• Preamble
  1. Criteria for Promotion and Tenure
  2. Evaluation of Research
  3. Evaluation of Teaching
  4. Evaluation of Service
  5. Review of Progress Toward Promotion and Tenure
     1. Mentoring of Untenured Faculty
     2. Annual Appraisal
     3. Third Year Review of Untenured Assistant Professors
     4. Third Year Review of Associate Professors
  6. Guidelines of Minimal Criteria for Promotion and Tenure
     1. Teaching
     2. Research and Other Creative Activity
     3. Service
     4. Promotion to Professor
        1. Teaching
        2. Research
        3. Service
        4. Stature in the Field/Profession
     5. Tenure
     6. Non-Tenure Track Faculty
• Attachment 1
• Attachment 2
• Attachment 3

Preamble:

The goals of the College of Biomedical Science are to attain excellence in biomedical research and convey knowledge in the subject matter of Biomedical Science to medical and graduate students. In order to attain these goals, faculty of high caliber must be promoted and given tenure. The following guidelines for promotion and tenure are consistent with the goals of the college and the regulations of Florida Atlantic University.

Return to top

1. Criteria for Promotion and Tenure

   Decisions to promote faculty and the awarding of tenure are important to the department, college, and university in that they determine the quality of faculty in future decades. Therefore, recommendations should be selective, particularly for appointments to indefinite tenure. Promotion to Associate Professor should be initiated only if an individual has a record of competency in teaching, research, and service and distinction in either teaching or research.

   The primary missions of Florida Atlantic University are teaching, research (including other creative activities, hereafter called research), and service (including administrative work, hereafter called service). In every promotion and/or tenure process, all three areas must be considered. The primary bases for promotion and tenure are evidence presented of excellence in teaching and research. Competency must also be demonstrated in the area of service.

   Excellence in all areas is desirable, but it is recognized that equal excellence in each area is exceptional. The college, in keeping with university guidelines, recognizes that there are multiple routes for promotion. For example, a candidate may demonstrate distinction in research and may be promoted if the record in teaching and service is one of commitment and competency. Similarly, a candidate may demonstrate distinction in teaching and may be promoted if the record in research and service is one of commitment and competency. In every instance, the record of teaching, service and research shall be thoroughly documented, with due deference to the department and college of what constitutes high quality in each case. Because no single method of evaluation is perfect, several methods should be used, producing a record thorough enough to indicate not just past performance, but a reasonable likelihood of continued high levels of achievement. Fairness must be the hallmark in each step of the promotion and tenure process, with quality the ultimate goal.

   Each candidate will be judged in terms of his or her assignments. Assignments are made by the Chair and address what is expected in terms of teaching, research, and service during the period for which the assignment is made, usually, one year. If the assignments have stressed one area of endeavor more strongly, then this area will receive relatively greater attention in the evaluation of the candidate for promotion. Candidates with distinctive assignments will require an evaluation that respects this distinctiveness and explicitly enables the candidate the opportunity to become promoted via one of the many promotion routes. A distinctive assignment is one that differs from the assignments given to most faculty members. It may stress an unusually heavy instructional or service commitment, or it may emphasize heavily the research role of the professor.

   Assignments may be amended midyear upon mutual agreement of the professor and the Chair. A professor may request an amendment of assignment to devote greater time to one sector than was originally anticipated. For example, if a research opportunity should arise that was not anticipated at the time of the writing of the assignment, the professor may request release from some other area to allow ample time for the project.

   Return to top

2. Evaluation of Research

   Florida Atlantic University Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure currently require letters from professional specialists outside the University, evaluating the candidate's accomplishments in research/publication. The college also requires letters of evaluation from faculty or other professionals within the university who are appropriate referees. A minimum of three outside and two inside letter are required. Additional letters may be requested and included in the evaluation packet. The inside letters should address the full spectrum of the candidate's accomplishments and promise. The outside letters are solicited by the chair after consulting with the candidate and the chair of the departmental committee.

   A list of potential referees will be compiled by the Chair/Director, the senior faculty in the discipline and the candidate. The candidate should have the opportunity to review the list for conflicts of interest. The Chair will contact the selected referees and request the review letters. All letters should be solicited only from evaluators who are in a position to comment in a discriminating and objective manner on the candidate's current record and potential. Each letter of evaluation should include a statement of the way in which the evaluator knows the candidate and the qualifications of the person writing, the letter. A self-evaluation by the candidate is also required. A sample letter from the chair to referee must be included in the candidate’s dossier.

   Return to top

3. Evaluation of Teaching

   Effective teaching is the hallmark of the professorate. Faculty seeking tenure and promotion must have a demonstrable record of effective instruction in the classroom and competency in guiding independent student learning. Both undergraduate and graduate teaching assignments are to be evaluated. All promotion and tenure recommendations must include as thorough an evaluation of teaching effectiveness as can be assembled. Descriptive data such as course level, number of students and type of courses taught will be included. Peer evaluations and evaluations made by students, including the SPOT (Student Perception of Teaching) evaluation, will also be a part of the packet. Medical student teaching evaluations may also be included. A self evaluation by the candidate is also required.

   Return to top

4. Evaluation of Service

   Description and evaluation of the candidate's service are required. The candidate must provide a list and details of service activities and a self evaluation of contributions in each service activity. Letters or memoranda, or other written communications from committee chairs, letters of thanks, etc., are suggested as means of demonstrating service.

   Return to top

5. Review of Progress Toward Promotion and Tenure
   1. Mentoring of Untenured Faculty. Assistant professors and any others of the faculty who are untenured but employed on a tenure-earning track will be provided with a mentor who will help them prepare for promotion to Associate Professor and/or tenured status. The mentor will be a tenured member of the faculty within the Charles E. Schmidt College of Biomedical Science, at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor. The selection of the mentor will be made by mutual agreement of the mentor, the candidate, and the Chair of the Department. The candidate may, without prejudice, request a change of mentor.

      The role of the mentor is to become familiar with the candidate's assigned duties and his or her attempts to fulfill the assignment. The mentor may assist in the following:

      1. Teaching: advising as to which courses are advisable to teach (especially new preparations); reviewing course syllabi, course subject matter, lecture notes, and examination format; choosing peer reviewers;
      2. Research: helping select research projects; helping select potential granting agencies; advising on choice of outlets for manuscripts; reviewing manuscripts prior to submission;
      3. Service: choosing type and number of service activities; comparing relative merits of particular service activities over others, and;
      4. helping in any other field of endeavor that may bear on normal progress toward promotion and tenure.

      Return to top

   2. Annual Appraisal. The Department Chair must provide each faculty member who is or will be eligible for consideration for promotion/tenure with an annual review of progress toward promotion and tenure. This annual review is performed by the Chair with input provided by department faculty acting as an Annual Appraisal Committee. This committee will consist at least of the Department Chair, the candidate's mentor, and the elected representative to the Charles E. Schmidt College of Biomedical Science Promotion and Tenure Committee. Other individuals at ranks higher than the candidate may also serve. The candidate may be asked to attend to explain portions of the overall record. The committee, less the Departmental Chair, will write an evaluation of the teaching, research, and service record of the faculty member. The findings of the Annual Appraisal Committee will be advisory to the Chair, and the Chair will make an evaluation of progress.

      The result of the review by the Chair of the Department will be conveyed in writing to the faculty member, and a follow up meeting, may be held as requested by either party for review and comment. At the time of evaluation for promotion to Associate Professor and tenured status, the tenured members of the department will examine the Chair's annual appraisals. Consistently favorable annual appraisals will have communicated to the candidate that in the Chair's judgment, normal progress was being made toward promotion and tenure. Likewise, a record of marginal or unsatisfactory appraisals may suggest that the candidate may not be eligible for advancement. However, the faculty members voting on promotion and tenure are charged to make an assessment of a candidate's qualifications independent of those made by the Chair in the annual appraisals. A candidate may have received favorable annual appraisals from the Department Chair yet still receive a negative vote from a promotion/tenure committee because of the following:

      1. The promotion and tenure vote is based on an evaluation of a more comprehensive packet than was examined by the Chair when the annual appraisals were written. The promotion/tenure decision considers a longer record and is influenced by the opinions of scholars outside the department who have evaluated the candidate's record. The Chair's annual appraisals are based on a smaller set of materials.
      2. Although the Chair receives input from the Annual Appraisal Committee in arriving at the annual appraisals, the Chair ultimately makes these annual appraisals independently. The Chair's annual appraisals are, therefore, the assessment of a single individual with a unique point of view. The body deciding upon promotion/tenure makes its judgment based on a consensus of many faculty.

      Return to top

   3. Third Year Review of Untenured Assistant Professors. Untenured Assistant Professors in the college will undergo a review during their third year of tenure earning status to determine if they are making normal progress toward promotion to Associate Professor and tenured status. This review will be conducted by the tenured members of the faculty acting as the Third Year Review Committee. The review will examine the evaluation file of the candidate and will compare accomplishments with assigned duties. Strengths and/or weaknesses in the record will be brought to the attention of the Chair of the Department and the Dean of the Charles E. Schmidt College of Biomedical Science, as well as to the candidate. If the review is strongly critical of the candidate's progress toward promotion to Associate Professor and tenured status, the Third Year Review Committee will communicate their opinion in writing to the candidate.

      The Third Year review will differ from the annual appraisal of progress toward promotion/tenure in the following ways:

      1. The third year review is made by all tenured faculty;
      2. The candidate will prepare a packet similar to a promotion and tenure packet (see Attachment 1). The Third Year Review Committee will examine the format and appearance of the packet, as well as its substance, and advise the candidate on how the packet could be improved;
      3. The results of the third year review are not advisory to the Chair. Rather, the results of the vote and the recommendations to the candidate are communicated directly to the candidate with copies to the Chair.

      Return to top

   4. Third Year Review of Associate Professors. Associate Professors in the department will undergo a review every third year that they hold Associate Professor status to determine if they are making normal progress toward promotion to Professor The Third Year Review Committee will consist of all individuals in the department with the rank of Professor. The review will examine the evaluation file of the candidate and will compare accomplishments with assigned duties. Strengths and weaknesses in the record will be brought to the attention of the Chair of the Department, as well as the candidate. If the review is strongly critical of the candidate's progress toward promotion to Professor, the review committee may recommend that the Chair of the Department communicate to the candidate that, in the committee's view, the candidate is not making satisfactory progress. The Chair may, in that case, recommend a plan to improve performance that may help prepare the individual for promotion to Professor.

      The guidelines for these Third Year reviews are attached to this document and are filed among the Department's Bylaws.

      Return to top

6. Guidelines of Minimal Criteria for Promotion and Tenure
   1. Teaching
      1. The candidate is expected to demonstrate effective and competent instruction as demonstrated by student evaluations, peer review, and other evaluation vehicles.
      2. The candidate is expected to show that course content reflects current developments in the field.
      3. If the candidate has undertaken undergraduate or graduate independent studies or research courses or has served on graduate committees, the candidate is expected to present a record of such involvement that will attest to competence.

      Return to top

   2. Research and Other Creative Activity

      Research and other forms of creativity are essential faculty activities, and a candidate must show productivity in this area. Publications are strong evidence of accomplishment in the research category. Research is not evaluated on the basis of philosophical orientation, nor the specific topic examined, provided that the topic is relevant to biomedical science. The department does not adopt a standard that a minimum number of research items must be completed before a candidate may be considered for promotion. Rather, the research and other creative activities of candidates will be examined as an entire body of work. The following are classes of materials that are typically judged heavily in the evaluation of a candidate:

      1. Publication of research that results in books or articles in refereed journals.
      2. Publication of academic textbooks.
      3. Application for, and attraction of, funding to help support personal research and/or training of departmental students.
      4. Involvement as a committee member in research training of undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral fellows,
      5. Supervision of student masters' theses and/or special research projects through matriculation;
      6. Presentation of papers at local, national, and international forums that represent the results of research and other creative activity.
      7. Creation and maintenance of forums for dissemination of research and creative work, including World Wide Web sites, newsletters, and other communication means.

      It is the responsibility of the candidate to assess the quality of the outlets of the research and attempt successes in high quality journals, book publishers, granting agencies, and the like. It is not possible to supply a list of prestigious journals; highly regarded publishers or other recommended outlets because such a list would be (1) excessive in length; and (2) subject to controversy among department and college personnel as to its accuracy and completeness. Therefore, the candidate, prior to submitting work for dissemination, should consult with his or her mentor and with department members. The candidate, for example, may ask a number of senior professors their opinions on the prestige of particular journal. In cases where a candidate publishes in an outlet unknown to department members, the candidate should solicit letters from scholars outside the department attesting to the quality of the outlet.

      The department recognizes that outstanding scholarship maybe published in minor journals. This need not diminish the value of the research. The individuals evaluating a candidate should look at the quality of the research independent of the outlet.

      The importance of a piece of research may in part be judged by how often it has been cited by others in the field. Candidates are urged to consult citation indexes to support claims of importance of apiece of research.

      Return to top

   3. Service

      The College of Biomedical Science recognizes that service is a normal and essential requirement of university life. Faculty members may be given service as a part of their annual assignment, in which case they shall be evaluated in terms of their performance of assigned service. Faculty will not be evaluated on categories of service for which no assignment was made. A faculty member may request that the service assignment be amended.

      As with other categories, the department does not adopt a standard that a minimum number of service items must be accomplished before a candidate may be considered for promotion. Rather, the service activities of candidates will be examined as an entire body of work, which will be judged on its merits.

      Normal categories of service include the following:

      1. Participation on departmental/college/or university committees or similar duties that are part of the annual assignments,
      2. Public and professional service (e.g., guest lectures/presentations, judging science fairs, etc.) or service in professional societies.
      3. Promotion of the discipline through direct participation in, and invitation of outside speakers to the department.
      4. Review of books and manuscripts for professional journals and book publishing, houses, and grant proposals for funding agencies.

      Return to top

   4. Promotion to Professor
      1. Teaching
         1. The candidate is expected to be able to demonstrate a high level of competence in undergraduate and graduate teaching as demonstrated by student evaluations and peer review.
         2. The candidate is expected to have achieved competence in curriculum design and development of innovative teaching approaches.

         Return to top

      2. Research

         The research of candidates will be examined as an entire body of work, which will be judged on its merits. The following categories of performance are typically judged heavily in the evaluation of a candidate for Professor:

         1. Maintaining personal and/or graduate research programs and disseminating the findings of research conducted in these programs.
         2. Applying for and attracting funding to support personal research and/or training of department students.
         3. Receiving recognition for the quality and impact of research at national and international levels.
         4. Publishing scholarly studies and insightful reviews, occasionally as an invited participant.
         5. Directing student masters' theses and/or special research projects through matriculation.

         Return to top

      3. Service

         The service activities of candidates will be examined as an entire body of work, which will be judged on its merits. The following are examples of the service accomplishments expected of Professors.

         1. Participation on departmental/college/or university committees or similar duties that are part of the annual assignments;
         2. Public service (e.g., guest lectures/presentations, judging science fairs, etc.) or service in one or more professional societies
         3. Promotion of the discipline through direct participation in, and invitation of outside speakers to the department.

         Return to top

      4. Stature in the Field/Profession

         Stature in the field/profession must be established for Professor candidates. Such stature may be assessed through external letters of evaluation from respected academics and other esteemed persons of special significance to a faculty member's record. Further, evidence of national and/or international recognition as recorded through invitations to organize, chair, or give seminars and symposium presentations, activity on editorial boards or peer review panels of granting, agencies, editorial activities and/or chapters contributed to books, authorship of books etc., will be examples of stature attained.

         Return to top

   5. Tenure

      Criteria for tenure are those for promotion to Associate Professor. While promotion to associate professor and the recommendation for tenure usually occur at the same time, these are separate actions and require separate votes. Promotion to associate professor reviews the accomplishment of the individual, recommending for tenure assesses the potential for lifelong contribution to teaching and research. For Assistant Professors, recommendation for tenure will be made at the time of recommendation for promotion to Associate Professor. Individuals hired at the rank of Associate Professor or Professor will be reviewed for tenure in their first year of service. Candidates who do not meet the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Criteria for promotion to Associate Professor cannot be recommended for tenure.

      Return to top

   6. Non-Tenure Track Faculty

      Some faculty in the department will not be on the tenure track but are eligible for promotion in the department according to their assignment in research or teaching. A separate document will detail the criteria for promotion of non-tenure track faculty.

      Return to top

Attachment 1

Assistant Professors will be notified in the official letter offering employment from the University that in their third year of employment in a tenure earning line, they will undergo a review of their progress. This promotion and tenure review will be undertaken by the tenured faculty meeting as a Third Year Review Committee commencing in the month of February in the third year that a new assistant professor is in tenure earning status.

Assistant Professors are required to present during their third tenure earning year a packet modeled on the normal sixth year University promotion/tenure packet. The packet will contain a summary of teaching evaluations, all scholarly publications, all scholarly manuscripts accepted or under review, and any work in progress. The Assistant Professor may also submit (at most) two letters of evaluation of his or her record, one from inside and one from outside the institution.

The promotion/tenure packet will be due in the Chair's office by February 1. It should contain an analysis of the Assistant Professor's progress toward promotion/tenure. This analysis can be prepared by the Assistant Professor (i.e., a self analysis), by the candidate's mentor, or by another tenured member of the Department (other than the Chair of the Department) selected by the Assistant Professor. The review will address the Assistant Professor's teaching, research, and service productivity and potential.

The Third Year Review Committee will examine the materials submitted, meet to discuss the case, and vote by secret ballot on whether the Assistant Professor is on track for promotion/tenure.

The primary concern of the promotion/tenure review will be the potential of the individual, not the actual performance to date. It is possible that an individual with limited accomplishments could receive a positive promotion/tenure review if work in progress is deemed to be of very high quality.

By March 15, Assistant Professors will be notified by written memorandum from the Chair of the Third Year Review Committee regarding the outcome of the promotion/tenure review. The memorandum will provide a summary of the points raised at the meeting that discussed the case. The intent of the summary is to provide the Assistant Professor with feedback from the evaluation that can be used to improve performance.

If the third year review is negative, the Chair of the Department may recommend a plan to improve the record that could result in acceptable performance. Consistent with University policy, the Department Chair may recommend a terminal year contract at the conclusion of the third year review.

An individual who receives a positive Third Year review is not automatically guaranteed a favorable vote for promotion/tenure at the normal review period during the sixth year.

Return to top

Attachment 2

The promotion review of Associate Professors will be undertaken by the faculty with rank of Professor meeting as a Department Promotion Review Committee. This meeting will take place commencing in the month of February in the third year following the candidate's promotion or appointment to the rank of Associate Professor and every third year thereafter that the candidate remains at the rank of Associate Professor.

The Associate Professor is required to present a promotion review packet modeled on the promotion packet. The packet will contain a summary of teaching evaluations, all scholarly publications, all scholarly manuscripts accepted or under review, and any work in progress. The Associate Professor may also submit (at most) two letters of evaluation of his or her record, one from inside and one from outside the institution.

The packet should contain a self analysis of the Associate Professor's progress toward promotion. The review will address the Associate Professor's teaching, research, and service productivity and potential. The packet will be due in the Chair's office by February 1.

The Promotion Review Committee will examine the materials submitted, meet to discuss the case, and conduct a secret ballot on whether the Associate Professor is on track for promotion.

Associate Professors will be notified by the Department Chair in writing by March 15 of the outcome of the promotion review. The Department Chair will provide a summary of the points raised at the Promotion Review Committee meeting that discussed the case. The intent of the Chair's summary is to provide feedback to Associate Professors on their evaluations.

An individual who receives a positive Third Year promotion review is not guaranteed a favorable vote for promotion at the time of actual application for promotion.

Return to top

Attachment 3

Departmental evaluations of individuals for promotion and/or tenure should be made after a departmental meeting that includes discussion of the case and consideration of the appropriate criteria and a secret ballot polling all faculty eligible to vote on the case. Two faculty members will be appointed to serve as a counter of the ballots and a recorder of the vote. The ballots will be kept in the department files for a period of one year. In tenure considerations, those eligible to vote are the tenured members of the appropriate department; in promotion cases, faculty with a primary appointment and with a multiyear contract equal to or greater than 50% effort in the appropriate department are eligible to vote. Only voting members of the department may be present for the discussion and vote related to promotion. A quorum must be present for a vote to take place. A quorum is defined as two-thirds of the faculty eligible to vote. Proxy votes are not to be used in determining the quorum. If a quorum is present and a vote is taken, then proxy votes may be used in the final balloting. The vote of the eligible members of the department for promotion to associate and full professor shall precede the vote of the tenured faculty on the process of tenure.

Return to top