EBERLY COLLEGE OF SCIENCE
FACULTY HANDBOOK
FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
2009-2010
Bronnie McLaughlin, 814-863-6216 –
Amanda Jones, 814-814-863-0212 –
Faculty Handbook for Promotion and Tenure – 2009 – 2010
Information for Tenure Track Faculty
Information Available on the WEB
University Guidelines
Eberly College of Science Guidelines
Department Guidelines
Tenure Review and Start Date (Tenure Clock)
Frequency of Reviews
2nd and 4th Year Reviews
General Annual Timetable for University Park Faculty
General Annual Timetable for Campus Faculty
Call for University Park Promotion and Tenure, Part I
Call for University Park Promotion and Tenure, Part II
Review Procedures
Memos to the Dean with Listings of Potential External Evaluators
Beginning the Tenure and/or Final Promotion Review Process
Packets for External Evaluators
Curruculum Vitae – Suggested Guidelines
Research Statement
Selected Publications
Requests Sent to External Evaluators
Sample Letter used for University Park candidates
Review Schedule
General Notes on Dossier
The Dossier - Contents
PRELIMINARY PAGES
Promotion and Tenure Form(s)
Biographical Data Form
Eberly College of Science Expectations and Procedures
Department Expectations and Procedures
Narrative Statement
RAINBOW SECTION
A. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (orange divider)
B. The Scholarship of Re4search and Creative Accomplishments (green divider)
C. Service and the Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and
The Profe4ssion (pink divider)
D. External Letters of Assessment (grey divider)
E. Statements of Evaluation of the Candidate by Review Committees and
Administrators (blue divider)
F. Candidate Signature Statement
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR TENURE TRACK FACULTY
Information available on the Web
All University promotion and tenure activities are guided by the following documents which can all be found at the address immediately following their name. They can also be found at the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs web site at http://www.psu.edu/vpaa/promotion.htm
University Guidelines and Policies:
Administrative Guidelines for HR-23: Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations (pdf) http://www.psu.edu/vpaa/pdfs/p_and_t_%20guidelines.pdf
Policy HR-23: Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr23.html
Frequently Asked Questions About Promotion and Tenure (pdf) http://www.psu.edu/vpaa/pdfs/p_and_t_faq.pdf
Early Tenure Review Procedures (pdf). http://www.psu.edu/vpaa/pdfs/p_and_t_faq.pdf
Immediate Tenure Review Guidelines http://www.psu.edu/vpaa/p%20and%20t/immed%20review.htm
Eberly College of Science Expectations and Criteria
The Eberly College of Science adopted it’s own Statements of College Expectations and Procedures which are reviewed each year by the College Promotion and Tenure Committee to make sure that they are up to date. They can be found at: http://www.science.psu.edu/hr2/FacultyAffairsFolder/ECOScriteria.htm
Department Expectations and Criteria
Each department in the College also is required to have it’s own statement of expectations for promotion and tenure which is reviewed annually and forwarded to the Dean’s Office for posting on the College Web site.
Astronomy
Biology
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Chemistry
Mathematics
Physics
Statistics
Faculty in the tenure track and those who are candidates for promotion should familiarize themselves with these documents and should begin early to assemble the file of the materials that will ultimately be needed at various stages of the review process.
Further information and assistance in assembling materials can be obtained from the appropriate department heads and their staff members, or from the Human Resources office:
Tenure Review and Start Date (Tenure Clock)
Most new faculty members are hired with zero years of tenure credit. Tenure review begins in the first year after the hire date. For individuals hired to begin in the Fall Semester, the tenure clock starts on the previous July 1st; for those who arrive in the Spring Semester, the specific starting date determines whether the clock starts on the previous or the next July 1st. A January 1st start dates, the tenure clock goes back to the past July 1st, for a January 2nd start date, the tenure clock starts the following July 1st.
Faculty can be awarded tenure credit (from 1 up to 3 years) prior to their appointment. The number of years of credit advances their pace on the tenure review schedule at the beginning of their employment. Appointees at senior ranks may undergo a review prior to the start of their appointment and arrive with tenure already in place (Immediate Tenure).
Frequency of Reviews
Normal review of tenure-eligible faculty members occurs during their 2nd and 4th years, with final review occurring during the 6th year. Special reviews may occur during interim years at the discretion of the Department Head or Dean.
The status of an individual during any given year is determined by counting the amount of initial tenure credit plus the number of years served as of the next July 1st.
2nd and 4th Year Reviews
Near or just prior to the beginning of the Second and Fourth years of service, tenure-eligible faculty members generate or update factual information, in standard dossier format (see Dossier Contents, below) for use in the review process which will occur during the course of the academic year.
Second and Fourth Year Reviews / ScheduleDepartment Peer Review Committee / Jan/Feb
Department Head / Feb/Mar
College Dean / Mar/Apr
Each level of review generates a written assessment of the candidate's progress toward achieving final tenure. Upon completion and insertion into the dossier of all assessment reports, the candidate receives copies of the reports and meets with the Department Head to discuss their contents.
General Annual Timetable for University Park Faculty
July 1st / The call is issued to kick-off UP P&T activitiesLate August / Faculty candidates for promotion and promotion and tenure assemble packets of information to be sent to external evaluators. Packets consist of a copy of the c.v., a research statement, and copies of selected publications.
Early September / Memos from the department heads are sent to the dean listing 12 external evaluators with full address and description of their research for each potential evaluator.
Mid-September / College faculty are informed about College Committee memberships and provided access to Statements of Expectations and Procedures
Mid- to Late- September / Letters and packets sent to external evaluators from the Dean
Early-December / Departments submit one draft copy of dossier to Dean’s Office for review
Mid-January / Final completed dossiers arrive from departments and the UP college committee begins its review
Mid-February / The Dean begins review of UP dossiers.
Late February / UP dossiers leave the college for review by the University Committee.
Early March / The Dean informs candidates whether or not their dossiers have been forwarded to the University Committee.
Departments submit 2nd and 4th year tenure dossiers to the Dean, as well as any special 3rd and 5th year reviews.
Late April / Department heads report on completion of all faculty evaluations, along with confirmation of 2nd and 4th year tenure review meetings.
May/June / Final decisions on promotion and tenure cases are made by the President; candidates are notified soon thereafter.
General Annual Timetable for Campus Faculty
May / The call is issued to kick-off non-University Park P&T activitiesMid-May / Memos from the department heads are sent to the dean listing
Mid-May / Suggestions for external evaluators, c.v.'s and copies of publications are submitted from the campuses to the Dean for non-University Park cases; the Dean writes soon thereafter to selected external evaluators
Summer / Letters arrive from external evaluators and are made available to campus and departmental review committees.
Early Fall / Non-University Park dossiers arrive for consideration by departmental committees.
Mid-December / Non-University Park dossiers arrive from departments for consideration by the college committee.
Early January / Non-University Park college committee begins its review.
Mid January / Dean begins review of non-University Park dossiers
Late February / non-University Park dossiers leave the college for review by the University Committee.
Early March / The Dean informs candidates whether or not their dossiers have been forwarded to the University Committee.
May/June / Final decisions on promotion and tenure cases are made by the President; candidates are notified soon thereafter.
Call for University Park Promotion and Tenure, Part I
Each July 1st the Dean issues the Call for University Park Promotion and Tenure which describes the procedures and timetable for the fiscal year’s promotion and tenure. It requests three items which must be submitted to Bronnie McLaughlin in electronic form. All are described in more detail below. (1) a list of members of your department Promotion and Tenure Committee; (2) a copy of your departmental statement of expectations and procedures for promotion and tenure; and (3) a separate memo for each individual being considered for this year’s promotion or promotion and tenure review containing a list of potential external evaluators. It also describes the process for obtaining external evaluators and explains the candidates packets which must be assembled to be sent to the external evaluators. Finally, it includes the timetable for the current years promotion and tenure activities.
Call for University Park Promotion and Tenure, Part II
Each September 30th, a memo is sent out on September 30th (and posted on the College’s website) giving the Membership of the College level Promotion and Tenure Committee, as wel as helpful resources and information for dossier preparation and a finalized timetable for promotion and tenure activities for the current academic year..
REVIEW PROCEDURES
General Notes and Procedures for Dossier Assembly
The dossier must be complete (containing a signed statement of review by the candidate) before review by departmental committee members may begin. Changes may occur to the factual information after the candidate has signed and before the dossier completes college-level review, although all previous levels of review must have an opportunity to consider such changes. Candidates are urged to request changes only for critical items.
Listings of work in progress should not appear in the dossier, unless it is supported by research grants or contracts. In other words, a publication in preparation might appear, but must be accompanied by an annotation indicating the source of external funding that supports the work.
The inclusion of a narrative statement is strongly encouraged, with placement of the document immediately before the Teaching divider.
Special care is suggested in assembling the section of the dossier on The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. The University Committee has asked for thorough documentation, in summary form. For all candidates, there should be a detailed record of SRTE scores and student comments, prepared by the department head or other departmental official. Candidates are urged to keep track of their former students and to record any of their awards and subsequent successes. Peer evaluations should be done regularly for all faculty members, and shared with them in a timely manner.
If there are unusual circumstances in any area of the dossier, it is advisable to include brief explanatory notes. For example, if there are few invitations to speak and there is a legitimate reason why such talks could not be undertaken, an explanation is in order. If invitations had to be declined, the declined invitations may be listed with a brief explanation. If the candidate has invitations for future events, please list them.
Similarly, information should not appear in more than one place. If an element of information is applicable to more than one section, list it once and provide a "see also" note referring the reader to the other section.
Inclusion of a citation study in the dossier is possible and you are encouraged to do one.
Informational materials should be arranged in each section in strict order, according to the dossier divider. Note that all elements of the Research section are to be arranged in order from newest to oldest.
Pages within each section should be numbered and further identified by the candidate's name and the dossier section title.
PLEASE NOTE that the following items are generally inappropriate
for inclusion in the dossier:
* Evaluative statements written by the candidate
* Statements about the candidate's personal life
* The curriculum vitae
* Samples of publications
* Letters of appreciation or thanks
* Course outlines
If there is a compelling reason to include this type of information, the Department Head and Dean will make the final decision. Note that faculty undergoing review may assemble a separate teaching portfolio available for review by committees but not part of the dossier.
MEMOS TO THE DEAN WITH LISTINGS OF POTENTIAL EXTERNAL EVALUATORS
Beginning the Promotion and/or Final Tenure Review Process
Early in the academic year during which a faculty member has been recommended for promotion or final review for tenure, he/she generates an up-to-date curriculum vitae, writes a research statement, and selects publications to be sent to external references. The candidate also updates the contents of his/her dossier.
The Dean sends a memo to Department Heads and Administrative Staff each July 1st to initiate the Promotion and Tenure activities for the coming year. See also the Call To Initiate P&T Activities. In this memo the Dean asks the Department Head to write a separate memo for each candidate for review with input from the department promotion and tenure committee and the candidate listing twelve external evaluators in the candidate’s field to assess the caliber of the work.
To launch this process, the Dean asks the Department Head to request independently from the department promotion and tenure committee and from the candidate a written list of up to 6 prospective external evaluators each. The Department Head then assembles a final list of 12 names based on the candidate's recommendations, the committee's recommendations, and, where appropriate, his/her own recommendations, identifying the source of each recommended name. There is no problem with overlapping recommendations as long as the department committee and the candidate have produced their lists completely independently.
For candidates who work in more than one research area, the evaluator list should include experts in all of the appropriate areas.
Do not list individuals who were former Penn State faculty members who may have sat on a department or college committee in consideration of the tenure or promotion of the particular candidate. Ph.D. and postdoctoral advisors should not be included on the lists, unless there is a clear justification for inclusion, in which case that must be explained.
If the candidate does a substantial amount of work with other scientists, the name(s) of the major collaborator(s) should be included and clearly identified. Collaborators should be suggested in addition to the 12 other names. Normally, collaborators will be asked to comment on the candidate’s role in the collaboration and will not be asked for an overall evaluation of the candidate.