The review of tenure and promotion cases relies primarily on documentation in electronic format. All relevant documentation, with the exception of hardcopy books and/or manuscripts, thus should be uploaded to the secure CAS Tenure and Promotion Server. At the department level, the server is accessible to the department chair and departmental tenure and promotion coordinator only, using their Kerberos login name and password. All information must be uploaded in PDF format. Please contact the CAS Tenure and Promotion Coordinator with any questions relating to the use of the server or technical issues.
All necessary and relevant documentation must be submitted in a timely fashion with careful attention to form and organization in order to ensure that candidates receive fair consideration. The process takes considerable time and attention and the department should establish a clear schedule, including setting a deadline for the candidate to submit materials, so that the candidate has sufficient time to prepare the materials and submit them to the departmental tenure and promotion coordinator. The schedule should also ensure the availability of materials for the departmental review. The chair should communicate the departmental deadline to the candidate well in advance. Candidates are responsible for submitting their materials to the department by the departmental deadline.
The department chair and the departmental tenure and promotion coordinator and, in the case of tenure and promotion, the candidate’s mentor should be available to advise the candidate on the timely completion and submission of materials.
The materials must be well organized to ensure reviewers can find what they need easily. Please see Appendix 2 for instructions on naming files for upload to the server and on building the table of contents for each section of supporting materials. The department administrator is responsible for posting the publications and supporting materials on the CAS Tenure and Promotion Server. The materials should be uploaded to the appropriate section, listed here in the order they appear on the CAS Tenure and Promotion Server:
Each level (Department, chair, APT, Dean, UAPT, and Provost) of the tenure and/or promotion review process is responsible for recording a recommendation and, where appropriate, a tally of the votes on that recommendation. One original copy should be hand signed by the appropriate person from each review level.
Candidates should submit a completed “Part II: Candidate’s Vitae” to the department by the date specified by the department. This is a long document requiring complete and well-organized information on every aspect of a candidate’s professional career. Although it goes by the name “vitae” and it includes similar information, the “Part II” is not the same as a conventional professional curriculum vitae. When preparing the Part II, please take note of the following points:
• For tenure and promotion candidates, information and listings should refer to the candidate’s entire academic career, clearly indicating what has been accomplished since entering the tenure-track position at Boston University. The form currently asks for information just since initial appointment at Boston University, but in many cases it is preferable to also include information from prior appointments. For candidates for promotion to Professor, information and listings should refer to the period since the last promotion, inclusive of the year in which the last promotion review took place.
• Answer all questions, entering “n/a” or “none” when necessary. Do not leave any questions blank.
• Question 5, on publications: All citations should use proper bibliographic form. If there are co-authors or co-editors the citation should be clear about who they are (unless there are more than 6 co-authors or co-editors) and in all cases candidates should be clear about where in the listing their name appears. This section should include only works that are published or in press/forthcoming; that is, works that have been contractually assigned publication dates and that are in the formal production process.
• Question 5.3, on journal articles: Indicate which journal articles appear in journals that use a fully professional academic referee process (i.e., not in-house).
• Question 5.6, on reviews: List any published reviews (not citations) of publications or creative work.
• Question 5.7, on citations: Provide summaries of the numbers of citations for each publication. All candidates are asked to use the appropriate citation index (natural sciences, social sciences, or humanities) compiled by the Web of Science. In addition, citation rates may be compiled from other sources, such as Google Scholar or discipline-specific citation indexes. If no appropriate index exists, citations can be self-reported instead. Only citations in published works, working papers, or similar scholarly documents should be counted. Citations of work prior to the last promotion that appeared since promotion are relevant for evaluating reputation and impact. Clearly identify the source(s) for the reported citation counts. Because external evaluators increasingly refer to Google Scholar metrics, candidates in relevant disciplines are strongly encouraged to create and curate their own Google Scholar profile to ensure that all of their published works are included and that no works by other authors with the same or a similar name are included.
• Question 5.8: “Works in progress”: first list any works that have been submitted for publication, with the requested information. Then list any works intended for publication that are substantially drafted (and therefore available for examination) and indicate whether they have been contracted or solicited and the plans for submission. Third, list any works intended for publication that have been contracted or solicited but have not yet been substantially drafted. Distinguish among these three categories clearly.
Once “Part II: Candidate’s Vitae” has been circulated to the department for the purpose of the department deliberation and vote, the document becomes final and no changes can be made after this time. This version should be posted on the CAS Tenure and Promotion Server. Candidates may submit updates regarding their professional accomplishments by contacting the Tenure & Promotion Coordinator (see section D, below).
Please note, for new senior hire reviews that require a tenure review and modified faculty promotion reviews, the Part II form is not required. The candidate’s standard academic CV and any research, teaching, or professional statements will be substituted for the Part II form.
Please see sections F and G below, regarding submission of Supporting Materials that must be submitted by the candidate in addition to the Part II.
C. Part III: The Chair’s Report
See the discussion of the Chair’s Report below, in Chapter VI, section F. This section of the CAS Tenure and Promotion Server also contains the results of peer teaching reviews under the section “Classroom Visits” and the evaluation letters submitted by students under the section “Student Letters.” See the discussion of peer and student evaluation above, in Chapter IV, Generating Evaluation Materials. These sections should be completed by the chair’s report deadline and should include all student letters received and all peer evaluations completed during the period under consideration (please see the section in Chapter IV on Classroom Visits for minimum requirements).
D. Candidate’s Updates Section
Once the review process is underway, candidates should provide updates to their dossier as they have new professional accomplishments to report. Updates should take the form of brief descriptions of each accomplishment, e.g. “Article Y, previously listed as ‘in review’ has now been published in the Journal of X”. When relevant, new published works or other relevant supporting materials should also be included in the update communication. Updates should be emailed to the CAS Tenure and Promotion Coordinator, who will ensure they reach the next level of review. Updates for external evaluators can be submitted up to a week prior to the deadline for evaluations to be submitted. After this time there is no guarantee that updates will be seen by the evaluators. Updates during the internal review process can be submitted until the candidate receives the final notice of tenure and/or promotion. Updated CVs and Part II forms will not be included in the dossier.
E. Candidate’s Responses to the Reports Section
See comments below, at the end of the discussion of Departmental Review. Candidates’ responses to correct factual errors should be forwarded to the CAS Tenure and Promotion Coordinator via email attachment.
For tenure and promotion reviews, all publications, including those appearing before the start of the tenure track position at Boston University, should be included in the dossier. The dossier should make clear what publications were published prior to starting the tenure-track position at Boston University. For promotion to Professor reviews (including modified faculty), only publications since the start of the last promotion should be included, as well as any publications that have been submitted for publication and any works in progress in substantial draft form. Publications should be submitted as individual pdfs, not as one pdf containing all publications.
Departments should include in the Publications Section a table of contents page listing all works submitted in this section. Each entry should clearly indicate whether the item is “published,” “in press,” “in progress,” “under contract,” “revise and resubmit,” or “under review.” Published means just that: it is available in published form. A work that is in the publisher’s production process is in press. Listings of works in press should identify the publisher or journal and expected publication date, and the dossier should include a letter from the publisher confirming the publication status and expected publication date. Works that are in substantial draft form but not completed are in progress. The entry should further indicate whether the work in progress is under contract or revise and resubmit. In those cases the contract should be submitted. Works that are currently in a publisher’s review process are under review.
Reviewer comments should be provided for works that are not yet published whenever possible.
Published reviews of the candidate’s work should be included in the subsection of the Publications Section, Published Reviews.
G. Teaching, Grant, and Service-related Materials Sections
All items listed below should be compiled by the candidate according to the department schedule. Each section should include a table of contents that outlines the materials included within that section. All items should be submitted as individual pdfs, not as one pdf containing all materials for a section. For promotion to Professor (including modified faculty), all materials submitted should be for the period since the last promotion, inclusive of the last promotion review year.
G1. Course Syllabi: Include course syllabi from all courses taught. If a candidate has taught the same course multiple times in the review period, only one version of the syllabus (usually the most recent) should be submitted. However, if substantial revisions have been made over time, the candidate may include multiple versions of the syllabus.
G2. Course Materials: Include a representative sample of course materials from all courses taught that demonstrate the quality of teaching and mentoring of students. These might include exams and assignments, lecture slides, study guides, or other materials. It can be helpful to include a selection of current materials and materials from previous years.
G3. Grant Materials: Include copies of all grant abstracts (not the full application), peer reviews, amount of funding requested or received, and information about whether the grant is pending, was awarded, or denied. Grant pre-proposals can also be included in this section.
G4. Service Materials Section (Optional): Candidates may include any documentation that supports or further explains the institutional or professional service activities listed on the candidate’s CV, although these materials are not required. These may include letters recognizing the candidate for his/her service, conference programs, etc. Letters from chairs/directors from secondary departments/programs are not considered part of this section of materials, but should be included as part of the Chair’s Report. Please see Chapter VI, Part B for further discussion of letters from secondary departments/programs.
H. Student Course Evaluations Section
Departmental tenure and promotion coordinators are responsible for including all course evaluations in the dossier. The section should begin with a table of contents page, listing the candidate’s course history. Evaluations from all courses taught, including from co-taught courses, should be included and uploaded in chronological order. However, for promotion to Professor cases, if the candidate has been an Associate Professor for more than 6 years, only the last 6 years of evaluations should be included. Co-taught courses should be clearly identified as such in the dossier. For evaluations done via hard copy scantron forms, the candidate’s original scantron course evaluation documents should be included in this section, with the statistical summary of the evaluations appearing as the first two pages of the course evaluation file for each course. All student comments should be included for each course. For evaluations completed electronically, the ‘Course Report’, including both quantitative and qualitative results, for each individual course should be included. Please note that departments may need to coordinate with other departments or interdisciplinary programs in which the candidate has taught in order to ensure all evaluations are included.
I. Candidate’s Fall Teaching Schedule and Syllabi
Candidates should submit fall course syllabi to the CAS Tenure and Promotion Coordinator in August. An accompanying teaching schedule should include accurate classroom locations and highlight any guest lecturer visits, field trips, and examination dates. The APT Committee uses this information to plan classroom visits. Candidates should update this information with any changes during the fall semester.
If the candidate intends to be on leave during the fall semester of their review year, please notify the CAS Tenure and Promotion Coordinator as early in the process as possible to ensure a classroom visit can be scheduled during the preceding spring semester.