis of the candidate's performance

in teaching, scholarship, and service to provide to the full eligible faculty with the dossier;

and seek to clarify any inconsistent evidence in the case, where possible.

• The chair will preside over the committee of the eligible faculty’s discussion of each case.

The criteria to be applied are outlined above and require excellence in scholarship, teaching,

and service. The chair will be responsible for preparing the written report of the committee’s

assessment and vote. Only “yes” and “no” votes on the recommendation to tenure and/or

promote candidates are allowable; abstentions are not allowed among committee members.

• The chair or designee on the committee will revise the draft analysis of each case following

the meeting of the full eligible faculty, to include the faculty vote and a summary of the

faculty perspectives expressed during the meeting.

• The committee will provide a written response, on behalf of the eligible faculty, to any

candidate comments that warrant response, for inclusion in the dossier.

• After the committee completes its work, the chair shall advise the dean on tenure and

promotion for each candidate. Following that consultation, the dean shall make a final

recommendation in writing to the executive vice president and provost.

• The committee will provide a written evaluation and recommendation to the dean in the case

of joint appointees from another tenure-initiating unit. The full eligible faculty does not vote

on these cases since the college’s recommendation must be provided to the other tenure-

initiating unit substantially earlier than the committee begins meeting on the college’s cases.

d College Eligible Faculty Responsibilities

Within the College of Dentistry, the responsibilities of the members of the eligible faculty

during promotion and tenure reviews are as follows:

a) To review thoroughly and objectively every candidate's dossier in advance of the

meeting at which the candidate's case will be discussed.

b) To attend all eligible faculty meetings except when circumstances beyond one's

control prevent attendance; to participate in discussion of every case; and to vote.

e Dean’s Responsibilities

The responsibilities of the dean in the College of Dentistry during promotion and

tenure reviews are as follows:

• To determine whether a candidate is authorized to work in the United States and whether

a candidate now, or in the future, will require sponsorship for an employment visa or

immigration status. (The college must ensure that such questions are asked of all

candidates in a non-discriminatory manner.) For tenure-track assistant professors, the

dean will confirm that candidates are eligible to work in the U.S. Candidates who are not

U.S. citizens or nationals, permanent residents, asylees, or refugees will be required to

sign an MOU at the time of promotion with tenure.

• Upon the receipt of a dossier on a candidate for promotion and/or tenure, the dean will

submit the dossier to the Apppointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee for review.

• To solicit an evaluation from the head of any TIU in which the candidate has a joint

appointment.

• To make each candidate's dossier available in an accessible place for review by the

eligible faculty at least two weeks before the meeting at which specific cases are to be

discussed and voted.

• To charge each member of the Eligible Faculty Committee to conduct reviews free of

bias and based on criteria.

• To remove any member of the eligible faculty from the review of a candidate

when the member has a conflict of interest but does not voluntarily withdraw

from the review.

• To attend the meetings of the eligible faculty at which promotion and tenure

matters are discussed and respond to questions that are raised during the meeting.

At the request of the eligible faculty, the dean will leave the meeting to allow

open discussion among the eligible faculty members.

• Mid-Autumn Semester: To provide an independent written evaluation and

recommendation for each candidate, following receipt of the eligible faculty's

completed evaluation and recommendation.

• To meet with the eligible faculty to explain any recommendations contrary to the

recommendation of the committee.

• To inform each candidate in writing after completion of the review process (1) of

the recommendations by the eligible faculty and division chair; (2) of the

availability for review of the written evaluations by the eligible faculty and unit

head and (3) of the opportunity to submit written comments on the above

material, within ten days from receipt of the letter from the unit head for

inclusion in the dossier. The letter is accompanied by a form that the candidate

returns to the Dean, indicating whether or not he/she/they will submit comments.

• To provide a written response to any candidate comments that warrant response

for inclusion in the dossier.

• To forward the completed dossier to the OSU Office of Academic Affairs by that

office's deadline.

• To receive the Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee's written

evaluation and recommendation of candidates who are joint appointees from

other TIUs, and to forward this material, along with the dean’s independent

written evaluation and recommendation, to the head of the other TIU by the date

requested.

2 Procedures for Associated Faculty

Adjunct faculty, associated faculty with tenure-track titles, and associated clinical faculty for

whom promotion is a possibility follow the promotion guidelines and procedures detailed in

Section VI.B above, with the exception that the review does not proceed to the university level if

the dean’s recommendation is negative (a negative recommendation by the dean is final in such

cases), and does not proceed to the executive vice president and provost if the dean's

recommendation is negative.

However, should a recommendation from the dean be positive, that decision shall proceed to the

executive vice president and provost.

3 External Evaluations

External evaluations of scholarly activity and research are obtained for all promotion reviews in

which scholarship must be assessed. These include all tenure-track promotion and tenure or

promotion reviews and all research faculty contract renewals and promotion reviews. External

evaluations of scholarly activity and research are not obtained for clinical or associated faculty

unless the faculty member has been involved in a significant amount of scholarship. The decision

to seek external evaluations for a clinical or associated faculty member will be made by the

division chair after consulting with the candidate and the chair of the Appointments, Promotion,

and Tenure Committee.

A minimum of five credible and useful evaluations must be obtained. A credible and useful

evaluation:

• Is written by a person highly qualified to judge the candidate's scholarship (or other

performance, if relevant) who is not a close personal friend, research collaborator, or former

academic advisor or post-doctoral mentor of the candidate. Qualifications are generally

judged on the basis of the evaluator's expertise, record of accomplishments, and institutional

affiliation. Division chairs will solicit evaluations only from professors at institutions

comparable to Ohio State. In the case of an assistant professor seeking promotion to associate

professor with tenure, a minority of the evaluations may come from associate professors.

• Provides sufficient analysis of the candidate's performance to add information to the review.

A letter's usefulness is defined as the extent to which the letter is analytical as opposed to

perfunctory. Under no circumstances will “usefulness” be defined by the perspective taken by

an evaluator on the merits of the case.

Since the college cannot control who agrees to write and or the usefulness of the letters received,

more letters are sought than are required, and they are solicited no later than the end of

September. This timing allows additional letters to be requested should fewer than five useful

letters result from the first round of requests.

As described above, a list of potential evaluators is assembled by the Appointments, Promotion,

and Tenure Committee, the division chair, and the candidate. If the evaluators suggested by the

candidate meet the criteria for credibility, a letter is requested from at least one of those persons.

Faculty Rule 3335-6-04 requires that no more than half the external evaluation letters in the

dossier be written by persons suggested by the candidate. In the event that the person(s) suggested

by the candidate do not agree to write, neither the Office of Academic Affairs nor Appointments,

Promotion, and Tenure Committee in this college require that the dossier contain letters from

evaluators suggested by the candidate.

The college follows the Office of Academic Affairs suggested format for letters requesting

external evaluations. A sample letter for tenure-track faculty can be found here. A sample letter

for clinical faculty can be found here.

Under no circumstances may a candidate solicit external evaluations or initiate contact in any way

with external evaluators for any purpose related to the promotion review. If an external evaluator

should initiate contact with the candidate regarding the review, the candidate must inform the

evaluator that such communication is inappropriate and report the occurrence to the

Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure Committee Chair, who will decide what, if any, action is

warranted (requesting permission from the Office of Academic Affairs to exclude that letter from

the dossier). It is in the candidate's self-interest to assure that there is no ethical or procedural

lapse, or the appearance of such a lapse, in the course of the review process.

All solicited external evaluation letters that are received must be included in the dossier unless the

Office of Academic Affairs approves exclusion. If concerns arise about any of the letters

received, these concerns may be addressed in the college’s written evaluations or brought to the

attention of the Office of Academic Affairs for advice.

VII Appeals

Faculty Rule 3335-6-05 sets forth general criteria for appeals of negative promotion and tenure decisions.

Appeals alleging improper evaluation are described in Faculty Rule 3335-5-05.

Disagreement with a negative decision is not grounds for appeal. In pursuing an appeal, the faculty

member is required to document the failure of one or more parties to the review process to follow written

policies and procedures.

VIII Seventh-Year Reviews

Faculty Rule 3335-6-05 sets forth the conditions of and procedures for a Seventh-Year Review for a

faculty member denied tenure as a result of a sixth-year (mandatory tenure) review.

IX Procedures for Student and Peer Evaluation of Teaching

A Student Evaluation of Teaching

Use of the Student Evaluation of Instruction (eSEI) is required in every course offered in the college.

Faculty members should choose a day late in the semester when attendance is likely to be high if

students will be asked to complete the evaluation using a mobile application. The faculty member

must leave the classroom during the time allotted for completing the evaluation. The faculty member

should reiterate to students that the feedback provided in the evaluations is used both for performance

reviews and to provide feedback that can be taken into account in future teaching.

B Peer Evaluation of Teaching

Division chairs oversee their division’s peer evaluation of teaching process.

Annually the division chair head appoints a Peer Review of Teaching Committee of a size judged

sufficient to meet the volume of peer review activity expected that year, without overburdening any

of the members. The term of service is one year, with reappointment possible. Reasonable efforts are

made to distribute service among the tenured faculty from year to year in order to support and

encourage attention to the quality of teaching in the unit. Although there is no presumption that a peer

reviewer must be of equal or higher rank than the faculty member being reviewed, such a model will

be followed to the extent possible.

The responsibilities of the Peer Review of Teaching Committee are as follows:

• to review the teaching of probationary tenure-track, clinical, and associated faculty at least once

per year with the goal of assessing teaching at all the levels of instruction to which the faculty

member is assigned

• to review the teaching of tenured associate professors and nonprobationary associate clinical

professors at least once every other year, with the goal of assessing teaching at all the levels of

instruction to which the faculty member is assigned over a six year period and of having at least

two peer reviews of teaching before the commencement of a promotion review

• to review the teaching of tenured professors and nonprobationary clinical professors at least once

every two years with the goal of assessing teaching at all the levels of instruction to which the

faculty member is assigned during the year of the review

• to review, upon the division chair’s request, the teaching of any faculty member not currently

scheduled for review; such reviews are normally triggered by low or declining student

evaluations or other evidence of the need for providing assistance in improving teaching

• to review the teaching of a faculty member not currently scheduled for review, upon that

individual's request, to the extent that time permits; reviews conducted at the request of the

faculty member are considered formative only; the division chair is informed that the review took

place, but the report is given only to the faculty member who requested the review; faculty

seeking formative reviews should also seek the services of the Michael V. Drake Institute for

Teaching and Learning.

Reviews conducted upon the request of the division chair or the faculty member focus on the specific

aspects of instruction requested by the division chair or faculty member and may or may not include

class visitations.

Regularly scheduled peer teaching evaluations (the first three situations listed above) are

comprehensive and should include, in addition to class visitation, review of course syllabi and related

instruction materials. In the case of peer review for the purposes of promotion and tenure reviews, the

class visitation is conducted by one or more senior peers whom the division chair has identified in

consultation with the candidate. The peer reviewer should meet with the candidate to establish a time

for the visit and to understand the goals of the course and the candidate's teaching philosophy. If

possible, the peer reviewer should attend two different class sessions over the course of the semester.

In observing the course and reviewing the syllabus and other materials, the peer reviewer should

focus on such issues as the appropriateness of the course design given the goals and level of the

course, the quality and effectiveness of the instructional materials and assessment tools, and the

appropriateness of the approach relative to current disciplinary knowledge. At the conclusion of the

class visits, the reviewer meets with the candidate to give feedback and also submits a written report

to the division chair, copied to the candidate. The candidate may provide written comments on this

report, and the reviewer may respond if desired. The reports are included in the candidate's promotion

and tenure dossier.