External Peer Review
Revised May 31, 1995
Updated August 2000
Updated March 2005
Updated October 2005
University policy requires external reviews for all candidates seeking promotion or tenure (The University of Alabama Faculty Handbook, p. 28). This document summarizes the policies of the College of Commerce and Business Administration that supplement the general University policies on external reviews.
- The Department Head/Director requests from candidates for promotion and/or tenure a list of three or more persons who are recognized as experts in professional areas of relevance to the evaluation of the candidate's record. Candidates may indicate preferences with respect to the individuals to be contacted, and these will, in general, be respected unless there are specific and compelling reasons for not doing so. External review letters cannot be solicited from persons who served on the candidate's dissertation committee. External review letters from co-authors are normally discouraged, but may be included in special situations. Candidates will be expected to provide the Department Head/Director with a statement of any professional or personal relationship which they have or have had with the persons whose names are provided.
- Normally, faculty reviewers should hold tenured positions at the rank to which a candidate is seeking promotion or higher at universities of peer status or better to The University of Alabama. These include major state universities and private universities with nationally recognized business schools. If a department selects reviewers who do not meet these criteria, exceptions should be noted by the department head in documentation provided in the candidate’s dossier and an explanation of the reasons for the exceptions should be described. The majority of external reviewers for any candidate should meet the criteria noted in paragraph two above.
- The Department Head/Director requests from faculty in the Department/ School who are knowledgeable about the candidate's research specialization the names of experts who can provide an evaluation of the candidate's record. External review letters cannot be solicited from persons who served on the candidate's dissertation committee. External review letters from co-authors are normally discouraged, but may be included in special situations. A statement of personal and/or professional relationships between the candidate and the external peer reviewers ultimately selected will be included in the candidate's dossier.
- The Department Head/Director will request at least two evaluations of the candidate's work from those names that were supplied by the candidate and two evaluations of the candidate's work from those names that were supplied by the faculty. The candidate will be told the identity of the reviewers selected from the faculty list before they are contacted but will not have the right to veto the choices. Outside letters will be annotated by the Department Head/Director to indicate whether the letter was provided by a reviewer selected by the faculty or provided by a reviewer selected by the candidate. A minimum of two letters obtained under these guidelines shall normally constitute a minimum requirement. If outside letters were requested but not received in time for review by the faculty, the Department Head/Director will provide a memo to the promotion file to that effect. Outside letters received after the departmental faculty begins its deliberations will not be included in the review process.
- Reviewers will be contacted by the Department Head/Director prior to mailing any materials to verify their willingness to prepare the review on a timely basis. A standardized letter (attached) has been prepared for use in soliciting external reviews. Reviewers will be provided with a complete resume of the candidate's professional accomplishments and a sample of his/her published or unpublished research. The candidate will normally select the papers to be included in the material mailed to outside reviewers.
- Normally, reviewers will be asked to comment only on a candidate's research, including the quality of the journals in which the candidate has published. In some cases, however, opinions on professional association activities, consulting, or other matters may be requested if these are important to the candidate's case and if the reviewer has special knowledge of the candidate's work in these areas. In no circumstances will reviewers be asked to provide a recommendation regarding the personnel action under consideration. External reviewers who are asked to write letters as part of the P&T process will be informed that the letters will be confidential and available only to those who are directly involved in the review process. The letters will be shared with candidates only when required as a result of legal action. Consequently, the letters will be added to a candidate's dossier after the dossier has been turned in to the department chair and will be removed from the dossier before it is returned to the candidate. The dossier will not be available to the candidate once it has been turned in until the review process is complete.
- The outside review letters will be available to the faculty group participating in the evaluation of the candidate. The Department Head/Director will include these letters in the review file forwarded to the Dean.
- No explicit weight will be assigned to external reviews, and it will not be assumed that they are more accurate or authoritative than internally generated evaluations. Such reviews should be viewed as additional information only. The final decisions regarding promotion/tenure recommendations and actions remain the exclusive responsibility of the faculty of the College of Commerce and the central administration of The University of Alabama.
- The Department Head will have discretion as to whether to discuss the contents of external review letters with candidates. In circumstances in which the contents of the external letters are likely to have a significant negative effect on the promotion or tenure decision, the Department Head should discuss the issues raised by the external reviewers with the candidate, without revealing the source, and provide the candidate an opportunity to explain or rebut those issues.
Standardized Form Letter for External Review Solicitation for
Promotion to Associate Professor/Tenure
Updated June 2004,
Updated March 2005
Updated October 2005
Dear Dr. Brown:
Thank you for agreeing to review Pat Smith's research record. Dr. Smith is being considered for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor. Enclosed are a current vita and three recent research papers, one of which is a working paper.
Please provide a candid appraisal of Dr. Smith's research record. Specifically, we would like you to answer the following three questions:
Does the research record reflected in Dr. Smith's vita represent a meaningful contribution to the literature of the field?
Is this research record indicative of a developing scholar who is likely to have a positive impact on his/her field of study?
What are the major strengths and weaknesses evident in the papers, including the working draft, that you have been sent?
In addition, please provide a brief assessment of the quality of the journals in which Dr. Smith has published.
Please note that we are not soliciting an opinion about whether Dr. Smith should be promoted/tenured. This decision necessarily involves considerations beyond Dr. Smith's research record. Your letter will be confidential and available only to those who are directly involved in the review process. The letter will be shared with candidates only when required as a result of legal action.
Thank you for your assistance in this evaluation. It is an important element of our promotion (and tenure) review process. We will need to receive your response no later than (October 1). It will not be necessary to return the enclosed materials.
Sincerely,
Bob Jones
Department Head
Standardized Form Letter for External Review Solicitation for
Promotion to Full Professor
Updated June 2004
Updated March 2005
Updated October 2005
Dear Dr. Brown:
Thank you for agreeing to review Pat Smith's research record. Dr. Smith is being considered for promotion to the rank of Professor. Enclosed are a current vita and three recent research papers, one of which is a working paper.
Please provide a candid appraisal of Dr. Smith's research record. Specifically, we would like you to answer the following four questions:
Does the research record reflected in Dr. Smith's vita represent a meaningful contribution to the literature of the field?
Does the research record demonstrate an ability to independently conceptualize and carry out scholarly research?
Is this research record indicative of a scholar who has had and will continue to have a positive impact on his/her field of study?
What are the major strengths and weaknesses evident in the papers, including the working draft, that you have been sent?
In addition, please provide a brief assessment of the quality of the journals in which Dr. Smith has published.
Please note that we are not soliciting an opinion about whether Dr. Smith should be promoted. This decision necessarily involves considerations beyond Dr. Smith's research record. Your letter will be confidential and available only to those who are directly involved in the review process. The letter will be shared with the candidates only when required as a result of legal action.
Thank you for your assistance in this evaluation. It is an important element of our promotion review process. We will need to receive your response no later than (October 1). It will not be necessary to return the enclosed materials.
Sincerely,
Bob Jones
Department Head