APPOINTMENTS, PROMOTION, AND TENURE CRITERIA AND

APPOINTMENTS, PROMOTION, AND TENURE

CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES

FISHER COLLEGE OF BUSINESS

OAA Approved 04/21/2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PREAMBLE ............................................................................................................................... 1

II. MISSION ................................................................................................................................. 1

III. DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 2

A. Committee of the Eligible Faculty ................................................................................ 2

B. College Personnel Committee ....................................................................................... 5

C. Quorum .......................................................................................................................... 5

D. Recommendation from the Committee of the Eligible Faculty .................................... 5

IV. APPOINTMENTS .................................................................................................................... 6

A. Criteria ........................................................................................................................... 6

B. Procedures ................................................................................................................... 10

V. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE AND MERIT REVIEW ........................................................... 13

A. Documentation ............................................................................................................. 14

B. Probationary Tenure-track Faculty ............................................................................... 14

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

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

E. Associated Faculty ........................................................................................................ 18

F. Salary Recommendations .............................................................................................. 19

VI. PROMOTION AND TENURE AND PROMOTION REVIEWS ......................................... 21

A. Criteria and Documentation that Support Promotion .................................................. 21

B. Procedures ................................................................................................................... 32

VII. APPEALS .............................................................................................................................. 48

VIII. SEVENTH-YEAR REVIEWS ............................................................................................. 48

IX. STUDENT AND PEER EVALUATION OF TEACHING ................................................... 48

A. Student Evaluation of Teaching ................................................................................... 48

B. Peer Evaluation of Teaching ......................................................................................... 49

X. AFFIRMATION BY FISHER COLLEGE AFFILIATED TIUS ............................................. 53

TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued

Appendix A: Dossier Elements and Requirements ....................................................................... 54

Appendix B: Responsibilities of the Procedures Oversight Designee (POD) for the

Department (D-POD) and the College (C-POD) ........................................................ 63

Appendix C: Ballots ...................................................................................................................... 67

Appendix D: Sample Letters to Evaluators ................................................................................... 76

Appendix E: Additional TIU-specific Guidelines ......................................................................... 80

I. PREAMBLE

This document sets forth criteria and procedures for appointments, promotion, tenure, and

rewards for faculty in each department (also equivalently referred to as tenure-initiating

unit, or TIU) of the Fisher College of Business. It 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 found in Volume 3 of the Office of Academic Affairs (OAA)

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

university to which the college, its TIUs, 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 is reviewed, and either reaffirmed or revised, on the appointment or

reappointment of the dean. On those occasions, the document, with any proposed

revisions, is considered by the college faculty at the level of the tenure-initiating unit. A

vote is taken by the tenure-track faculty of each TIU to determine whether its faculty is

willing to operate under a college-wide Appointments, Promotion, and Tenure (APT)

document. The TIUs are also permitted to provide additional TIU-specific guidelines (an

appendix to this document provides the TIU-specific guidelines for TIUs that chose this

option).

This document is approved by OAA prior to implementation. In approving this document,

OAA accepts the stated criteria and procedures of the college and its tenure-initiating units

and delegates to the college and the TIUs the responsibility to apply high standards in

evaluating current faculty and faculty candidates in relation to university, college, and TIU

missions.

The faculty and the administration are bound by the principles articulated in Faculty Rule

3335-6-01. 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 equal opportunity, HR 1.10.

II. MISSION

The strategic plan of the Fisher College of Business notes that the college’s mission is “to

create and disseminate ideas, encourage scholarly thinking and develop principled leaders

who serve with impact around the world.” In implementable terms for the APT, this

translates into the college striving for and achieving excellence in teaching, research, and

related service. Through its thought leadership and innovative programs, the college seeks

to impact academic peers and the practice of business.

The college creates and disseminates knowledge in an environment that is inclusive and

collaborative, allowing students, faculty, and staff to excel. As an international leader in

research, the college aggressively pursues cutting-edge inquiry influencing theory and

practice. As an international leader in teaching, the college strives to deliver academic and

professional programs that produce highly valued and ethical individuals for the worldwide

business community. The college’s educational and research programs lead to a proactive

outreach agenda, connecting with alumni through life-long learning, partnering with

businesses, leveraging the comprehensive strengths of The Ohio State University, and

advancing the welfare of the people of Ohio and the global community.

This college mission is achieved through the efforts of the college's five TIUs, each of

which has also detailed TIU-specific missions in their respective Pattern of Administration.

The standards for appointments, promotion, and tenure presented in this document,

implemented with judicious professional judgment of the faculty, contribute to the ability

of the college and its TIUs to realize their missions.

III. DEFINITIONS

A. Committee of the Eligible Faculty

The eligible faculty for all appointment (hiring), reappointment, promotion, promotion and

tenure, or Fourth-Year reviews must have their tenure home or primary appointment in the

TIU.

The TIU head, 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, Fourth-Year

reviews, or contract renewals. The TIU head attends such personnel-related meetings, but

only to provide information that may be requested by the eligible faculty and to

communicate the views of the eligible faculty to the dean.

1 Tenure-track Faculty

Initial Appointment Reviews

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

review of an assistant professor, the eligible faculty consists of all tenure-track

faculty in the TIU of the candidate under review.

• 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 TIU of the candidate under review. A

vote on the appropriateness of the proposed rank must then 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 in the TIU of the candidate under review.

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

of all tenured professors in the TIU of the candidate under review.

2 Clinical Faculty

Initial Appointment Reviews

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

review of a clinical assistant professor, the eligible faculty consists of all tenure-

track faculty and all clinical faculty in the TIU of the candidate under review.

• For an appointment (hiring) review at senior rank (clinical associate professor

or professor), the eligible faculty consists of all tenure-track and all clinical

faculty in the TIU of the candidate under review. A vote on the appropriateness

of the proposed rank must then 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.

Reappointment, Contract Renewal, and Promotion Reviews

• For the reappointment, contract renewal, and promotion reviews of clinical

assistant professors, the eligible faculty consists of all tenured associate

professors and professors, and all nonprobationary clinical associate professors

and professors in the TIU of the candidate under review.

• For the promotion reviews of clinical associate professors, the eligible faculty

consists of all tenured professors and all nonprobationary clinical professors in

the TIU of the candidate under review. For the reappointment and contract

renewal of clinical associate professors, the eligible faculty consists of all

tenured associate professors and professors, and all nonprobationary clinical

professors in the TIU of the candidate under review. For the reappointment and

contract renewal of clinical professors, the eligible faculty consists of all

tenured professors in the TIU of the candidate under review.

3 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 a candidate’s TIU head, who consults with the TIU faculty as needed, with

the approval of 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 college dean.

Promotion Reviews

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

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

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.

The promotion of a lecturer to senior lecturer is decided by the TIU head in

consultation with the TIU faculty.

4 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, has a close professional

relationship with the candidate (e.g., dissertation advisor), or has collaborated so

extensively with the candidate that an objective review of the candidate’s work is not

possible. 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 review of that candidate.

In the event a faculty member withdraws from the review process, the faculty member can

opt (but is not required) to provide a letter to the department chair that notes his or her

experience of working with the candidate; this letter is shared with the eligible faculty in

the department and the dean.

If there is any possibility that an eligible faculty member may have a conflict of interest

with the candidate, it is that faculty member’s responsibility to report the relationship to

the department chair and chair of the College Personnel Committee (CPC). Recognizing

that subjective judgment may be required in some circumstances to determine whether it

is appropriate for a faculty member to recuse himself or herself, the final decision on this

matter will rest with the dean, who will consult with the department and college procedures

oversight designees, department chair, the CPC chair, and others as appropriate.

5 Minimum Composition

The committee of eligible faculty must be composed of at least three faculty members. In

the event that the department does not have at least three eligible faculty members who can

undertake a review, the department chair, after consulting with the dean, will appoint

faculty from another department within the college to reach the minimum membership.

B. College Personnel Committee

The college has a Personnel Committee (CPC) that reviews and makes recommendations

to the dean on faculty tenure and promotion cases. The CPC also makes recommendations

on Fourth-Year reviews of probationary faculty members. 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, college, and

tenure initiating units’ procedures. The quorum required in the CPC to discuss and vote

on cases is two-thirds of its membership. The committee’s membership is described in the

college Pattern of Administration.

C. Quorum

The quorum required to discuss and vote on all personnel decisions (new appointments,

reappointments, contract renewals, Fourth-Year reviews, promotion and tenure, and

promotion reviews) in the TIU is two-thirds of the eligible faculty. Eligible faculty

members on approved leave of absence (e.g., Faculty Professional Leave, Special

Assignment, Parental Leave) are not considered for quorum unless they declare, in advance

and in writing, their intent to participate in the proceeding for which they are eligible. In

case the faculty member participates, they are included in the count of eligible faculty, and

this number is used to compute the two-thirds quorum requirement. A member of the

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

of determining quorum only if the TIU head has approved an off-campus assignment.

Faculty members who withdraw or are recused because of a conflict of interest are also not

counted when determining quorum.

D. Recommendation from the Committee of the Eligible Faculty

In all votes taken on personnel matters, only votes cast (e.g., “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. Only eligible

faculty members present at the meeting or participating by teleconferencing may vote. A

positive recommendation from the eligible faculty on personnel matters is secured when a

simple majority of the votes cast is positive (i.e., votes in favor are strictly more than half).

In the case of joint appointments, the TIU of a jointly appointed candidate must seek input

from the joint-appointment TIU prior to the appointment, reappointment, promotion and/or

tenure, or contract renewal of that candidate.

For new appointments, when more than one candidate achieves majority support, the

department faculty can choose to rank order acceptable candidates.

IV. APPOINTMENTS

A. Criteria

Faculty appointments in each TIU of the Fisher College of Business are made with a strong

commitment to promoting high academic standards. Important considerations include the

candidate’s record in teaching, research, and service; the potential for growth in each of

these areas; and the potential for interacting with colleagues, students, and the business

community in ways that will enhance the academic and professional standing of the TIU

and the college, and attract other outstanding faculty and students. No offer will be

extended in the event that the search process does not yield one or more candidates who

would enhance the quality of the TIU and the college. In that event, the search is cancelled

or continued, as appropriate given the circumstance.

1 Tenure-track Faculty

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

appointment is that of assistant professor, but the candidate has not completed requirements

for the doctoral degree (or equivalent degree) at the time of the appointment. Procedures

for appointment are identical to that of assistant professor. An appointment to the rank of

instructor is probationary and may not exceed three years. Promotion to assistant professor

occurs without review the semester following completion of the required credentialing. If

the doctoral degree is not obtained by the date set in the hiring contract, the probationary

contract is not renewed. If the hiring contract does not specify such a date, the third year

is a terminal year of employment for an instructor who has not completed requirements for

promotion to the rank of assistant professor.

When an instructor receives the rank of assistant professor upon receipt of the doctoral

degree, the tenure clock is set in motion. Service credit for time spent as an instructor

does not count against the period of time during which tenure is evaluated unless the

faculty member indicates in writing at the time of promotion to assistant professor that he

or she wishes such credit. This request must be approved by the TIU’s eligible faculty,

the TIU chair, the dean, and OAA. On approval, the tenure review schedule is adjusted

accordingly. Faculty members should carefully consider whether prior service credit is

appropriate since prior service credit cannot be revoked once granted. In addition, all

probationary faculty members have the option to request to be considered for early

promotion. For further information see Faculty Rule 3335-6-03.

Assistant Professor. An earned doctorate (or equivalent degree) is a minimum

requirement for appointment at the rank of assistant professor. Evidence of potential for

high impact scholarly productivity, high-quality teaching, and high-quality service to the

department, the college, and the profession is assessed in the weighing of the appointment

decision. Appointment at the rank of assistant professor is always probationary, with

mandatory promotion and tenure review occurring in the sixth year of service. Review

for tenure prior to the mandatory review year is possible when the eligible tenured faculty

of the faculty member’s TIU determine such a review to be appropriate. The granting of

prior service credit, which requires approval of the Office of Academic Affairs, may

reduce the length of the probationary period, but is strongly discouraged as it cannot be

revoked once granted.

Associate Professor and Professor. Appointment at a senior rank (associate professor or

professor) requires that the candidate meet the college’s criteria in teaching, research, and

service for promotion to these ranks. Appointment offers at the rank of associate professor

or professor and offers of prior service credit require prior approval of the 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 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.

The university will not grant tenure unless the candidate is a (1) U.S. citizen or national;

(2) permanent resident (“green card” holder); (3) asylee or refugee; or (4) an individual

otherwise described as a “protected individual” pursuant to Title 8 U.S. Code Section

1324b(a)(3)(b). Offers to foreign nationals require prior consultation with the Office of

International Affairs.

2 Clinical Faculty

Clinical faculty members in the college are engaged primarily in instructional activities,

in outreach, and in academic program leadership and support. Instructional activities

include effective teaching, extensive interaction with students, the application of

knowledge to practical problems, the development and dissemination of new teaching

materials, experimentation and development of new instructional methodologies, and

active participation in curriculum discussions.

Individuals appointed to clinical faculty normally will have an earned doctorate or other

terminal degree in the relevant field, and a proven track record in: a) supervising students

in a skills acquisition setting; b) working productively with leaders/managers of

organizations in client relationships; c) classroom teaching; d) expanding understanding

of business practice through preparation of written materials such as publishable case

studies; and e) exemplifying and teaching the ethical standards of the profession.

Appointment of clinical faculty entails an initial probationary contract with a term of three

to five years, with reappointment considered annually. As with tenure-track appointments

at senior ranks, clinical appointments at the associate and professor ranks will be reviewed

by the CPC using the criteria set in Section VII of this document. Tenure is not granted to

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

regardless of performance. If the department wishes to consider contract renewal, a formal

review of the faculty member is required in the penultimate year of the current contract

period. TIUs may determine the process for reappointment according to procedures set

forth in the Faculty Annual Review and Reappointment Policy, III, A-G. For more

information see Faculty Rule 3335-7.

The POA of each TIU that appoints clinical faculty must describe the governance rights to

be extended to its clinical faculty.

Assistant Professor of Clinical [TIU name]. An earned doctorate or other appropriate

terminal degree in his or her specialty is usually a minimum requirement for appointment

at the rank of assistant professor of clinical [TIU name].

Associate Professor of Clinical [TIU name] and Professor of Clinical [TIU name].

Appointment at the rank of associate professor of clinical [TIU name] or professor of

clinical [TIU name] normally requires that the individual have an earned doctorate or other

appropriate terminal degree in his or her specialty and meet, at a minimum, the college’s

criteria – in teaching and service – for promotion to these ranks.

3 Associated Faculty

Associated faculty appointments may be as short as a couple of weeks to assist with a

focused project, semester-length 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 titles are used to confer faculty status on individuals who have credentials

comparable to tenure-track faculty of equivalent rank, who provide significant,

uncompensated service to the instructional and/or research programs of the college and

who need a faculty title to perform that service. Adjunct faculty rank is determined by

applying the criteria for appointment of tenure-track faculty.

Lecturer and Senior Lecturer. Appointment as lecturer or as senior lecturer is determined

by the extent of prior teaching experience, the quality of that prior teaching experience,

and the nature of the candidate’s academic credentials and work experience in the field in

which the teaching is to occur. Lecturers and senior lecturers are not eligible for tenure,

but lecturers may be promoted to senior lecturer if they meet the criteria for appointment

at that rank. Senior lecturers are not eligible for promotion. The initial appointment for a

lecturer or senior lecturer should generally not exceed one year.

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

Appointment as an associated faculty member with a tenure-track title is for an individual

at 49% FTE or below, either compensated (1 to 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.

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. Visiting faculty members are not eligible for

tenure or promotion. Visiting faculty appointments may be renewed annually for only

three consecutive years.

4 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, 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 TIU head outlining academic

performance and citizenship. The TIU head in consultation with the TIU tenured and

non-probationary clinical associate professors and professors will decide upon the

request, and if appropriate submit it to the dean, 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.

5 Courtesy Appointments for Faculty

Occasionally the active academic involvement in one academic department by a faculty

member from another department in the Fisher College of Business or the involvement in

this college by a faculty member from another college at The Ohio State University

warrants the offer of a 0% FTE (courtesy) appointment in a department within this college.

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.

The decision to make a courtesy appointment rests with the eligible faculty of the

appropriate department within the college, with the approval of the dean. A courtesy

appointment is made at the individual’s current rank at The Ohio State University, 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/international search is required to ensure a diverse pool of highly qualified

candidates for all tenure-track positions. Exceptions to this policy must be approved by

OAA in advance. Search procedures must be consistent with the OAA Policy on Faculty

Recruitment and Selection.

Searches for tenure-track faculty proceed as follows:

The dean of the college provides approval for the TIU 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 department chair appoints a search committee consisting of three or more faculty

members who reflect the field of expertise that is the focus of the search (if relevant) as

well as other fields within the department. In cases of research and teaching overlap across

departments, the dean, in consultation with the department chair, may also appoint one or

more advisory members from another department to the search committee.

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 or other university entity. Implicit bias training, also strongly encouraged,

is available through the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity.

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 Employment Services and external

advertising, subject to the department chair’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. The university may only award tenure to faculty

members who are: (1) U.S. citizens or nationals; (2) permanent residents (“green

card” holders); (3) asylees or refugees; or (4) individuals otherwise described as

“protected individuals” pursuant to Title 8 U.S. Code Section 1324b(a)(3)(b).

• Screens applications and letters of recommendation and presents to the full faculty

a summary of those applicants (usually three to five) judged worthy of interview.

If the faculty agrees with this judgment, the search committee chair, assisted by the

department office, arranges on-campus interviews. If the faculty does not agree,

the department 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; graduate students; the department

chair; and the dean or designee. Generally, all candidates make a presentation to the faculty

on their research. In some cases, candidates may be asked to teach a class – either an actual

class or a mock instructional situation. All candidates interviewing for a particular position

follow the same general interview format, and relevant accommodations for

disability/impairment should be provided.

Following completion of virtual/on-campus interviews, the eligible faculty meet to discuss

perceptions and preferences, and to vote on each candidate. The eligible faculty reports a

recommendation on each candidate to the department chair. In the event that more than

one candidate achieves the level of support required to extend an offer, the department

faculty can also choose to rank order acceptable candidates.

If the offer involves senior rank, the eligible faculty members also 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 and the

appropriateness of prior service credit to the department chair. 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.

Based on the recommendation of department faculty and, in consultation with the

department chair, the dean makes the decision of which, if any, candidate should be

extended an offer. The details of the offer, including compensation, are determined by the

department chair and the dean. TIUs are advised to discuss potential appointment of a

candidate requiring sponsorship for permanent residence or nonimmigrant work-

authorized status with the Office of International Affairs. The university will not grant

tenure unless an individual is a (1) U.S. citizen or national; (2) permanent resident (“green

card” holder); (3) asylee or refugee; or (4) an individual otherwise described as a “protected

individual” pursuant to Title 8 U.S. Code Section 1324b(a)(3)(b). TIUs will therefore be

cautious in making such appointments and vigilant in seeking residency status for the

appointee promptly and diligently.

2 Clinical Faculty

Searches for clinical faculty members generally proceed as for tenure-track faculty

members, a national/international search being strongly preferred to ensure a diverse pool

of highly qualified candidates. Likewise, virtual/campus visits should be similar in

structure to those used for tenure-track positions, with the exception that the candidate's

presentation during the virtual/on-campus interview is on classroom teaching rather than

research. As per OAA policy, the dean can approve waiving a requirement for a national

search for clinical faculty if special circumstances warrant. This should, however, not be

general practice.

3 Transfer from the Tenure Track

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

circumstances exist. 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.

Tenure is lost upon transfer, and transfers must be approved by tenured faculty in the

candidate’s department, department chair, the dean, and the executive vice president and

provost.

Transfers from a clinical appointment to the tenure-track are not permitted. Clinical faculty

members may apply for tenure-track positions and compete in regular national searches for

such positions.

4 Associated Faculty

The appointment, review, and reappointment of associated faculty are decided by the

department chair, who consults with the department faculty as needed, with the approval

of the dean. Initial appointment for a lecturer or a senior lecturer position is usually made

on an annual basis, and rarely semester by semester. After the initial appointment, and if

the department’s curricular needs warrant it, a multiple year appointment of up to three

years may be offered. Visiting appointments may be made for one term of up to three years

or on an annual basis for up to three consecutive years. All associated appointments expire

at the end of the appointment term and must be formally renewed to be continued. Adjunct

appointments may be renewed only when the uncompensated academic service for which

the initial appointment was made continues.

5 Courtesy Appointments for Faculty

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

faculty member from another department in the Fisher College of Business or another

college at The Ohio State University. A proposal that describes the uncompensated

academic service to the department justifying the appointment is considered at a regular

department faculty meeting. If the eligible faculty approves the proposal, the department

chair extends an offer of appointment. The department chair reviews all courtesy

appointments every three years to determine whether they continue to be justified, and

takes recommendations for non-renewal 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 TIU head. The college dean ensures inter-department comparability in

the review process.

• The review is based on expected performance in teaching, research, and service as

set forth in the college’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, TIU heads 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.

The college and its academic departments follow the requirements for annual reviews as

set forth in OAA’s Faculty Annual Review Policy. It is the expectation of the college that

annual performance and merit reviews will also be consistent with 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 TIU 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. In each of these cases, the decision of the dean is final.

A. Documentation

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

submit the following documents to their TIU head and the dean’s office, usually by mid-

February of the subsequent year.

• An updated CV, and

• An annual faculty activity report, which will typically summarize the following

information:

• Teaching

o Classroom teaching, noting major changes or new preparations to

coursework

o Academic advising, directed individual/independent study, non-

degree/non-credit instruction

o Other student services

• Intellectual Contributions

o Refereed research publications

o Non-refereed publications

o Invited presentations

o Research in progress

o Other scholarly activities

• Service

o Department, college, and university service

o Service to academic discipline

o Professional service

• Honors and Recognitions

• Additional Contributions

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 TIU head.

Until the Fourth-Year review, the process is conducted primarily for the purpose of

providing feedback to the candidate. In these early review years, renewal is expected

barring compelling circumstances. The key steps in the annual review of probationary

tenure-track faculty are as follows.

All eligible faculty members in a department examine the annual performance review

documents and narratives of each probationary tenure-track faculty in that department and

discuss, with the department chair, the strengths and weaknesses of the record and plans.

The department chair prepares a written evaluation of the candidate’s research, teaching

and service record as part of the annual performance and merit review process; in

conjunction with this evaluation, the chair offers a recommendation to the dean about

whether the candidate should be reappointed. The department chair’s evaluation is shared

with the eligible faculty in the department, and the eligible faculty has the option to provide

written advice and feedback supplementing that communicated by the department chair.

Such a letter by the eligible faculty is permissible for providing additional developmental

feedback to the probationary faculty member but is not part of the information that is

provided to the dean as part of the annual review nor does it become part of the cumulative

dossier for promotion and tenure.

The department chair meets with the candidate being reviewed to discuss the faculty’s

evaluation of the candidate’s record and plans, and the department chair’s written

evaluation and recommendation. The candidate may provide written comments on the

review. All annual review letters to date (along with the candidate’s comments, if

provided) shall become a part of the faculty member’s dossier for subsequent annual

reviews during the probationary period, including the review for promotion and tenure.

The department chair’s written evaluation (along with the faculty member’s comments) is

forwarded to the dean. If the department chair’s recommendation is to reappoint the faculty

member to another probationary year of service, that recommendation is final. A

recommendation from the department chair to not reappoint the faculty member to another

probationary year requires a review that follows the procedures laid out for Fourth-Year

review (per Faculty Rule 3335-6-03). Following completion of the comments process, the

dean shall make the final decision in the matter.

1 Fourth-Year Review

Beginning in the spring of the third year after a probationary tenure-track faculty member

is appointed (accounting for any approved exclusion of time from the probationary period,

per Faculty Rule 3335-6-03), and continuing through the fourth year, each probationary

tenure-track faculty member goes through a mandatory Fourth-Year review. The Fourth-

Year review follows the same procedures as the mandatory tenure review, with the

exception that external evaluations are not required and the dean makes the final decision

regarding renewal or non-renewal of the probationary appointment. Thus, the Fourth-Year

review process requires selection of a department Procedures Oversight Designee (D-

POD), an eligible faculty member to draft the initial review report, and a CPC

representative to attend the department meeting as is the case in promotion and tenure

reviews (detailed in Section VI).

The purpose of the Fourth-Year review is to provide a systematic mechanism through

which the candidate becomes aware of the department and college assessment of the quality

and impact of his or her research, teaching, and service activities. This process is both

developmental and evaluative in nature. For candidates whose records are evaluated as

being partially consistent with meeting requirements for promotion and tenure

review at the mandated time due to some weaknesses, the eligible faculty should

elaborate on the nature of concerns and what needs to be done to address weaknesses.

In some circumstances, a Fourth-Year review can lead to a decision not to extend the

probationary appointment of the faculty member being reviewed.

Tenure-track faculty members undergoing Fourth-Year reviews are required to use the

university’s online scholarly activities management system to generate their core dossier.

While a summary of the key dossier elements is noted in Appendix A, candidates must

adhere to the outline for the dossier provided in Volume 3, Section 4.1.2.4 of the OAA

Policies and Procedures Handbook.

The eligible faculty in the department conducts a review of the candidate. The department

chair attends the meeting. On completion of the review, the eligible faculty votes by

written ballot on whether to renew the probationary appointment. Specifically, the voting

options on the Fourth-Year review ballot (presented in Appendix C) are:

• Reappoint – on track

This choice denotes that the candidate’s record is currently progressing in ways that

are consistent with meeting requirements for promotion and tenure review at the

mandated time.

• Reappoint – with reservations

This choice denotes that aspects of the candidate’s record are currently progressing in

ways that are partially consistent with meeting requirements for promotion and tenure

review at the mandated time, but some weaknesses will need to be addressed.

• Do not reappoint

This choice denotes that the candidate’s record is currently progressing in ways that

are inconsistent with meeting requirements for promotion and tenure review at the

mandated time, and it is unlikely that weaknesses can be addressed in a timely manner.

The D-POD counts and records the votes of the eligible faculty. A simple majority of

“Reappoint” votes (inclusive of both “on track” and “with reservations”) is necessary for

the vote to be considered positive. As noted above, in deciding whether or not to reappoint,

the probability of a candidate presenting a case that will succeed at the tenure review in

about two years is taken into account. A decision to reappoint, however, does not imply

that a positive tenure will necessarily follow; that decision will be contingent on progress

and thorough evaluation at the time the candidate is considered for tenure. While every

reasonable opportunity should be provided for the candidate to achieve tenure, faculty

should vote to decline reappointment if they judge that there is only a slim (remote) chance

a candidate would be able to present a case that is near the standard for achieving promotion

and tenure at the mandated time.

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

the department chair. The department chair 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 department review, the

formal comments process (per Faculty Rule 3335-6-04) is followed and the case is

forwarded to the college (beginning with the CPC) for review, regardless of whether the

department chair recommends renewal or non-renewal.

The dean makes the final decision regarding renewal or non-renewal of the probationary

appointment in the Fourth-Year review. Fourth-Year review dossiers are not submitted to

OAA. Positive reviews do not need to be reported to OAA but non-renewal decisions are

communicated via the “Report of Non-Renewal of Probationary Appointment of Regular

Faculty” along with a copy of the non-renewal letter to the faculty member.

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 OAA’s Policies and Procedures Handbook.

C. Tenured Faculty

Associate professors are reviewed annually by the TIU head, who prepares a written

evaluation of each associate professor’s performance, after which he/she meets with the

faculty member to discuss performance and future plans. The faculty member may provide

written comments on the review that will be included along with the department chair’s

evaluation in the faculty member’s personnel file.

Professors are reviewed annually by the TIU head, who meets with the faculty member to

discuss his or her 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

TIU, 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 TIU head prepares a written evaluation of

performance against these expectations. The faculty member may provide written

comments on the review that will be included along with the department chair’s evaluation

in the faculty member’s personnel file.

D. Clinical Faculty

The annual performance and merit review process for clinical probationary and non-

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

respectively, except that nonprobationary clinical faculty may participate in the review of

clinical faculty of lower rank.

The initial clinical contract is always probationary, and the faculty member will be

informed at the end of each probationary year as to whether he or she will be reappointed

for the following year. During and until the end of the second and subsequent contract

terms, clinical faculty appointments may only be terminated for cause (see Faculty rule

3335-5-04) or financial exigency (see Faculty rule 3335-5-02.1) and the termination

decision for either of these reasons shall result from procedures established by faculty rules.

In addition, a contract may be renegotiated during a contract period beyond the initial

contract period only with the voluntary consent of the clinical faculty member.

In the penultimate contract year of a clinical faculty member’s appointment, the department

chair and the dean, in consultation with the eligible faculty, determine whether the position

held by the clinical 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 are observed.

If the position will continue, a formal performance review for reappointment is necessary

in the penultimate contract year to determine whether the clinical faculty member will be

offered a new contract. If the reappointment of the faculty member is being considered at

the same rank as the initial appointment, the determination is made by the eligible faculty

and chair of the department, with the final decision made by the dean. If the reappointment

of the clinical faculty member entails a promotion to a higher rank, then the promotion

process for clinical faculty outlined in Section VI is followed.

E. Associated Faculty

Compensated associated faculty members are reviewed annually by the department chair,

who consults with the department faculty as appropriate. The department chair prepares a

written evaluation and meets with the faculty member to discuss his or her performance,

future plans, and goals. The department chair’s recommendation on reappointment is final.

In the case of an associated faculty member on a multiple year appointment, the chair will

decide whether or not to reappoint no later than October 15 of the final year of the

appointment.

F. Salary Recommendations

Following recommendations from TIU heads, the dean makes annual salary decisions. It

is the expectation of the college that merit salary increases and other rewards made by a

TIU will be made 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 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.

1. Criteria

Except when the university dictates any across-the-board salary increases, all funds for

annual salary increases are directed toward rewarding meritorious performance and

assuring, to the extent possible given financial constraints, that salaries reflect the market

and are internally equitable.

On occasion, one-time cash payments are made for non-continuing activities and

performance that deserve reward but do not justify permanent salary increases; at times,

financial constraints too may necessitate the use of such one-time payments. When

appropriate, recognition can also be provided in the form of a boost in research support

and/or travel funds with amount subject to periodic review. Such payments and rewards

are considered at the time of annual salary recommendations

The college seeks to support accomplishment of its mission by motivating and rewarding

excellence in scholarly performance; providing rewards to faculty making major

contributions in additional priority areas; and responding to market forces in order to retain

high performing faculty. Consistent with these goals, individual faculty members are

annually evaluated for merit in the following areas – scholarship encompassing research,

teaching, and service as well as contributions to additional college priorities. The college

uses annual increase funds for scholarship and provides one-time cash awards to recognize

contributions to additional college priorities.

a. Scholarly Performance (Teaching, Research, and Service)

Scholarly performance in teaching, research, and service is judged according to department

and college missions, with consideration given to a faculty member’s specific balance of

responsibilities. Performance over the preceding three calendar years is evaluated.

Assessment of scholarly performance focuses on accomplishment and impact.

Performance norms are those judged appropriate and consistent with department and

college aspirations and performance at business schools with similarly high standards.

b. Contributions to Additional College Priorities (Recognition awards)

Enhancing scholarship is the primary college priority. In addition, the college also

recognizes faculty contributions in other priority areas beyond those that are embodied in

scholarly performance. In particular, these awards recognize significant out-of-classroom

contributions to enhance student learning and experience in the undergraduate and master-

level degree programs as well as significant service contributions to the department,

college, and university during the past calendar year. While the priority areas will likely

be fairly stable, the dean, in consultation with department chairs, retains discretion to make

any needed adjustments to priorities over time.

2. Procedures

a. Scholarly Performance (Teaching, Research, and Service)

The department chair uses the faculty annual report to assess the scholarly performance of

the faculty member based on excellence in three areas: research, teaching, and service. The

weighting of these categories is based on a faculty member’s appointment and workload.

When evaluating teaching and service, evaluations may also be influenced by input from

program and committee chairs, and appropriate associate dean(s) for programs.

Unresolved differences and/or appeals are handled by the dean or a designated associate

dean.

Section VI of this document defines Research, Teaching, and Service, and also provides

criteria for and examples of excellence in these dimensions. Based on teaching, research,

and service contributions, the annual merit process results in rating each faculty member’s

scholarly performance using the following scale:

• BL: “Below Expectations” is defined as faculty performance that is significantly

less than expectations given the faculty member’s appointment and workload.

• M-: “Minus” deviation from Meeting Expectations is defined as faculty

performance that is not fully meeting expectations given the faculty member’s

appointment and workload.

• M: “Meeting Expectations” is defined as faculty performance that is meeting the

basic expectations for their appointment and workload. This may be, for example,

because the faculty member is performing as expected at their appointment level in

all relevant dimensions, or the faculty member’s performance varies across

dimensions, but in an offsetting manner.

• M+: “Plus” deviation from Meeting Expectations is defined as faculty performance

that is going beyond the expectations given the faculty member’s appointment and

workload.

• SB: “Substantially Beyond Expectations” is defined as faculty performance that is

significantly above expectations given the faculty member’s appointment and

workload.

Faculty members with the same rating are treated identically in terms of recommended

salary percentage increases.

b. Contributions to Additional College Priorities (Recognition awards)

Each department chair, in consultation with program directors in their department, will

recommend up to three individuals from their department who they believe meet one or

both of the above criteria, and who are not otherwise compensated for these activities. The

associate deans will complement the above list by a few additional names (typically no

more than five); this addition is unconstrained by department affiliation.

The performance review process will conclude with a meeting of the dean with all

department chairs and associate deans invited by the dean. Agenda items for this meeting

include review of the scholarly rating given to individual faculty members, confirming

assigned teaching loads, and finalizing the list of faculty members to receive recognition

awards. The college level review of faculty performance will be thorough to assure that

performance has been evaluated according to appropriate norms. The university’s annual

merit compensation process (AMCP) determines the funds available for faculty

compensation. These are distributed based on assigned scholarly ratings, internal equity

and market considerations, with the college adhering to standards and approval process as

required by the university.

3. Appeals

Appeals pertaining to performance and compensation decisions are addressed to the

College Investigations and Salary Appeals Committee. This committee provides its report

and recommendations to the dean.

VI. PROMOTION AND TENURE AND PROMOTION REVIEWS

A. Criteria and Documentation that Support Promotion

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.

While research, teaching, and service activities are defined individually next, the college

is cognizant and encouraging of meaningful overlap and synergies between these activities.

Following Faculty Rule 3335-6-02, these activities are defined as follows.

Research is broadly defined to include discovery, scholarly and creative work, applied

studies, and the scholarship of pedagogy. The results of research will most often appear as

articles in peer-reviewed research journals. In some cases, they may also appear as articles

in non-peer-reviewed research journals, books or book chapters, or as articles in practice-

oriented journals. Research activities can also be indicated by editorship and service on

editorial boards of important research journals, presentations in academic meetings and at

other universities, contributions to research seminars and workshops, and receiving

prestigious research grants.

Teaching is broadly defined to include didactic classroom, non-classroom and distance

instruction, extension and continuing education, advising, and supervising or mentoring

students or postdoctoral scholars. The results of teaching can appear in a variety of forms,

including classroom teaching, one-on-one teaching, serving on doctoral dissertations,

publishing text books, articles in refereed and non-refereed journals on teaching, cases,

instructional software and videos, contributions to teaching seminars and workshops,

publications in practice-oriented journals, and so forth.

Service is broadly defined to include providing administrative assistance to the university,

engaging in professional activities that promote the faculty member’s discipline, and

providing disciplinary expertise to public or private entities beyond the university.

Accepting service roles in a department, the college, or the university is a necessary but

not sufficient condition for being judged to have demonstrated a rank-appropriate level of

service. Faculty members must be judged to have made appropriate impactful

contributions through their service activities. In general, making significant contributions

in a few service roles will be valued more highly than making minor contributions in a

large number of service roles.

As part of their service obligation, faculty members at all ranks are expected to demonstrate

professional collegiality. Collegiality includes, but is not limited to, participating in

meaningful and positive ways in the activities of the college and university, interacting

with others in respectful ways, supporting the intellectual and professional development of

colleagues, acting with integrity, and so forth.

1 Promotion to Associate Professor with Tenure

The award of tenure is a commitment of continuous employment for the purpose of

enhancing discovery and engaging in creative teaching. It is therefore essential to evaluate

and judge the probability that faculty members, once tenured, will continue to develop

professionally and contribute to the department’s academic mission at a high level for the

duration of their time at the university. A decision to promote to associate professor with

tenure, however, does not imply that a promotion to professor will eventually follow; that

decision will be contingent on progress and thorough evaluation at the time the candidate

is considered for promotion to professor.

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

Every candidate is held to high standards in all aspects of performance. Accepting

weakness in any aspect of performance in making a tenure decision is tantamount to

deliberately handicapping the ability of the department and college to perform and progress

academically. A high standard of performance includes ethical professional conduct in

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

Professors’ Statement on Professional Ethics.

The number of years spent in the Fisher College of Business can vary across candidates,

including the possibility of one or more formally approved extensions of the tenure clock.

Congruent with Faculty rule 3335-6-03, the standards for tenure are applied uniformly in

each case regardless of the candidate’s length of service in the college. The eligible faculty

in the department retains discretion as to assigning credit for the candidate’s research

record developed prior to joining the Fisher College of Business. Such decisions by the

eligible faculty should be made in consistent fashion and communicated both to potential

candidates and to deliberating bodies at each level of review. This can be done, for

example, through the initial offer letter, annual reviews, the department Pattern of

Administration, or TIU-specific guidelines in this document. Regardless of the choice,

following university guidelines, promotion is based primarily on activity conducted after

joining the Fisher College of Business.

Successful candidates for promotion to associate professor with tenure must demonstrate

that they have attained potential for excellence in research, achievement in teaching, and

rank-appropriate service. These standards are described in greater detail below.

Potential for Excellence in Research. A faculty member is judged to demonstrate

potential for excellence in research when he or she is engaged in the creation of new ideas

that are beginning to influence scholarship and thinking in their field, and whose impact

can reasonably be expected to grow over time. To this end, for promotion to associate

professor with tenure, a faculty member is expected to have:

• Published a body of work in high-quality peer-reviewed venues that can either be

thematically focused or contribute to multiple areas. In either case, the work must

be likely to be impactful. While the quality of the ideas is a key determinant, the

quality and ranking of the journal (or other outlet) in which the research is published

is an informative indicator of likely impact. Archival journal publications are

weighted more heavily than conference proceedings, published research more than

unpublished research, and original works more than edited works. Further, the

expectation for promotion to associate professor is that the successful candidate’s

work will appear in the journals recognized as being of the highest quality by the

individual’s academic department, though such top journals need not necessarily

all be focused on a single academic discipline; high-quality work by faculty that

bridges disciplines is valued. It is noted that an adequate quantity of publications

in top journals will generally be viewed as a necessary but not sufficient condition

for granting tenure. Quality and impact are critical to establishing sufficiency.

• Started developing a national/international reputation in the field as evidenced by

external evaluations, invitations to present at recognized prestigious forums,

invitations to review research papers and grant proposals, memberships in editorial

boards, a trend of positive citations in research publications, evidence of influence

on the work of others, as well as significant applications of research insights in

practice. A reputation based on the quality of the research contribution is

distinguished from one based mainly on familiarity through the faculty member’s

frequent attendance at conferences.

• Demonstrated a high degree of ethics in the conduct of research including, but not

limited to, full and timely adherence to all regulations relevant to the research

program, and ethical behavior with undergraduate, masters, and PhD students,

postdoctoral fellows, and collaborators. The college’s culture values diversity and

inclusion in people and ideas. With the changing face of the nation itself, the terms

“diversity” and “inclusion” have expanded over time to include individuals from a

growing array of backgrounds, cultures, identities and experiences. It is expected

that the actions of a candidate being considered for tenure have been and will

continue to be consistent with such a culture.

Achievement in Teaching. A faculty member is judged to demonstrate achievement in

teaching when he or she is engaged in successful communication of ideas to students. For

promotion to associate professor with tenure, indicators of such teaching include:

• Demonstrated consistently solid classroom teaching, with student evaluations

(relative to appropriate comparison group) and peer evaluations serving as

informative indicators.

• Provided up-to-date content at an appropriate level in instructional situations and

demonstrated continuing growth in subject matter knowledge.

• Demonstrated creativity in the use of various modes of instruction, classroom

technology, and other teaching strategies to create a desirable learning

environment.

• Provided appropriate and timely feedback to students throughout the instructional

process, treating students with respect and courtesy.

• Contributed to department and college teaching programs through engagement in

curriculum revision and development as and when appropriate for rank.

• Engaged with doctoral education. This can include serving as an advisor or a

member of PhD dissertation committees, teaching doctoral seminars, and/or

guiding doctoral students.

• Engaged in infusing research insights in teaching at all levels, and served as advisor

and mentor to students in the college’s programs.

• Served as advisor to an appropriate number of graduate students given the

department’s graduate student/faculty ratio and the faculty member’s area(s) of

expertise.

Rank-Appropriate Service for Promotion to Associate Professor. Assistant professors

should focus their internal service efforts on attending departmental and college faculty

meetings; contributing to student welfare through service on student-faculty committees

when assigned; membership on departmental committees and task forces and;

occasionally, membership on college committees and task forces. Assistant professors

should focus their external service efforts on activities that will facilitate their scholarly

work, e.g., serving as a reviewer for high-quality journals or academic association national

or international conferences and memberships in editorial boards. As is true with faculty

members at other ranks, assistant professors are expected to demonstrate professional

collegiality as part of their service obligation. Indicators of collegiality include appropriate

interaction with students, staff and faculty members in both verbal and written

communications; attending, participating in and showing respect for others in departmental

meetings and research seminars; and engaging appropriately with organizations and groups

outside the college and in so doing contributing positively to the reputation of the college

and university.

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.

There are two paths that candidates for promotion to professor may follow. The primary

path to promotion to professor (denoted, for expositional convenience, Path 1) requires

excellence in research and sustained achievement in teaching and service over the length

of their career. Whereas the granting of tenure is based on potential for excellence,

candidates for professor on this path must demonstrate excellence in research with a

national or international reputation in their research field.

The college is also receptive to an alternative path to promotion to professor (denoted Path

2) that requires excellence in teaching and service while also maintaining a sustained level

of achievement in research. For a faculty member to be promoted on this path, the

contributions in teaching and service must be substantial, sustained, and of exceptional

quality, as demonstrated, for example, by recognitions at the university or national and

international levels.

Greater detail is provided below.

• Path 1: This primary path to promotion to professor requires demonstrated

excellence in research, and sustained achievement in teaching and service.

Excellence in Research. Publishing research articles in leading research journals is

a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for demonstrating excellence in research.

That is, publishing numerous papers and/or writing several books, does not, by itself,

indicate that a person has demonstrated excellence in research. Instead, in addition

to publications in top-tier journals that continue to play a key role, determining

excellence in research requires thoughtful assessment of the quality of the candidate’s

work, and the impact and influence of the ideas that support the work. In effect, in

judging the excellence of research activities, faculty need to ask themselves whether

or not knowledge in a candidate’s field would be significantly different if the

candidate’s research activities had not occurred.

To be judged as demonstrating excellence in research, a candidate’s record must

demonstrate sustained accomplishment and increasing quality of contributions since

promotion to associate professor; show that the work has had a significant impact in

a field; and that he/she has established a national or international reputation in the

field. Some indicators of significant impact include:

o Successfully addressing fundamental questions in a field.

o Identifying important new questions in a field.

o Helping shape the direction of research in a field.

o Being known and respected by numerous leading scholars, and influencing

their thinking.

o Mentoring students who subsequently develop into leading scholars in the

field.

o Creating ideas that significantly impact management practice in a field.

o Developing ideas that significantly impact student learning as evidenced

by inclusion of research in textbooks, cases, and professional and

practitioner articles.

Relevant quantitative indicators of impact (which could include, for example, Google

Scholar citations, h-indices, or citations/downloads in SSRN) should be provided by

the candidate as evidence supporting achievement of excellence in research. These

indicators should be provided for the candidate as well as for comparable other

faculty in peer institutions who are currently professors or being considered for

promotion to professor. Other evidence of excellence in research includes statements

provided by external letter writers, appointments to high-quality journal editorial

boards and editor positions, and editing research-based monographs and books.

Considering both qualitative and quantitative indicators of research excellence are

needed to establish a case for promotion to professor on Path 1.

Sustained Achievement in Teaching. A faculty member is judged to have

demonstrated sustained achievement in teaching when he or she demonstrates

consistently good classroom teaching and appropriately contributes to the college

teaching programs through quality engagement in curriculum development,

participation on program policy and/or ad hoc committees, involvement in student

recruitment and placement, and so forth. Sustained achievement in teaching

involves:

o Student evaluations that are consistently at or above the mean score relative

to the appropriate comparison group.

o Advising and serving on PhD dissertation committees, and engaging with

doctoral education.

o Up-to-date course content.

o Demonstrated ability to organize and present class material effectively.

o Creativity in the use of various modes of instruction.

o Engaged and respectful interaction with students across degree programs.

o Appropriate and timely feedback to students.

o Engagement in curriculum development.

o Providing meaningful advising services to students.

o Documented efforts to sustain and improve performance in teaching.

Sustained Achievement in Service. To demonstrate sustained achievement in

service senior faculty members are expected to:

o Engage in the full range of service activities including attending

departmental and college faculty meetings; advising students at all levels;

contributing to student welfare through service on student-faculty

committees; serving as an advisor to student organizations; involvement in

the promotion and tenure review process of faculty in their department.

o Contribute in departmental, college, and university committees and task

forces and, at times, in specified faculty leadership roles such as directors

of centers or academic programs.

o Meaningfully participate in activities that enhance profession, including

membership and/or leadership in academic and professional organizations.

o Demonstrate professional collegiality. Indicators of collegiality include

appropriately interacting with students, staff and faculty members in both

verbal and written communications and engaging appropriately with

organizations and groups outside the college, thereby contributing

positively to the reputation of the college and university.

• Path 2: This path to promotion to professor requires a sustained long-term record

of excellence in teaching and service and sustained achievement in research. It

is expected that candidates considered for promotion using this path will have

served in the associate professor rank at the Fisher College of Business for a

number of years to establish a proven record of excellence in teaching and

service; thus, this path is not available for new hires at the professor rank. This

approach is also not accessible through self-nomination; it is initiated through

nomination by eligible faculty of the candidate’s TIU.

Excellence in Teaching and Service. Consistently good classroom evaluations and

consistently good senior faculty level service are necessary, but not sufficient,

conditions for demonstrating excellence in this category. A case for excellence in

teaching and service should include evidence that accomplishments have made a

measurable difference in academic programs, enhanced student development, and

improved college and university operations.

Evidence of excellence in teaching can include, but is not limited to:

o Activity that has had significant impact on programs and peers in the

college, and results in the college being a major draw for students.

o Development of curriculum that contributes to the college being nationally

or internationally recognized.

o Activity that has made a significant contribution to specific courses,

students, and management practice.

o Contributions that impact teaching pedagogy in the college and similarly

regarded institutions via published books, articles, resource guides, and

programmatic materials.

o Efforts to significantly enhance diversity and climate both in and out of the

classroom.

Evidence of excellence in service can include, but is not limited to:

o Activity that has had a significant impact on the work of the college,

university, or profession. This may include serving in a critical

administrative capacity, engaging in program development and significant

redesign, and undertaking corporate outreach activities that impact student

recruitment and placement.

o Contributions that significantly enhance programs and management

practice.

o Evidence that the service activity has significantly enhanced diversity

efforts and accomplishments.

o Activity that has served the professional and academic community in

notable and broad ways, leading to extraordinary accomplishment.

Sustained Achievement in Research. It is expected that a faculty member who

has developed a record of excellence in both teaching and service may have

devoted somewhat less effort and time in recent years on research than a faculty

member who has focused on developing a record of sustained excellence in

research. Nonetheless, under a Path 2 promotion, the record needs to show

sustained achievement in research. A faculty member is judged to have

demonstrated sustained achievement in research when he or she demonstrates

continued engagement in research activities such as authoring and co-authoring

research-oriented publications, active participation in research seminars and

academic conferences, involvement in sponsored research, service on journal

editorial boards, active engagement in facilitating the research work of students,

and peer reviewing of manuscripts and promotion and tenure cases. Assessment

of impact is the critical determinant on which sustained achievement should be

judged. In the case of published work, the quality or ranking of the journal or

other outlet in which the research is published is only one indicator of impact.

Faculty members will be required to submit copies of articles, books and other

research documents, and a summary of their research activities indicating that

they have maintained sustained achievement in research. Similar to research

standards for other promotions, candidates must present evidence of both research

activity and impact. As in Path 1 promotion reviews, letters from external

evaluators will be solicited to evaluate the candidate’s research record and

impact; consistent with the standards of Path 2 promotion, the letters will also

solicit evaluation of the candidate’s teaching and/or service contributions (see

Appendix D).

3 Clinical Faculty

For promotion to associate clinical professor, a faculty member must demonstrate that

he/she has attained excellence in teaching and achievement in service. For promotion to

clinical professor, a faculty member must demonstrate sustained excellence in teaching as

well as excellence in service. A notable requirement for promotion to clinical professor,

one that can span both teaching and service dimensions, is the production and

dissemination of scholarly materials pertinent to pedagogy and/or professional practice to

external audiences, such as faculty at other universities. The expectations on this front are

understandably less for promotion to associate clinical professor, but some progress in

production and disseminating is required. Thus, the standard for promotion to clinical

professor versus associate clinical professor is expected to be substantially higher and

consist of a sustained record over a period of several years with established

national/international reputation, as well as enhanced contributions on the service

dimension.

Excellence in teaching includes high-quality performance in classroom teaching as well as

provision of effective student services and instructional support, including meaningful

contributions to programs. High quality performance in classroom teaching is a critical

component of this requirement, and is evidenced by the following activities:

• Consistently good student evaluations.

• Development and use of up-to-date course content.

• Demonstrated ability to organize and present class material effectively.

• Creativity in the use of various modes of instruction.

• Respectful interaction with students across degree programs.

• Appropriate and timely feedback to students.

• Engagement in curriculum development.

• Providing meaningful advising services to students.

• Documented efforts to sustain and improve performance in teaching.

Exceptional classroom teaching is necessary but not sufficient for demonstrating

excellence in teaching through the clinical ranks. Effective student services and

instructional support are also required. Indicators of effective student services and

instructional support relevant to promotion decisions include:

• Highly visible and successful leadership in multiple student service activities in the

college; these may include attending and organizing outside-of-class events with

students; supervision and collaboration with student organizations; participation in

student competitions as a judge; engagement with faculty and staff, both from the

college and the university as well as with parties external to the university to

develop initiatives, classes, and programs.

• Development and dissemination of important new approaches to teaching.

• Adoption of teaching innovations.

• Development of integrated offerings/curriculum that contributes to Fisher being

nationally or internationally recognized.

• National or international recognition for shaping the direction of teaching.

• Participation in “train-the-trainer” programs that attract external faculty to the

college.

• Development of teaching programs and materials that serves as a major draw for

new students and companies coming to Fisher.

• Demonstrated efforts to significantly enhance and support diversity in the college.

Effective service for a clinical faculty member entails contributions at the college and

university level, but also demonstration of a high level of competence in professional

practice. Such service effectiveness can be demonstrated by, for example:

• Development of long-term working relationships with highly visible companies,

trade and professional associations, and other related organizations.

• Notable contributions to client relationships and development of offerings

delivered through executive education programs.

• Professional advising or consulting activities that both improve the curriculum and

classroom experience and provide meaningful support to the business community.

• Leadership and other major contributions to academic programs that enhance the

reputation of the college. This may include serving in an administrative capacity,

engaging in program development or redesign, and undertaking corporate outreach

activities that impact student recruitment and placement.

• Development of meaningful course materials that enhance education both within

the college and the broader business and academic community, including

publishing materials such as teaching cases, articles, and popular trade books.

Achieving a service record worthy of consideration for clinical promotion does not rest on

documenting activities consistent with a fixed number of items from this list, nor is this list

to be viewed as all inclusive. Rather, the final determination of whether a promotion

standard has been reached rests with the evaluative bodies involved in promotion and

annual review processes and is a matter of individual and collective professional judgment.

This judgment is expected to entail a broad consideration of the college mission and how

the candidate can and does uniquely contribute to achieving college goals.

4 Associated Faculty

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 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.3.

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 consistent

with those set forth in Faculty Rule 3335-6-04 and OAA’s annually updated procedural

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

Procedures Handbook.

Candidates for promotion and tenure or for promotion are reviewed at four levels: the

eligible faculty in the candidate’s TIU, the chair of the candidate’s TIU, the dean of the

college, and the Office of Academic Affairs. The college has a standing faculty promotion

and tenure committee that is advisory to the dean. In the college, this committee is the

College Personnel Committee (CPC). The following sections state the responsibilities of

each party to the review process.

1 Tenure-Track and Clinical Faculty

a. Candidate Responsibilities

The responsibilities of the candidate are as follows:

• Dossier

Every candidate must submit a complete, accurate dossier fully consistent with

OAA guidelines. Candidates should not sign the OAA Dossier Checklist without

ascertaining that they have fully met the requirements set forth in the OAA core

dossier outline including, but not limited to, those highlighted on the checklist. The

dossier outline is provided in Volume 3, Section 4.1.2.4 of the OAA Policies and

Procedures Handbook.

While a TIU’s eligible faculty 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 or her.

TIUs will require unit-appropriate documentation. It is the responsibility of the

TIU 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 less, to

present.

The time period for scholarship 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 to present.

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 to present.

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

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

of scholarship and service is for use during the TIU review only, unless reviewers

at the college and university levels specifically request it.

• Every candidate must define his or her field of work in the dossier research portion

since activities and accomplishments are assessed within that context. The college

currently recognizes thirteen fields of work: Accounting, Business Law, Decision

Sciences, Entrepreneurship, Finance, Human Resources, International Business,

Logistics, Management Information Systems, Marketing, Operations Management,

Organizational Behavior, and Strategy. The college recognizes that this list may

not fully describe all fields of work that are relevant in the study of the theory and

practice of business. For example, newly developed fields of work and inter-

disciplinary fields of work may not be included in this list. With this in mind,

candidates can choose to define their own field of work (within the guidelines

provided below). The candidate’s statement and the department’s action with

regard to the proposed field of work should be communicated to the dean no later

than when the department chair conveys the list of suggested letter writers to the

dean for approval.

Self-defined fields of work must meet the same quality standards as each of the

thirteen fields of work currently recognized by the college: they must be broad-

based, widely recognized, and they cannot be a sub-field of any one of the thirteen

fields currently recognized by the college. To be used in a review process, three-

fourths of the eligible faculty members in a department must agree that a faculty

member’s self-defined field of work meets the defined standard. The determination

must be made prior to the beginning of the review process, and prior to the seeking

of external letters (in reviews for which such letters are required) via the ballot

listed in Appendix C. If the candidate’s self-defined field of work is not accepted

by three-fourths of the eligible faculty members, the candidate must choose from

among the thirteen fields of work currently recognized by the college.

• Candidates must also submit a copy of the APT under which they wish to be

reviewed. Candidates may submit their TIU’s current APT document; or,

alternatively, they

may elect to be reviewed under either (a) the APT document

that was in effect on their start date, or (b) 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, t

he 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.

The APT document must be submitted when

the dossier is submitted to the TIU.

• If external evaluations are required, candidates are responsible for reviewing the

list of potential external evaluators developed by the department eligible faculty

and chair. The extent to which candidates can supplement or request deletions from

the list is noted in the “External Evaluations” section later in this section.

• Candidates will also review and respond to the TIU review report and the

department chair’s recommendation letter. To do so, the candidate will be given

10 business days following delivery of each document. The university provides

forms for such comments and also provides forms for a candidate to decline

comment. It is required that whichever form is appropriate be completed for each

review level and included in the dossier materials submitted to OAA.

2 TIU Eligible Faculty Responsibilities

The responsibilities of the eligible faculty in the department are as follows:

• Spring Semester

 Consider requests from faculty members seeking a non-mandatory review for

promotion and tenure to associate professor, a Path 1 promotion to professor,

or a clinical promotion in the following academic year, and to decide whether

it is appropriate for such a review to take place. In addition, eligible faculty

members of the rank of professor discuss whether any department faculty

member should be considered for Path 2 promotion to professor. In each case,

a simple majority vote is required for the review to proceed. In the case of a

vote favoring consideration of a Path 2 promotion, the department must gain

the permission of the would-be candidate before the process can proceed. After

this period, any non-mandatory requests for Fourth-Year review, tenure, or

promotion from a Fisher faculty member will not be considered unless approved

by the dean for specific reasons (e.g., in response to a compelling external

offer).

o In the case of non-mandatory promotion and tenure to associate professor

or a Path 1 promotion to professor, the eligible faculty bases its decision on

assessment of the record as presented in the faculty member’s curriculum

vitae; his or her research, teaching, and service statements; and student and

peer evaluations of the candidate’s teaching. In the case of clinical

promotions, other than a separate research statement, the same documents

are evaluated. Lack of documentation is sufficient grounds on which to

deny a non-mandatory review.

o A tenured faculty member may only be denied a formal promotion review

under Faculty Rule 3335-6-04 for 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 Faculty members who are not 1) U.S. citizens or nationals; (2) permanent

residents (“green card” holders); (3) asylees or refugees; or (4) individuals

otherwise described as “protected individuals” pursuant to Title 8 U.S. Code

Section 1324b(a)(3)(b) may not undergo a non-mandatory review for

tenure, and tenure will not be awarded as the result of a mandatory review

until the status is established. Faculty members not eligible for tenure due

to lack of status as a “protected individual” under the immigration laws are

moreover not considered for promotion by this college. The TIU eligible

faculty. will confirm the status of an untenured faculty member seeking

non-mandatory tenure review with the TIU head.

o A decision by the eligible faculty to permit a review to take place in no way

commits the eligible faculty, the department chair, or any other party to the

review to make a positive recommendation during the review itself.

 Select from among its members an individual to serve as the Department

Procedures Oversight Designee (D-POD) for all mandatory and non-mandatory

cases for the upcoming year. The D-POD cannot subsequently serve as author

to draft a report for any case on behalf of the eligible faculty. A description of

the role of the D-POD is provided in Appendix B.

 Suggest names of external evaluators to the department chair.

• Autumn Semester

 The department chair coordinates with the eligible faculty in scheduling one or

more meetings for the eligible faculty to review and analyze all tenure and

promotion cases in the department, making every effort to schedule the

meetings at times when all eligible faculty members can attend. A faculty

member being reviewed does not attend the meeting wherein his or her case is

being considered.

o Prior to the meeting to discuss a candidate’s record, the department chair,

the D-POD, and the assigned CPC representative review the dossier and

materials to ensure that it meets all requirements and is ready for

distribution to the eligible faculty. Copies of the verified review documents

and copies of received evaluation letters are distributed to all eligible faculty

members in the department in sufficient time to prepare for the meeting

(normally no later than one week prior to the meeting). In addition, the

eligible faculty is also informed of any member who will not be in

attendance due to a conflict of interest, and any letter the recused faculty

member may have provided. The eligible faculty review thoroughly and

objectively every candidate’s materials in advance of the meeting at which

the candidate’s case will be discussed.

o In the meeting, conducted under the direction of the department chair, the

first agenda item is the election of one of the present eligible faculty

members (other than the D-POD or the department chair) to author the

departmental promotion or promotion and tenure review report (hereafter

referred to as TIU review report). If more than one person is being

reviewed, a different eligible faculty member present can be elected to

author each separate TIU review report.

o The role of the author of the TIU review report, in addition to participating

in the discussion as a member of the faculty, is to take careful notes of the

discussion. This individual will also typically represent the department in

presenting the case to the CPC (detailed later). The role of the departmental

D-POD is to assure that the department’s process follows departmental,

college, and university guidelines and is fair and unbiased. If the D-POD

observes any significant deviations from these guidelines, he or she submits

a report to the department chair and to the dean.

o The eligible faculty should consider the strengths and weaknesses of the

record of the candidate(s) being evaluated. Discussion should be open and

frank and focus on whether or not a candidate’s research, teaching, and

service activities meet the criteria for promotion and tenure described in this

document. The department chair should not make substantive contributions

to this discussion given that he or she has an independent opportunity to

state views via a written evaluation and recommendation to the dean that

accompanies the eligible faculty’s evaluation and recommendation

document. Among other matters, the faculty should discuss each of the

papers sent to the reviewers for tenure-track candidates. The department

discussion of the candidate’s research should not be limited to referencing

the external letter writers’ opinions about the papers. The discussion should

be an independent assessment of those papers by the eligible faculty.

Similarly, the evaluation of teaching should not be limited to only Student

Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) data, but also include other dimensions

listed in this document.

o After faculty members at the departmental promotion or promotion and

tenure review meeting (including the assigned CPC representative) feel

satisfied that both the strengths and weaknesses of a candidate’s record have

been thoroughly discussed and evaluated, a formal vote is taken. This vote

uses the appropriate ballot presented in Appendix C. A positive

recommendation from the eligible faculty is secured when a simple majority

of the votes cast is positive.

 Upon completion of its deliberations of each case, a TIU review report is

authored and, along with the completed ballots, forwarded to the department

chair. The TIU review report summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the

candidate’s record, providing an in-depth analysis of the case as discussed in

the departmental promotion or promotion and tenure review meeting. This

report also describes the outcome of the vote of the eligible faculty members

taken at this meeting. The process for writing the TIU review report is as

follows. The faculty member assigned the task in the department promotion or

promotion and tenure meeting initiates a draft. The draft report is distributed

by its author to all eligible faculty members in the department no more than one

week after the conclusion of the departmental promotion or promotion and

tenure meeting. The department chair also receives a copy. Only eligible

faculty members that attended the department promotion or promotion and

tenure meeting where the case was discussed can suggest revisions to the draft

and have one week to do so; however, eligible faculty members who were

unable to attend the meeting do receive copies of the TIU review report drafts

and its revisions. The department chair does not suggest substantive revisions

to the TIU review report draft. Any disagreements about the content of the

report must be resolved, with the aid of the department chair and D-POD if

necessary, no later than one week after the report draft is first distributed to the

eligible faculty. After the TIU review report is finalized, its author distributes

it to all eligible faculty members in the department, the department chair, and

to the CPC representative for the case.

 The final TIU review report and the department chair’s letter are provided to

the candidate by the department chair by October 15, and the candidate is given

10 business days to respond. Thereafter, the eligible faculty has the opportunity

to provide a written reply to any candidate comments that warrant response, for

inclusion in the dossier.

 A senior faculty member from the department (typically the author of the TIU

review report) presents the case to the CPC at the beginning of its deliberations.

The department representative summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the

case as seen through the eyes of the department faculty and responds to any

CPC questions regarding norms in the particular field/discipline.

 The eligible faculty also provide a written evaluation and recommendation to

the TIU head in the case of joint appointees from another tenure-initiating unit.

The full eligible faculty does not vote on these cases since the TIU’s

recommendation must be provided to the other tenure-initiating unit

substantially earlier than the committee begins meeting on its own cases.

3 Department Chair Responsibilities

The responsibilities of the department chair are as follows:

• Spring Semester

 To charge each member of the Eligible Faculty Committee to conduct reviews

free of bias and based on criteria.

 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 TIU must ensure that such

questions are asked of all applicants in a non-discriminatory manner.) Faculty

members who are not 1) U.S. citizens or nationals; (2) permanent residents

(“green card” holders); (3) asylees or refugees; or (4) individuals otherwise

described as “protected individuals” pursuant to Title 8 U.S. Code Section

1324b(a)(3)(b) may not undergo a non-mandatory review for tenure, and tenure

will not be awarded as the result of a mandatory review until the status is

established. Faculty members not eligible for tenure due to lack of status as a

“protected individual” under the immigration laws are moreover not considered

for promotion by this TIU.

 To assure that the department’s eligible faculty meet to consider requests from

faculty members seeking non-mandatory reviews and to discuss whether any

department faculty member should be considered for Path 2 promotion to

professor. The department chair works with candidates to ensure review

materials are provided to the eligible faculty in reasonable advance of the

meeting.

 To avert and help resolve potential issues of conflict of interest that may arise

during the review process.

 To solicit evaluation letters from a list suggested by the eligible faculty and the

candidate.

 To solicit an evaluation from a TIU head of any TIU in which the candidate has

a joint appointment.

• Summer and Autumn Semesters

 Provide candidates in the department with advice and counsel. Along with the

designated D-POD and the CPC representative, the chair of the department

serves as an advisor to the candidate on the development of the dossier, reviews

the candidate’s materials for completeness, accuracy, and consistency with

OAA requirements; and works with the candidate to assure that needed

revisions are made in the dossier before the department promotion and tenure

meeting.

 Ensure that the candidate’s complete dossier and related documents are made

available for review in an accessible place to all appropriate parties at least one

week in advance of the department’s promotion and tenure meeting in which

the case will be discussed.

 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 or promotion

and tenure matters are discussed and respond to questions raised during the

meeting. At the request of the eligible faculty, a TIU head will leave the

meeting to allow open discussion among the eligible faculty members.

 Provide an independent written evaluation and recommendation for each

candidate upon receipt of the eligible faculty’s completed evaluation and

recommendation. This letter, addressed to the dean, provides the department

chair’s evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the record of the candidate

being reviewed for promotion and tenure or promotion. The letter concludes

by recommending whether or not the faculty member being reviewed should be

promoted and tenured or promoted. The department chair uses the same voting

categories used by the faculty in the departmental promotion and tenure review

meeting. The chair may or may not respond to issues and concerns raised in

the departmental promotion and tenure review meeting and report. A copy of

this letter is given to all eligible faculty in the department. The department chair

meets with the eligible faculty to explain any recommendations contrary to its

recommendation.

 Provide the candidate being reviewed a copy of both the finalized TIU review

report and a copy of the department chair’s recommendation letter by October

15.

 Inform each candidate in writing of the opportunity to submit written comments

on the TIU review report and the department chair’s recommendation letter

within 10 business days from receipt of the letters, for inclusion in the dossier.

The letter is accompanied by a form that the candidate returns to the department

chair, indicating whether or not he or she expects to submit comments. The

candidate’s response is attached to the TIU review report and department

chair’s recommendation letter, and a copy is placed in the personnel file of the

candidate being reviewed.

 Provide a written response to any candidate comments that warrant response

for inclusion in the dossier. The department chair and/or the eligible faculty

may each write replies to a faculty member’s response and are encouraged to

do so if procedural problems that might reasonably have affected the outcome

of a review are alleged. These responses will also be attached to the TIU review

report and department chair’s recommendation letter and included in the

personnel file of the candidate being reviewed. Only one round of the

comments process relative to the departmental level review is permitted.

 Provide the candidate’s dossier, complete in all respects except for the

candidate’s response to letters and potential departmental reply, to the dean’s

office by October 15. Provide the candidate’s response to letters and potential

departmental reply to the dean’s office prior to the scheduled CPC meeting.

 To receive the eligible faculty’s written evaluation and recommendation of

candidates who are joint appointees from other tenure-initiating units, and to

forward this material, along with the TIU head’s independent written evaluation

and recommendation, to the TIU head of the other tenure-initiating unit by the

date requested.

4 College Personnel Committee (CPC) Responsibilities

The responsibilities of the CPC are as follows:

• Elect a chair in its first meeting of the year. In this same meeting, for each case,

one CPC member is assigned to serve as the CPC representative; the CPC

representative is not assigned a case from his or her own department.

• The CPC representative attends all meetings in which substantive discussions of

the case are held, including the departmental promotion and tenure review meeting.

In addition, the CPC representative:

o Assists the D-POD and the department chair to provide guidance regarding

the documentation and presentation of the case and to assure compliance

with procedures. To perform this role, the CPC representative meets with

the candidate as needed. Since the CPC representative is assigned to a case

late in the process, the primary responsibility for assisting the candidate

resides with the D-POD and the department chair.

o Ensures that the discussion in the department promotion or promotion and

tenure review meeting of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate’s

record is open, frank, and complete and focuses on a determination of

impact. In this effort the CPC representative’s role is not to participate in

the substance of the discussion but to observe and encourage a complete

discussion. This includes posing process questions to the eligible faculty to

ensure that the department has addressed how the candidate has or has not

met the criteria associated with the rank sought by the candidate as outlined

in this APT document.

o Verifies, along with the D-POD, that the votes are correctly counted, that

process follows departmental, college and university guidelines, and that

the meeting is conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.

o Serves as a resource to the CPC on the case as a result of having been present

at the department promotion or promotion and tenure review meeting. Any

concerns as to the thoroughness or appropriateness of the departmental

discussion should previously have been expressed to the department chair.

These issues may possibly cause the CPC to request the department chair

and the D-POD to meet with the CPC to discuss the case and to elaborate

on the departmental discussion.

• Review thoroughly and objectively each candidate’s dossier (except those

involving a candidate from the CPC member’s own department) in advance of the

meeting at which the candidate’s case will be discussed. The materials to be

reviewed consist of the candidate’s complete dossier and materials including letters

from evaluators, the TIU review report, the department chair’s recommendation

letter, any responses written by the candidate being reviewed and any replies

written to those responses, annual performance reviews for past five years, and SEI

and peer assessment of teaching.

• 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 (see above), no further consultation with TIU heads or committees on

substantive matters should take place. This assures that the levels of review are

independent.

• The CPC chair schedules meetings of the CPC to discuss cases in a timely fashion

(the meetings being held no later than the last day of November). A quorum for

the CPC to conduct business is two-thirds of its eligible membership.

o The first agenda item in the CPC meeting is the election of one of the CPC

members to author the CPC report and another member of the CPC to serve

as the CPC Procedures Oversight Designee (C-POD) for each of the cases.

If more than one person is being reviewed at a particular meeting, more than

one CPC member present can be elected to author separate CPC reports,

and different CPC members present can be elected as the C-POD for

different cases.

o The C-POD ensures that the CPC’s process follows college and university

guidelines and is fair and unbiased. If the C-POD observes any significant

deviations from these guidelines, he or she submits a report to the dean of

the college. Details of POD responsibilities are presented in Appendix B.

o In CPC deliberations of each candidate, CPC members from the same

academic department as the candidate are recused, neither attending, voting

or otherwise involving themselves in the process. Consideration of the case

then begins with a representative from the candidate’s department

presenting the case to the CPC. The department representative will be a

senior faculty member from the department and typically will be the author

of the TIU review report. The department representative summarizes the

strengths and weaknesses of the case as seen through the eyes of the

department faculty and responds to any CPC questions regarding norms in

the particular field/discipline. The department representative is excused at

the end of his or her presentation. The department representative remains

available to the CPC through the remainder of its meeting in case further

questions arise warranting the representative being recalled to the meeting.

o The CPC then proceeds with discussion on the case, with the CPC

representative assigned to the case sharing his or her impressions to initiate

discussion. All present CPC members express their views on the strengths

and weaknesses of the candidate’s research, teaching, and service and

outreach activities, and whether these activities meet the criteria set in this

document. CPC discussions should be based solely on the documents

generated through the promotion and tenure review process and discussion

in the meetings described here. The meeting concludes with a vote that is

advisory to the dean, verified and recorded by the C-POD.

o The CPC produces a report for the dean on each case. The CPC member

elected as the author of the CPC report writes an initial draft shortly after

the CPC meeting is adjourned. This report summarizes the strengths and

weaknesses of the candidate’s record as discussed at the CPC meeting and

reports the vote of the CPC. The draft report is passed among members of

the CPC who were present for the discussion of a particular case for

comment. In cases where the CPC feels that that it would be helpful to meet

with the dean to discuss a case prior to completing its finalized report, such

a meeting will take place assuming that the dean is amenable. When such

a meeting occurs all reasonable effort will be made to schedule the meeting

such that all CPC members can attend. Once the CPC report is finalized, it

is included in the dossier materials submitted to the dean by the chair of the

CPC. The CPC report should be completed no later than the last day of the

Autumn semester.

o Efforts to influence CPC discussions of individual cases through e-mail,

memos, conversations, or other formal or informal means outside the

procedures described in this document are considered a serious breach of

professional ethics and are deemed unacceptable.

• Review the college’s APT document annually and recommend any proposed

revisions to the dean. Any revision to the APT document must be affirmed through

established process.

5 Dean’s Responsibilities

All documents generated through the promotion and tenure process, including the

CPC report, are received by the dean. These documents are advisory to the dean.

The dean makes a recommendation concerning the promotion and tenure or

promotion of the candidate and forwards this recommendation, in the form of a letter,

to the candidate being reviewed, the author of the TIU review report, the department

chair, member of the CPC, and OAA (as part of the official dossier by the annually

determined deadline).

In accordance with university regulations, candidates have ten business days to write

a response to the CPC report and the dean’s recommendation letter. This response is

forwarded to the executive vice president and provost and a copy is placed in the

faculty member’s file. The CPC and/or the dean may write a reply to a faculty

member’s response and are encouraged to do so if procedural problems that might

reasonably have affected the outcome of a review are alleged. This response will

also be attached to the CPC report and dean’s recommendation letter and included in

the personnel file of the faculty member being reviewed.

The executive vice president and provost reviews the recommendation consistent

with review procedures set forth in Faculty Rules 3335-6-03 and 3335-6-04. Any

decision of the executive vice president and provost shall be final.

Upon notification of the final disposition of a case, the dean informs all college

faculty members of the outcome.

6 Procedures for Associated Faculty

Associated faculty with tenure-track titles 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 college level if the TIU head’s recommendation is

negative, and does not proceed to the executive vice president and provost if the dean's

recommendation is negative. Positive recommendations from the dean likewise do not

proceed to the executive vice president and provost.

7 External Evaluations

Tenure-track Faculty

External evaluations of research are obtained for all tenure-track promotion and tenure or

promotion reviews. In the case of candidates for promotion to professor under Path 2,

consideration should be given to including those with knowledge of the candidate’s

teaching and service accomplishments among the letter writers. This should, however,

not be done at the exclusion of external evaluation of research accomplishments.

A minimum of five credible evaluations must be obtained. A credible evaluation:

• Is written by a person highly qualified to judge the candidate’s research (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. Evaluations will normally only

be solicited from professors at highly regarded academic institutions. 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.

Since it is impossible to control who agrees to write and or the usefulness of the letters

received, at least twice as many letters are sought as are required, and they are solicited

no later than the end of the Spring semester prior to the review year. This timing allows

additional letters to be requested should fewer than five letters result from the first round

of requests.

Outside reviewers must be senior in rank to the candidate being evaluated and must be

distinguished scholars who are able to evaluate the quality and impact of the candidate’s

activities. The candidate may add up to three additional names to the list provided by the

department faculty, but is not required to do so. The candidate may also request the

removal of no more than two names. The finalized list must be approved by the dean or

the dean’s designee.

Once the final list of outside evaluators is identified, all of them are contacted by the

department chair and asked if they would be willing to serve as an external reviewer for

the case. Those that agree to serve as an external reviewer receive a cover letter following

OAA’s suggested format (sample letter templates are found in Appendix D), along with

the candidate’s curriculum vitae, research statement, and up to six examples of research

activities. In the case of Path 2 promotions, the materials are supplemented by the

candidate’s teaching and service statements.

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. The department chair makes

every reasonable effort to obtain at least one letter from someone suggested by the faculty

member. In the event that the person(s) suggested by the candidate do not agree to write,

neither OAA nor the college requires that the dossier contain letters from evaluators

suggested by the candidate.

Under no circumstances may a candidate or any member of the faculty 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

or other faculty member regarding the review, they must inform the evaluator that such

communication is inappropriate and report the occurrence to the department chair and to

the dean, who will decide what, if any, action is warranted. 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. Letters must be signed (pdf

versions with signature are acceptable). E-mails are not sufficient. If concerns arise about

any of the letters received, these concerns may be addressed in the department’s written

evaluations or brought to the attention of OAA for advice.

Clinical Faculty

For promotion from assistant clinical professor to associate clinical professor, letters from

reviewers external to The Ohio State University are not required, although such letters

may be requested at the discretion of the eligible faculty. However, such promotions

require letters from internal evaluators. Internal evaluators include (a) clinical or tenure-

track faculty of higher rank than the candidate under consideration in the college or in

other TIUs at the university and (b) program chairs, center and institute directors, or senior

administrators in the college or university. The eligible faculty, in consultation with the

department chair, creates a list of four or more internal evaluators who are likely to have

had significant interactions with the candidate. The candidate may add one additional

name, but is not required to do so. The candidate may also request the removal of no more

than one name. A minimum of three letters is needed to begin evaluation.

For promotion from associate clinical professor to clinical professor, candidates are

responsible for reviewing a list of four or more internal evaluators and four or more

external evaluators developed by the eligible faculty in consultation with the department

chair. The candidate may add one additional name to the list of internal evaluators and

one additional name to the list of external evaluators, but is not required to do so. The

candidate may also request the removal of no more than one name from each group. A

minimum of five letters is needed to begin evaluation.

All contact with letter writers will be made only by the department chair. Those that agree

to serve as reviewers receive a cover letter (see Appendix D for a sample), along with the

candidate’s curriculum vitae and teaching and service statements. Again, the letters are

solicited no later than the end of the Spring semester prior to the review year. This timing

allows additional letters to be requested should fewer than the required number of letters

result from the first round of requests.

8 Tenure and/or Promotion Reviews for External Candidates

The criteria described for evaluating internal candidates for promotion and tenure and

promotion also apply to external candidates. All external candidates must demonstrate

rank-appropriate levels of research, teaching, and service/outreach.

The only significant differences between the evaluation of internal and external candidates

has to do with the level of required documentation. External candidates are not required

to develop a complete dossier in accordance with The Ohio State University regulations.

An external tenure-track candidate, guided by the department chair, is required to submit

the following promotion and tenure documentation:

• Updated curriculum vitae.

• Examples of research activities.

• An explanation of how these research activities meet college promotion and tenure

criteria for their prospective rank.

• Examples of teaching activities including indicators of quality classroom

instruction, use of classroom materials by other individuals, textbooks written and

adoption information, cases written and adoption information, and any other

indicators of teaching accomplishments.

• An explanation of how these teaching activities meet college promotion and tenure

criteria for their prospective rank.

Department chairs are responsible for distributing the above information to the eligible

faculty at least a week prior to the departmental promotion and tenure review meeting

where the formal vote is taken.

The steps and procedures described for evaluating internal candidates apply to external

candidates as well including:

• The appropriate number of letters is obtained from evaluators, with the list of names

prepared by input from the eligible faculty and candidate.

• There is a formal departmental promotion and tenure review meeting, with an

assigned D-POD, a report writer, and a CPC representative in attendance.

• The department chair prepares a separate recommendation letter.

• The departmental faculty report and the department chair’s letter, along with the

candidate’s materials, are forwarded to the CPC for their evaluation.

• There is a formal CPC meeting on the case, with an assigned C-POD, a report

writer, and a departmental representative who is invited for clarification.

• The dean receives all documents and reports from the department and the CPC and

prepares a separate recommendation letter.

For external clinical faculty hires at the associate and professor levels, the criteria and

procedures are identical to those for promotion of internal candidates to these ranks with

the exception that all evaluators in such cases are external to The Ohio State University.

9 Procedures if New Information About a Candidate Becomes Available

Sometimes events occur that could materially change the information in the promotion

and tenure review document after the document is originally submitted. For example,

submitted papers may be accepted, accepted papers may be published, awards may be

won, and so forth. The faculty member being reviewed can, if he or she desires, update

the promotion and tenure documents with the new information by notifying the department

chair. The department chair verifies the accuracy of this new information. If it is verified,

the promotion and tenure review documents are revised, and subsequent deliberative

bodies in the college take the new information into account.

If information regarding new accomplishments becomes available before department-

level review documents are forwarded to the CPC but after the eligible faculty has voted,

the question of reconsidering a case in light of the new information can be posed

immediately. In this situation, following dissemination of the new information (which

need not take place in a meeting), the eligible faculty take a preliminary vote to determine

whether or not to re-vote the case. This preliminary vote takes the form of a ballot asking

each eligible faculty member who had voted originally in the case to indicate whether the

new information might change his or her vote (see Appendix C for the ballot). If at least

one person indicates that his or her vote might change, the eligible faculty members who

had voted originally meet to discuss the case with the new information and re-vote. The

originally generated TIU review report is then amended to reflect the content of the

reconsideration and the new vote. In this circumstance, the previously generated report

remains in the dossier. In any reconsideration, the candidates retain the right to comment

on the (revised) TIU review report. Replies to these responses can also be written and are

included in a faculty member’s personnel file, as described earlier.

If new information becomes available after department-level review documents are

forwarded to the CPC, the decision as to whether or not the case should be returned to the

department for a re-vote is at the discretion of the dean. If the dean believes that the added

information may likely impact the outcome, he or she can request the department and, then

the CPC, re-vote.

10 Procedural Errors

Significant procedural errors (those that reasonably could have affected the outcome of

deliberations) are to be corrected before the review continues. If a review body or unit

administrator becomes convinced that such an error has occurred, that body or

administrator is to take necessary steps to correct the error at the level of review at which

it occurred. The case is to be fully reconsidered from that point on.

If internal letters of evaluation and comments letters have already been generated at that

level of review and beyond, they are to 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 the error. The comments process must be repeated for the new

internal letters of evaluation at the TIU or college level.

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 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. STUDENT AND PEER EVALUATION OF TEACHING

A. Student Evaluation of Teaching

Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) is administered for every course offered in the

college. Faculty Rule 3335-3-35 requires that students be given the opportunity to evaluate

the quality of instruction provided in each of their courses. The 10-item online SEI

document is the official university-wide instrument provided for this purpose. The faculty

member is to encourage students to complete the SEI, explaining that the evaluations will

be used for both performance evaluation and feedback to the instructor. In the event the

faculty member additionally chooses to provide in-class time for students to complete the

evaluation using a mobile application, the faculty member should select a day late in the

semester when attendance is likely to be high, and the faculty member must leave the

classroom during the time allotted for completing the evaluation.

B. Peer Evaluation of Teaching

TIU heads oversee their unit’s peer evaluation of teaching process.

Annually the TIU head appoints individuals (or a committee) to conduct the peer

reviews. 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.

1 Timing of Evaluations

Voluntary Peer Evaluation: Voluntary peer assessment is available at any time to

any faculty member. A request is made to the department chair who then works

with the faculty member and, if desired, the appropriate program chair. In early

stages of their career, faculty are particularly encouraged to seek voluntary peer

evaluation to obtain timely feedback for growth and improvement in their teaching.

Reviews conducted at the request of the faculty member are considered formative

only; the TIU head is informed that the review took place, but the report is given

only to the faculty member who requested the review. Use of the Drake Institute

for Teaching and Learning for developmental assistance is also encouraged.

Mandatory Peer Evaluation: For full-time instructional faculty, mandatory peer

assessment of teaching effectiveness occurs at least three times during the first six

years of appointment in the college and at least once every three years thereafter.

In the case of untenured, full-time tenure-track faculty, mandatory peer assessments

take place at least once in the first three years of appointment, and at least once in

the next two years. Thus, there is at least one formal peer evaluation prior to the

Fourth-Year review, and at least two formal peer evaluations prior to the sixth year

promotion and tenure review.

Since the timing of reviews for tenure-track faculty is consistent with the promotion

and tenure process, any exclusion of time from the tenure clock (e.g., due to a

professional leave, a leave of absence) modifies the timing of the peer assessment

consistent with the modification made to the tenure clock.

In the case of tenured full-time faculty, mandatory peer assessment occurs at least

once every five years. There should be at least two completed formal peer

evaluations, with at least one conducted since tenure, before commencement of a

case for promotion to professor.

For non tenure-track, full-time faculty, mandatory peer assessment occurs at least

once during the first three years of appointment in the college, and at least once in

the subsequent three years of appointment. Thereafter, mandatory peer assessments

occur at least once every five years. For clinical faculty being considered for

promotion to the rank of associate clinical professor there should be at least two

formal peer evaluations; for promotion to clinical professor, there should again be

at least two peer evaluations with at least one conducted since last promotion.

Outside of mandatory peer assessments, teaching effectiveness is monitored on an

on-going basis through department chair review of syllabi and department and

program chair review of SEI and other relevant teaching data. For any faculty

member, peer assessment can take place more frequently than stated above if the

department chair and one or more program chairs decide that an assessment is

warranted.

2 Components of Review

Faculty members in the college strive for excellence in teaching effectiveness.

Assessment of instructional effectiveness is important to continuing excellence.

The college peer assessment of teaching effectiveness consists of the review of

course content and delivery.

Review of Course Content: The objective of reviewing course content is to assess

the quality and appropriateness of course materials. Included is assessment of

whether materials are up-to-date, course coverage is appropriate, and student

assessment is appropriate.

Review of course content is a department responsibility and is accomplished in

accordance with procedures set forth by each department as detailed in its patterns

of administration. The assessment is accomplished by the department chair and/or

by a faculty committee, depending on department policy.

In the case of peer assessment occurring in the context of promotion and/or tenure

decisions, assessment also includes review of new course design efforts, review of

activities to improve teaching effectiveness, and all other items referred to in the

college APT document as related to evidence of accomplishment in teaching.

Each department chair annually reports to the dean’s office on the department’s

efforts and accomplishments regarding review of course content according to the

aspects listed above and in the context of the department’s review schedule.

Review of Course Delivery: The objective of course delivery review is to assess

the quality of course delivery, including the manner in which course material is

conveyed, the degree of faculty-student interaction, the use of appropriate

technology and other relevant dimensions. This includes assessing course delivery

for clear and effective presentation of course concepts and materials and for

effective and productive interactions with students through classroom discussion.

Classroom Observation Procedures: The faculty member being visited provides

the department chair, prior to the first week of the semester, with a list of five

appropriate class sessions (not to include examinations or other times where the

involvement of the faculty member being observed is minimal). The department

chair identifies the class session(s) observers will attend, sharing that information

with the faculty member at least one week prior to the actual visit. The department

chair selects two faculty members to constitute a visitation team (with the

possibility of a single visitor in some departments in the case of post-tenure

reviews). The faculty member under review is informed of the composition of the

team before it is finalized and has the right to request one change in the membership

of the team before the formal assignment is made. Assigned faculty members may

or may not visit the same class session but will visit a session from the list provided

by the faculty member under review and with at least one week advanced notice to

the faculty member. Whenever the assessment is related to a formal promotion

and/or tenure review, members of the team must be of higher academic rank than

the individual being reviewed.

In visiting class, observers sit in the rear of the classroom. An observer, if he or

she deems it appropriate, can inform the students of his or her presence at the

beginning of the class, stating “Consistent with the Fisher College of Business

efforts to consistently improve instructional delivery, faculty regularly sit in on

classes of all professors. I am/We are here to observe Professor X.” Alternatively,

the faculty member being visited may introduce the observer as he or she sees fit.

The record of classroom observation includes: a list of general facts; an assessment

of the instructor’s level of organization, command of material, clarity of

presentation, and nature and quality of interaction with the students; and a

description of any deployment of instructional technology and its impact on the

engagement of students.

In the case of classroom observation related to promotion and/or tenure reviews,

the report of the assessment team is included in the documentation of the promotion

and tenure case.

A classroom observation report is submitted to the department chair. Whether each

observer (when there are two) files a separate report or whether a collaborative

single report is filed is determined by department level policy. The department

chair provides copies to the faculty member reviewed and to the appropriate

associate dean for program. The faculty member has the right to file a response or

reaction to the assessment report.

3 Responsibilities

Department Chairs: It is the responsibility of the department chair to:

• Establish and maintain a schedule of mandatory peer assessments consistent

with the timing articulated in this policy, to modify the schedule as changes

in faculty composition occur, and to assure that an up-to-date copy of the

schedule is on file with the dean or dean designee.

• Ensure that review of course content and review of course delivery within

the department occurs as outlined in this policy and that all necessary

reports are completed and distributed, as described, to faculty and to the

dean’s office. Reports consist of the visitation reports completed by faculty

colleagues (given to the faculty member under review and to the appropriate

associate dean for program) and the annual report to the dean on

departmental activities consistent with the policy’s requirements for review

of course content.

• Ensure that departmental policies and procedures pertaining to the peer

assessment of instructional effectiveness are included in the department’s

patterns of administration.

• Use the peer assessment process to provide constructive feedback to

individual faculty members thereby fostering instructional development of

all faculty members. Although part-time and visiting faculty are not subject

to formal review under this document, department chairs are responsible for

providing support and oversight to assure an acceptable level of

instructional effectiveness in courses taught by this faculty.

Program Administrators: Program chairs and deans with program titles all share

responsibility with department chairs for instructional effectiveness. As such, they

work to address a variety of issues (i.e., instructional quality, cross course

coordination, deployment of instructional resources) with department chairs

through regular review of course content and course delivery.

It is the responsibility of the associate dean(s) for programs to work with

department chairs to ensure that all reporting requirements mandated under this

policy are met and that peer assessment activities in the college are focused on

maintaining high standards and improving individual performance within a

collegial environment.

To support continued faculty dialogue on teaching and instructional effectiveness,

the associate dean(s) for programs, working with department and program chairs

will organize teaching related events/activities (e.g., faculty discussions,

presentations on innovations, book discussions) as appropriate.

X. AFFIRMATION BY FISHER COLLEGE AFFILIATED TIUs

University rules state that “each tenure initiating unit is responsible for establishing criteria

for appointment, reappointment, and promotion and tenure” and that “each tenure initiating

unit shall have an appointments, promotion, and tenure document” (Faculty Rule 3335-6-

02). Through TIU-based voting, the five TIUs affiliated with the Fisher College of

Business agree that this document will constitute the APT document under which each TIU

will operate until otherwise decided. The TIUs of the Fisher College of Business voted to

support the adoption of this document as their APT document on the dates indicated below.

Department of Accounting and MIS: 03/31/2021

Department of Finance: 03/31/2021

Department of Management and Human Resources: 03/31/2021

Department of Management Sciences: 03/31/2021

Department of Marketing and Logistics: 03/31/2021

Fisher College of Business Dean: 03/31/2021

APPENDIX A

Dossier Elements and Requirements

While this Appendix summarizes key dossier elements, candidates must adhere to the

detailed dossier outline in Volume 3, Section 4.1.2.4 of the OAA Policies and Procedures

Handbook.

A-1 Summary of Dossier Requirements for Fourth-Year Reviews

A-2 Summary of Dossier Requirements for Promotion & Tenure Review

A-3 Summary of Dossier Requirements for Promotion to Professor – Path 1

A-4 Summary of Dossier Requirements for Promotion to Professor – Path 2

A-5 Summary of Dossier Requirements for Clinical Promotions

APPENDIX A-1

SUMMARY OF DOSSIER ELEMENTS – Fourth-Year Reviews

This appendix lists elements that comprise the materials referred to as the dossier for

Fourth-Year review candidates. In addition to providing either written or electronic copies

of each item listed below, the candidate must also complete the electronic core dossier in

the format put in place by the Office of Academic Affairs.

1. Original Dossier Checklist signed by the candidate (this form will be provided to

the candidate by the dean’s office).

2. Updated curriculum vitae.

3. A statement of the candidate’s area(s) of research and a description of research

activities since hire. The candidate’s statement should include an assessment of

how his or her research activities show progress toward the college standards for

promotion to associate professor with tenure.

4. Copies of representative research publications.

5. A statement of the candidate’s teaching activities since hire including his or her

assessment of how these activities indicate progress toward the college standards

for promotion to associate professor with tenure.

6. A copy of syllabi for all courses taught by the candidate since hire.

7. Records of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) for each course taught by the

candidate since hire. Verbatim student comments are not to be included. Instead,

the candidate will include a representative summary of the comments in the dossier.

The TIU head will assign the task of preparing such a summary to a faculty member

in the department (e.g., the D-POD). The candidate is given the opportunity to

review the summary prior to inclusion in the dossier.

8. A brief statement of the candidate’s service activities since hire.

The following items will be added to the dossier at the department and college level.

1. Department and college level review letters, and completed comment forms to these

reviews.

2. All annual performance reviews since hire.

3. Peer assessment of teaching report(s).

APPENDIX A-2

SUMMARY OF DOSSIER ELEMENTS – Promotion & Tenure Review

This appendix lists elements that comprise the materials referred to as the dossier for

promotion and tenure. In addition to providing either written or electronic copies of each

item of each item listed below, the candidate must also complete the electronic core dossier

in the format put in place by the Office of Academic Affairs.

1. Original Dossier Checklist signed by the candidate (this form will be provided to

the candidate by the dean’s office).

2. Updated curriculum vitae.

3. A statement of the candidate’s area(s) of research and a description of research

activities since hire. The candidate’s statement should include an assessment of

how his or her research activities meet the college standards for promotion to

associate professor with tenure.

4. Copies of representative research publications.

5. A statement of the candidate’s teaching activities since hire including his or her

assessment of how these activities meet college standards for promotion to

associate professor with tenure.

6. A copy of syllabi for all courses taught by the candidate since hire.

7. Records of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) for each course taught by the

candidate since hire. Verbatim student comments are not to be included. Instead,

the candidate will include a representative summary of the comments in the dossier.

The TIU head will assign the task of preparing such a summary to a faculty member

in the department (e.g., the D-POD). The candidate is given the opportunity to

review the summary prior to inclusion in the dossier.

8. A statement of the candidate’s service activities since hire that includes an

assessment of how his or her service activities meet the college standards for

promotion to associate professor with tenure.

9. Candidates have 10 business days to provide comments or decline to comment on

reports and or recommendation letters generated at each level of review. The Ohio

State University form for this purpose will be provided to you by the department or

dean’s office. Complete and return to the appropriate office for inclusion in the

dossier.

The following items will be added to the dossier at the department and college level.

1. Department and college level review letters, and completed comment forms to these

reviews.

2. Annual performance reviews from the past five years.

3. Peer assessment of teaching report(s).

4. At least five letters from external reviewers, no more than half being from reviewers

suggested by the candidate. A cover sheet indicating the qualifications of each

letter writer will be completed by the department chair and placed on top of the

corresponding letter. A summary of responding and non-responding external

evaluators will also be completed and included by the department chair.

APPENDIX A-3

SUMMARY OF DOSSIER ELEMENTS – Promotion Review (Path 1)

This appendix lists elements that comprise the materials referred to as the dossier for Path

1 promotion review. In addition to providing either written or electronic copies of each

item of each item listed below, the candidate must also complete the core dossier in the

format put in place by the Office of Academic Affairs.

1. Original Dossier Checklist signed by the candidate (this form will be provided to

the candidate by the dean’s office).

2. Updated curriculum vitae.

3. A statement of the candidate’s area(s) of research and a description of research

activities. The candidate’s statement should include an assessment of how his or

her research activities meet the college standard of excellence in research required

for promotion to professor on Path 1.

4. Copies of representative research publications.

5. A statement of the candidate’s teaching activities including his or her assessment

of how these activities meet college standard of sustained achievement in teaching

required for promotion to professor on Path 1.

6. A copy of syllabi for all courses taught by the candidate over the last five years or

since the last promotion, whichever is less.

7. Records of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) for each course taught by the

candidate over the last five years or since the last promotion, whichever is less.

Verbatim student comments are not to be included. Instead, the candidate will

include a representative summary of the comments in the dossier. The TIU head

will assign the task of preparing such a summary to a faculty member in the

department (e.g., the D-POD). The candidate is given the opportunity to review

the summary prior to inclusion in the dossier.

8. A statement of the candidate’s service activities that includes an assessment of how

his or her service activities meet the college standards of sustained achievement in

service for promotion to professor on Path 1.

9. Candidates have 10 business days to provide comments or decline to comment on

reports and or recommendation letters generated at each level of review. The Ohio

State University form for this purpose will be provided to you by the department or

dean’s office. Complete and return to the appropriate office for inclusion in the

dossier.

The following items will be added to the dossier at the department and college level.

1. Department and college level review letters, and completed comment forms to these

reviews.

2. Annual performance reviews from the past five years.

3. Peer assessment of teaching report(s).

4. At least five letters from external reviewers, no more than half being from reviewers

suggested by the candidate. A cover sheet indicating the qualification of each letter

writer will be completed by the department and included in the dossier that is

forwarded for CPC review. A summary of responding and non-responding external

evaluators will also be completed and included by the department.

APPENDIX A-4

SUMMARY OF DOSSIER ELEMENTS – Promotion Review (Path 2)

This appendix lists elements that comprise the materials referred to as the dossier for Path

2 promotion review. In addition to providing either written or electronic copies of each

item of each item listed below, the candidate must also complete the core dossier in the

format put in place by the Office of Academic Affairs.

1. Original Dossier Checklist signed by the candidate (this form will be provided to

the candidate by the dean’s office).

2. Updated curriculum vitae.

3. A statement of the candidate’s area(s) of research and a description of research

activities. The candidate’s statement should include an assessment of how his or

her research activities meet the college standard of sustained achievement in

research required for promotion to professor on Path 2.

4. Copies of representative research publications.

5. A statement of the candidate’s teaching activities including his or her assessment

of how these activities meet college standard of excellence in teaching required for

promotion to professor on Path 2. The statement should highlight the candidate’s

portfolio of teaching contributions including (but not limited to) detailing

curriculum innovations; developments in teaching pedagogy; improving academic

and professional skills of students; and creating and publishing programmatic

materials, books, articles, resource guides, and cases.

6. A copy of syllabi for all courses taught by the candidate over the last five years or

since the last promotion, whichever is less.

7. Records of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) for each course taught by the

candidate over the last five years or since the last promotion, whichever is less.

Verbatim student comments are not to be included. Instead, the candidate will

include a representative summary of the comments in the dossier. The TIU head

will assign the task of preparing such a summary to a faculty member in the

department (e.g., the D-POD). The candidate is given the opportunity to review

the summary prior to inclusion in the dossier.

8. A statement of the candidate’s service activities that includes an assessment of how

his or her service activities meet the college standards of excellence in service for

promotion to professor on Path 2.

9. Candidates have 10 business days to provide comments or decline to comment on

reports and or recommendation letters generated at each level of review. The Ohio

State University form for this purpose will be provided to you by the department or

dean’s office. Complete and return to the appropriate office for inclusion in the

dossier.

The following items will be added to the dossier at the department and college level.

1. Department and college level review letters, and completed comment forms to these

reviews.

2. Annual performance reviews from the past five years.

3. Peer assessment of teaching report(s).

4. At least five letters from external reviewers, no more than half being from reviewers

suggested by the candidate. A cover sheet indicating the qualification of each letter

writer will be completed by the department. A summary of responding and non-

responding external evaluators will also be completed and included by the

department.

APPENDIX A-5

SUMMARY OF DOSSIER ELEMENTS – Clinical Promotions

For clinical promotion cases, in addition to complying with any formal dossier

requirements by OAA, documentation must include:

1. Updated curriculum vitae.

2. A statement of teaching activities that includes an assessment of how these teaching

activities meet the college standards for promotion.

3. A copy of syllabi for all courses taught by over the last five years or since the last

promotion, whichever is less.

4. Examples of published books, articles, resource guides, programmatic materials

and other teaching materials.

5. Records of Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) for each course taught by the

candidate over the last five years or since the last promotion, whichever is less.

Verbatim student comments are not to be included. Instead, the candidate will

include a representative summary of the comments in the dossier. The TIU head

will assign the task of preparing such a summary to a faculty member in the

department (e.g., the D-POD). The candidate is given the opportunity to review

the comments prior to inclusion in the dossier.

6. A statement of service activities that includes an assessment of how these service

activities meet the college standards for promotion.

7. Candidates have 10 business days to provide comments or decline to comment on

reports and or recommendation letters generated at each level of review.

The following items will be added to the dossier at the department and college level.

1. Department and college level review letters, and completed comment forms to these

reviews.

2. Annual performance reviews from the past five years.

3. Peer assessment of teaching report(s).

4. Letters from evaluators. The department chair will complete a cover sheet that

notes the qualification of each letter writer. A summary of responding and non-

responding evaluators will also be completed and included by the chair.

APPENDIX B

Responsibilities of the Procedures Oversight

Designee (POD) for the Department (D-POD) and

the College (C-POD)

APPENDIX B

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PROCEDURES OVERSIGHT DESIGNEE (POD)

The Procedures Oversight Designees (POD) are appointed by the eligible faculty at the

department level and by the CPC at the college level. A summary by OAA of the duties

of the POD is found here.

Duties of the Department POD (D-POD)

• The eligible faculty of each department selects one of its members as D-POD in the

Spring semester prior to discussing all mandatory and non-mandatory Fourth-Year,

promotion and tenure, and promotion cases. The D-POD should not be the

department chair or the report writer for a case.

• The D-POD must be familiar with the written guidelines on the promotion and

tenure process at the department, college, and university levels.

• Prior to the departmental promotion and tenure meeting the D-POD, along with the

department chair and the assigned CPC representative, reviews the dossier to ensure

that it meets all requirements and is ready for distribution to all eligible faculty.

This includes:

o Assuring that the dossier is prepared correctly using the applicable format,

verifying any included SEI comments, asking the candidate to make any

needed changes, and verifying that requested changes have been

completed; and

o Affirming the accuracy of all publications listed in the dossier. If anyone

other than the D-POD performs this function it must be noted on the

Dossier Checklist.

• The D-POD works with the department chair to address and resolve any conflicts

of interest.

• The D-POD assures that proper criteria are applied when candidates are considered

for early review or have an approved extension of the tenure clock.

• During the review meeting the D-POD ensures that the proceedings are carried out

in a highly professional manner and that the process follows college and university

guidelines.

• The D-POD monitors the review process in regard to equitable treatment for

women and minority candidates, including assuring that the proceedings are free of

inappropriate comments or assumptions about members of underrepresented

groups that could bias their review. Specifically, he or she monitors the review

process in regard to equitable treatment for candidates based upon protected status

as detailed in HR Policy 1.10.

• If the D-POD has concerns about a review, he or she submits a report to the

department chair and to the dean (see below for a more detailed outline of steps).

• The D-POD is responsible for recording the votes of the eligible faculty of the

department on the Dossier Checklist included with the dossier materials. By

signing the completed form the D-POD is confirming, “I understand that if the

tenure-initiating unit reviews and forwards a dossier lacking key information and/or

containing less than credible external evaluation, the review process may have to

begin anew.”

Duties of the College POD (C-POD)

• The CPC selects one of its members to serve as C-POD for each case during the

meeting scheduled to review cases. The C-POD should not be the chair of the CPC

and should not be the report writer for the case.

• If more than one person is being reviewed at a particular meeting, different CPC

members present can be elected as the C-POD for different cases.

• The C-POD must be familiar with the written guidelines on the promotion and

tenure process at the departments, college, and university levels.

• The C-POD works with the CPC chair to address and resolve any conflicts of

interest.

• The C-POD monitors the review process in regard to equitable treatment for women

and minority candidates, including assuring that the proceedings are free of

inappropriate comments or assumptions about members of underrepresented

groups that could bias their review. Specifically, he or she monitors the review

process in regard to equitable treatment for candidates based upon protected as

detailed in HR Policy 1.10.

• If the C-POD has concerns about a review, he or she submits a report to the

department chair and to the dean (see below for a more detailed outline of steps).

• The C-POD is responsible for recording the votes of the CPC on the Dossier

Checklist included with the dossier materials. By signing the completed form the

C-POD is confirming, “I understand that if the college reviews and forwards a

dossier to the Office of Academic Affairs that lacks key information and/or

containing less than credible external evaluation, the review process may have to

begin anew.”

If the D-POD or the C-POD observe any significant deviations from college or university

guidelines or has any concerns about a review, these concerns should first be brought to

the attention of the person or review body generating the concerns. For example, if a

dossier is not prepared correctly, the POD should ask the candidate who prepared the

dossier to make needed changes. If appropriate procedures are not being followed by either

faculty or staff, then those individuals should be promptly informed of the problem.

If concerns cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the POD, then they should be brought

to the attention of the relevant administrator (department head, CPC chair, or dean,

depending on the level of review). The administrator must look into the matter and respond

in writing to the POD regarding either the actions taken or the reasons that action was

judged to be unwarranted.

Although a single committee member is assigned oversight responsibility, all members of

review bodies must accept personal responsibility for assuring that reviews are

procedurally correct, fair, and free of bias for all faculty members. Review bodies, not the

POD, are ultimately responsible for the integrity of the review process.

APPENDIX C

Ballots

C-1 Ballot for Fourth-Year Review – Department

C-2 Ballot for Fourth-Year Review – CPC

C-3 Ballot for Promotion to Associate Professor – Department

C-4 Ballot for Promotion to Associate Professor – CPC

C-5 Ballot for Promotion to Professor - Department

C-6 Ballot for Promotion to Professor – CPC

C-7 Ballot for Reconsidering a Case Should New Information Become

Available

C-8 Ballot for Evaluating Self-Defined Fields of Work

APPENDIX C-1

Ballot for Fourth-Year Review – Department Meeting

Candidate Being Reviewed: Date:

As prescribed by the Fisher College of Business appointments, promotion, and tenure

document, this ballot presents three options for evaluating Fourth-Year review candidates.

Please select one option below that you feel most accurately represents this case:

____ Reappoint – on track

____ Reappoint – with reservations

____ Do not reappoint

In Fourth-Year reviews it is particularly important to provide the candidate with

developmental feedback. Please take the time to provide such feedback in the space below.

Likewise, if you have information that you would like to share with the CPC and with the

dean with regard to this case and the probability of promotion, please do so.

Comments

APPENDIX C-2

Ballot for Fourth-Year Review – CPC Meeting

Candidate Being Reviewed: Date:

As prescribed by the Fisher College of Business appointments, promotion, and tenure

document, this ballot presents three options for evaluating Fourth-Year review candidates.

Please select one option below that you feel most accurately represents this case:

____ Reappoint – on track

____ Reappoint – with reservations

____ Do not reappoint

In Fourth-Year reviews it is particularly important to provide the candidate with

developmental feedback. Please take the time to provide such feedback in the space below.

Likewise, if you have information that you would like to share with the dean with regard

to this case and the probability of promotion, please do so.

Comments

APPENDIX C-3

Ballot for Promotion to Associate Professor With Tenure –

Department Meeting

Candidate Being Reviewed: Date:

The candidate meets the criteria for promotion to associate professor with tenure as

articulated in the Fisher College of Business appointments, promotion, and tenure

document:

YES

Comments

Note:

In the case of clinical faculty, the ballot (and criteria) for "associate professor with tenure"

is re-worded as the ballot (and criteria) for "associate professor - clinical."

APPENDIX C-4

Ballot for Promotion to Associate Professor With Tenure –

CPC Meeting

Candidate Being Reviewed: Date:

The candidate meets the criteria for promotion to associate professor with tenure as

articulated in the Fisher College of Business appointments, promotion, and tenure

document:

YES

Comments

Note:

In the case of clinical faculty, the ballot (and criteria) for "associate professor with tenure"

is re-worded as the ballot (and criteria) for "associate professor - clinical."

APPENDIX C-5

Ballot for Promotion to Professor (Path 1) –

Department Meeting

Candidate Being Reviewed: Date:

The candidate meets the criteria for promotion to professor (Path 1) as articulated in the

Fisher College of Business appointments, promotion, and tenure document:

YES

Comments

Note:

In the case of Path 2 promotions, the ballot is changed in obvious ways. In the case of

clinical faculty, the ballot (and criteria) for "professor " is re-worded as the ballot (and

criteria) for "professor - clinical."

APPENDIX C-6

Ballot for Promotion to Professor (Path 1) – CPC Meeting

Candidate Being Reviewed: Date:

The candidate meets the criteria for promotion to professor (Path 1) as articulated in the

Fisher College of Business appointments, promotion, and tenure document:

YES

Comments

Note:

In the case of Path 2 promotions, the ballot is changed in obvious ways. In the case of

clinical faculty, the ballot (and criteria) for "professor " is re-worded as the ballot (and

criteria) for "professor - clinical."

APPENDIX C-7

Department Ballot for Reconsidering a Case

Should New Information Become Available

Candidate Being Reviewed: Date:

Brief description of new information provided by the candidate:

Choose One:

____ Yes, the new information about this case might change my previous vote.

____ No, the new information about this case does not change my previous vote.

Note:

In the event at least one eligible faculty member indicates that his or her vote might change,

the faculty will meet to discuss the case with the new information and re-vote.

APPENDIX C-8

Department Ballot for Evaluating Self-Defined Fields of Work

Candidate Being Reviewed: Date:

Brief description of self-defined field of work provided by the candidate:

Is this self-defined field of work broad-based, widely recognized, and not a sub-field of

one of the thirteen fields currently recognized by the college?

YES

Note:

The candidate’s self-defined field of work is accepted if at least three-fourths of the eligible

faculty supports the choice.

APPENDIX D

Sample Letters to Evaluators

D-1 Letter for Promotion to Associate Professor or Professor (Path 1)

D-2 Letter for Promotion to Professor (Path 2)

D-3 Letter for Promotion to Associate Professor

– Clinical or Professor –

Clinical

APPENDIX D-1

SAMPLE LETTER TO AN EXTERNAL EVALUATOR

For Promotion to Associate Professor or Professor (Path 1)

The format of the sample letter is not required, merely suggested. It is recommended that

external evaluators be contacted to ascertain their ability/willingness to respond prior to

sending the written request. If a unit wishes to use a different format or to seek different

information, it should fully consider both how evaluators are likely to respond to such a

request, given the time provided to respond and the Public Records Act, and how much

information the evaluator has on which to base the requested assessment.

The Department of XXX is considering Dr. Doe for promotion to the rank of associate

professor with tenure [professor]. Dr. Doe’s performance in teaching, research and service

will be evaluated at the department, college, and university levels to determine whether

promotion and tenure [promotion] will be granted. I am requesting you only to provide a

critical assessment of Dr. Doe’s research.

Enclosed you will find a copy of Dr. Doe’s curriculum vitae, research statement, and copies

of the following papers:

Please comment in some detail on the significance of the candidate’s overall research

program as well as on individual papers, including the scholarly merit of the work, its

originality, and its impact on the field of study. In addition, how would you compare Dr.

Doe to other researchers in this field who are being considered for promotion or have

recently been promoted to the same rank as that under consideration for Dr. Doe?

Please do not comment on whether Dr. Doe should be promoted and tenured [promoted]

at Ohio State or would or would not be promoted and tenured [promoted] at your

institution. We must make this assessment based on the total record, not just on research,

and on our own criteria and standards.

Under the Ohio Public Records Act all documents related to promotion and tenure reviews,

including letters of evaluation, are public records subject to lawful requests to the

university for viewing and/or copies. While we cannot promise confidentiality, in the event

that anyone requests access to the information you provide, we will inform you in writing

of the request and the source of the request.

Thank you for your time and effort in responding to this request. If for any reason you

will not be able to evaluate this candidate or if you have any questions about this process,

please contact me at [phone number/email address] immediately. I would appreciate

receiving your letter by [date].

APPENDIX D-2

SAMPLE LETTER TO AN EXTERNAL EVALUATOR

For Promotion to Professor (Path 2)

The format of the sample letter is not required, merely suggested. It is recommended that

external evaluators be contacted to ascertain their ability/willingness to respond prior to

sending the written request. If a unit wishes to use a different format or to seek different

information, it should fully consider both how evaluators are likely to respond to such a

request, given the time provided to respond and the Public Records Act, and how much

information the evaluator has on which to base the requested assessment.

The Department of XXX is considering Dr. Doe for promotion to the rank of professor.

Dr. Doe’s performance in teaching, research and service will be evaluated at the

department, college, and university levels to determine whether promotion will be granted.

I am requesting you to provide a critical assessment of Dr. Doe’s research, teaching and

service.

Enclosed you will find a copy of Dr. Doe’s curriculum vitae, research, teaching, and service

statements, and copies of the following papers:

Please comment on the significance of the overall research program as well as on individual

papers, including the scholarly merit of the work, its originality, and its impact on the field

of study. Also, to the extent feasible, please comment in some detail on Dr. Doe’s activity

and visibility in the area of development of teaching in the discipline. Similarly, please

comment on the impact of Dr. Doe’s service to the profession and professional societies,

based on your knowledge and observation.

Please do not comment on whether Dr. Doe should be promoted at Ohio State or would or

would not be promoted at your institution. We must make this assessment based on the

total record in the context of our own criteria and standards.

Under the Ohio Public Records Act all documents related to promotion and tenure reviews,

including letters of evaluation, are public records subject to lawful requests to the

university for viewing and/or copies. While we cannot promise confidentiality, in the event

that anyone requests access to the information you provide, we will inform you in writing

of the request and the source of the request.

Thank you for your time and effort in responding to this request. If for any reason you will

not be able to evaluate this candidate or if you have any questions about this process, please

contact me at [phone number/email address] immediately. I would appreciate receiving

your letter by [date].

APPENDIX D-3

SAMPLE LETTER TO AN EVALUATOR

For Promotion to Associate Professor – Clinical or Professor – Clinical

The format of the sample letter is not required, merely suggested. It is recommended that

external evaluators be contacted to ascertain their ability/willingness to respond prior to

sending the written request. If a unit wishes to use a different format or to seek different

information, it should fully consider both how evaluators are likely to respond to such a

request, given the time provided to respond and the Public Records Act, and how much

information the evaluator has on which to base the requested assessment.

The Department of XXX at the Fisher College of Business is considering Dr. Doe for

clinical promotion (i.e., non tenure-track promotion) to the rank of associate professor –

clinical [professor – clinical]. Dr. Doe’s performance in teaching and service will be

evaluated at the department, college, and university levels to determine whether promotion

will be granted. I am requesting you to provide a critical assessment of Dr. Doe’s

contributions on these dimensions.

Enclosed you will find a copy of Dr. Doe’s curriculum vitae, a teaching statement, and a

service statement. Please comment in some detail on the significance of the candidate’s

accomplishments in regards to teaching and service. Also, to the extent you are aware of,

please comment on Dr. Doe’s activity and visibility in the area of pedagogical development

and contribution to the profession. Further, please comment on the impact of Dr. Doe’s

service to the profession and professional societies, based on your knowledge and

observation.

Please do not comment on whether Dr. Doe should be promoted at Ohio State or would or

would not be promoted at your institution. We must make this assessment based on the

total record in the context of our own criteria and standards.

Under the Ohio Public Records Act all documents related to promotion and tenure reviews,

including letters of evaluation, are public records subject to lawful requests to the

university for viewing and/or copies. While we cannot promise confidentiality, in the event

that anyone requests access to the information you provide, we will inform you in writing

of the request and the source of the request.

Thank you for your time and effort in responding to this request. If, for any reason, you

will not be able to evaluate this candidate or if you have any questions about this process,

please contact me at [phone number/email address] immediately. I would appreciate

receiving your letter by [date].

APPENDIX E

Additional TIU-specific Guidelines

E-1 Department of Finance

E-2 Department of Accounting and MIS

APPENDIX E-1

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

This appendix provides additional guidelines to supplement those provided in Section VI,

as they pertain to the standard for demonstrating “Potential for Excellence in Research”

when evaluating candidates in the Department of Finance who seek to be appointed to or

promoted to the rank of Associate Professor with Tenure. In providing these guidelines,

we reiterate and fully concur with the pervasive theme in the APT that prescribed

standards are intended to be guides rather than substitutes for professional judgment.

In particular, this appendix lays out typical minimum requirements to demonstrate the

“Potential for Excellence in Research.” Being an expected lower bound, it follows that

the faculty fully recognize that some candidates who satisfy these requirements will not

be recommended for tenure, for instance, because the impact of their work is deemed

insufficient. It will be in rare and easily justifiable cases, that a candidate will be promoted

even when these standards are not met, for instance, because the candidate has published

work that has radically transformed the way an important problem is addressed.

Publication Record

• Typically, at least four publications in the top-tier finance journals (listed below) is

viewed as a necessary but not sufficient condition for the department to recommend

tenure. In particular, the impact of the publications and the nature of the

candidate’s contribution in co-authored publications will be assessed.

Publications in top economics journals could count towards this threshold. For

candidates who have spent an entire probationary period in the department, these

four publications must have been published during the probationary period. For

candidates who have spent only partial probationary period in the department, these

four publications must have been published in the five years before the candidate

is considered for tenure.

o Top Finance Journals: The Journal of Finance, The Journal of Financial

Economics, and Review of Financial Studies.

• To be considered for tenure, a candidate should have at least one single-authored

publication in a high quality refereed journal in finance or a related field (i.e.,

economics or accounting).

• As noted upfront, exceptions to the above requirements can only be made for truly

exceptional candidates with a scholarly contribution that is widely recognized as

having exceptional impact in the field.

• The Department of Finance supports a single path for “promotion to professor.” In

particular, the research, teaching, and service expectations of a promotion to

professor rank are as noted for Path 1 promotions to professors in Section VI.A.2

(the “path” label is no longer used given our approach). In addition, following the

guidance of Faculty Rule 3335-6-02, the department also recognizes that

reasonable flexibility shall be exercised in balancing research, teaching, and service

such that heavier commitments and responsibilities in one area are weighed against

lighter commitments and responsibilities in another.

APPENDIX E-2

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND MIS

This appendix provides modification and clarification to guidelines provided in the APT

when evaluating candidates in the Department of Accounting and MIS (AMIS). This

appendix supersedes the relevant sections in the main body of this document. As the

appendix governs the Department of AMIS, the Department of AMIS reserves sole

authority to amend this appendix at its discretion and without approval of other departments

in the Fisher College of Business, although amendments are subject to the approval of the

Dean.

• The selection of the “do not reappoint” option in the Fourth-Year review and in the

associated ballot (Appendix C-1) is viewed as stating that the candidate’s academic

record is currently progressing in ways that are inconsistent with meeting

requirements for promotion and tenure review at the mandated time, and the chance

of addressing the weaknesses in a timely manner is remote.

• The Department of Accounting and MIS supports a single path for “promotion to

professor.” In particular, the research, teaching, and service expectations of a

promotion to professor rank are as noted for Path 1 promotions to professors in

Section VI.A.2 (the “path” label is no longer used given our approach). In addition,

following the guidance of Faculty Rule 3335-6-02, the department also recognizes

that reasonable flexibility shall be exercised in balancing research, teaching, and

service such that heavier commitments and responsibilities in one area are weighed

against lighter commitments and responsibilities in another.