Assumptions for Weighting “faculty for research and selected scholarly activities”
ASSUMPTIONS: (Following were developed and approved by Dean Hatzenbuehler on 4/21/07. Revisions as of 10/21/08 are in bold.)
• Research and selected scholarly activities are one of three aspects to evaluate overall faculty performance.
• The criteria below pertain only to research and selected scholarly activities and do not address teaching or service.
• Both academic and clinical faculty should be active in research and selected scholarly activities but different standards exist for each group.
• Different options should exist for attaining the various levels of performance.
• Performance should be based on quantity and quality of research and selected scholarly activities.
• To capture quality, a weighting scale will be used that is based on the following assumptions:
§ In general, state, private and federal grants are weighted more heavily than publications or presentations
§ Publications are weighted more heavily than presentations
§ Peer reviewed or refereed activities are weighted more heavily than non-reviewed or non-referred activities
§ Invited presentations are weighted more heavily than non-invited presentations
§ For presentations, the hierarchy from less to greater value is local, state and regional, and national and international
§ For publications, the hierarchy from less to greater value is abstracts, articles, chapters, tests and assessment/treatment manuals, and books.
§ Only peer-reviewed or refereed publications are credited.
§ For grants, the hierarchy from less to greater value is university, private, other, state, and federal
§ Credit is not given for directing or serving on students’ research activities. If such research results in a publication or presentation and the faculty member is listed as a co-presenter or co-author, credit is given. These activities should be listed/identified under teaching responsibilities.
§ No differentiation is made in the value of first versus second, third, etc. authorship
§ The value of grants is not differentiated in the weighting system.
§ Grants that are inter-disciplinary or multi-institutional are given additional credit.
§ Credit is not given for being an editor of a publication or reviewing articles or grants as such activities should be listed/identified as service.
• Credit should be given for submitting grant applications and manuscripts even if not funded or published
• No credit is given for non-professional publications
• Double credit is not given. For example, if a faculty member lists an abstract of a presentation and the presentation, credit is only given in presentation as it is weighted more heavily.
• Various research and scholarly activities are weighted and then summed for a total score (See “Revised Weightings Form 10/21/08”)
(Developed 4/21/07, Revised 10/21/08)
1