College of Science Promotion and Tenure Overview and Requirements

Updated: 2-1-2023

In addition to the university promotion and tenure (P&T) requirements and the requirements stated in the faculty handbook, the college has the following additional requirements.

1. The College of Science (COS) P&T timeline should be followed and submission of dossiers must follow this college timeline. Faculty members interested in being considered for promotion inform their Department Head by the end of the winter term preceding the academic year in which evaluation is requested. For the required tenure cases, the Department Head notifies the candidate by the end of the fall term preceding the academic year in which formal evaluation will occur. Your Department Head will notify the college of your intention for evaluation and will submit a high resolution photographs and short biography of you to the COS.
2. Department Heads inform the Associate Dean of Academic and Student Affairs of the names of faculty who will undergo promotion and tenure review by the end of the winter term preceding the academic year in which formal evaluation will occur.
3. Dossiers for candidates with a large teaching role (an average of 6 or more courses per year) should include student feedback based on at least 8 student letters. Candidates with a smaller teaching role (an average of fewer than 6 courses per year) should include student feedback based on at least 4 student letters per OSU P&T policy.
4. Each department will have a published description of the procedures used in that department for the evaluation of the candidates.
5. Any person who was the MS or PhD advisor of a candidate is considered to have a conflict of interest and should not participate in the P&T process.
6. Unit level conflict of interest concerns and decisions and college P&T committee conflict of interest concerns and decisions will be reported to the Dean, who has the authority to overturn the unit level decision when the unit finds no conflict. Potential conflicts of interest involving the Dean will be referred to the Provost.
7. The direct supervisor for Faculty Research Assistants (FRAs) and Research Associates (RAs) is not part of the unit P&T committee, but is involved in the process through writing a letter of evaluation.

For Candidates: College of Science Promotion and Tenure Instructions and Dossier Guidance

Updated: 2-1-2023

Candidates should refer to the faculty handbook for the general procedures for P&T and dossier preparation.

This section describes a general overview, instructions and information pertinent to the candidate.

General Overview of Process

The College of Science timeline should be followed for all P&T procedures.

You will prepare your sections of the dossier and will work with your Department Head and departmental Administrative Assistant to have your documents submitted. Use the COS P&T Dossier Template for Candidates to create your documents and ensure correct formatting.

You should keep the following steps in mind about the process:

• Alert your Department Head that you intend to go up for P&T evaluation by the end of the winter term preceding the academic year in which formal evaluation will occur at the latest.
• Plan to attend the College P&T training and information session in spring term.
• Review the OSU P&T guidelines and your departmental guidelines in addition to the College of Science guidelines on this website.
• Provide names of potential student letter writers (does NOT include postdocs) to your Department Head by the end of the winter term preceding the academic year in which formal evaluation will occur (see more details below).
• Professorial candidates provide names of potential external letter writers to your Department Head by the end of the winter term preceding the academic year in which formal evaluation will occur (see more details below).
• It is suggested that you submit your dossier materials to your Department Head by July 15th of the year you plan to go up for promotion and/or tenure. Use the COS P&T Dossier Template for Candidates to format your dossier.
• You will work with your departmental Administrative Assistant and your Department Head to get all materials submitted, check with your departmental procedures and guidelines on the specifics.
• Your dossier will be completed and evaluated from November-April at the department, Department Head, college P&T committee, Dean, and Provost level.
• You will receive a final letter regarding the outcome of the P&T process by the end of May.
• Note the deadlines for rebuttal letters in the timeline. Rebuttals, if any, to the departmental P&T committee letter and/or Department Head letter go to the College of Science P&T Coordinator (Gabs James at gabs.james@oregonstate.edu) within 7 days after receiving the letters. If there is a rebuttal to the College P&T committee letter or the Dean letter, you have 7 days from when you receive the letters to provide the rebuttal directly to the University level P&T committee via email to Sara Daly (Sara.Daly@oregonstate.edu). Rebuttal letters should NOT go to the department or Department Head.
• If there is no rebuttal to the departmental P&T committee letter and/or Department Head letter, send an email to the College of Science P&T Coordinator (Gabs James; gabs.james@oregonstate.edu) stating this within 7 days of receiving the letters.

Below is a flowchart of the people/committees and the products produced through the P&T process. The products (in orange circles) are reviewed by the committees/people (in white boxes).

Dossier Preparation

The dossier must contain all relevant information since hiring. It should also contain all information from a previous institution if there is a prior service credit agreement. The offer letter has to be included when there is such an agreement. The case is evaluated on all work done since the last promotion, or since the hiring date, including prior service in the approved time, if applicable.

Instructions below for dossier preparation include the faculty handbook guidelines and additional information for the College of Science. Further details and instructions can be found within the COS P&T Dossier Template for Candidates for you to use as you prepare your dossier.

The electronic system will add page numbers to the dossiers for you. Please do not add your own pagination.

I. Cover Page

Done by administrator.

II. Form A

Done by administrator.

III. Confidentiality Waiver

Done by candidate.

All faculty sign a “ Waiver of Access” form for outside letters of evaluation indicating whether or not they waive access to see evaluation materials.

IV. Position Description

Done by administrator, all position descriptions must be signed by the candidate and the Department Head.

V. Candidate's Statement

Done by candidate.

1. Candidate Statement
   The candidate should include a statement (three page maximum) that addresses the individual's contributions in the areas of teaching, advising and other assignments; scholarship and creative activity; inclusive excellence and diversity, equity and inclusion; and service. The candidate statement should give evidence of how the candidate fulfills the Faculty Handbook criteria for promotion and highlight aspects of their activities and accomplishments that are of special relevance to the promotion criteria.
2. COVID-19 Statement (optional)
   An optional COVID-19 impact statement may be included (one page maximum, 12 point font, one inch margins). COVID-19 impact statements describe the impact of the pandemic on the ability to perform duties in the position description.

VI. Student Letter of Evaluation and Peer Review of Teaching

Done by administrator.

As required by the OSU P&T guidelines, students will be invited to participate in the review of faculty for promotion and tenure. The purpose of the student evaluation letter is to document the student perspective of the candidate’s effectiveness as a teacher and advisor.

The candidate will provide names of students to serve as potential letter writers to the Department Head. Student nominations can be current and recent student advisees, students in courses, and students working with the candidate in the research lab (but not postdocs). The list should be roughly in proportions that represent the breadth of the teaching and advising duties of the candidate. The candidate provides the list of student names to the Department Head by the end of the winter term preceding the academic year in which formal evaluation will occur. The final list of student letter writers will include students from the candidate list and students from a list generated by the Department Head. The Department Head will form a student committee who will summarize the content from the student letters and the teaching/advising of the dossier in a single student committee letter.

A summary letter of peer reviews of teaching will be submitted. The summary letter of peer review of teaching should be written by a committee of faculty in the unit and should summarize peer observations of teaching. Do not submit individual reviews of teaching.

On-going and regular peer evaluations of teaching should be based on a review of course syllabi, texts, assigned reading, examinations, class materials, and other assessments such as attendance at lectures. Peer teaching evaluations should be systematic and on-going, following unit guidelines for peer review of teaching.

VII. Administrative Letters of Evaluation

Done by administrator.

These letters are to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidate's performance.

1. Departmental P&T Committee Letter
2. Department Head Letter
3. Letters From Other Administrators (optional)

For faculty positions reporting to a direct supervisor who is not the Department Head, a letter from that supervisor should go here (a letter from the supervisor for FRAs is required).

4. College P&T Committee Letter
5. Dean Letter
6. Rebuttal Response Letters (optional)

If the candidate has no rebuttal to the departmental P&T committee letter and/or the Department Head letter, the candidate sends an email stating no rebuttal to the College of Science P&T Coordinator (Gabs James at gabs.james@oregonstate.edu) within 7 days of receiving the letters.

If the candidate has a rebuttal response to the departmental P&T committee letter and/or the Department Head letter, the candidate sends the rebuttal to the College of Science P&T Coordinator (Gabs James at gabs.james@oregonstate.edu) within 7 days of receiving the letters.

If the candidate has a response or rebuttal to the College P & T committee letter and/or the Dean letter, the candidate will then have 7 days from receiving the letters to provide a response directly to the University level P&T committee. Rebuttal letters at this level should be emailed to Sara Daly at Sara.Daly@oregonstate.edu.

VIII. Promotion and Tenure Vita

Done by candidate.

The vita for P&T review should be formatted to follow the section headings below. Use the COS P&T Dossier Template for Candidates to complete and format your vita correctly.

A. Education and Employment Information

A1. Education

A2. Professional Experience

B. Teaching, Advising and Other Assignments

B1. Instructional Summary

1. B1.1 Credit Courses - Present a chronological listing of course numbers, term, year, and number of students enrolled.
2. B1.2 Non-Credit Courses and Workshops - Present a chronological listing of non-credit courses, training programs held in the U.S., workshops, seminars, extension programs, and continuing education programs in which candidate has had a major responsibility. Indicate the candidate's role (program participant, program organizer, etc.).
3. B1.3 Curriculum Development - List primary contributions in curriculum development and give dates (e.g. courses developed, curriculum committee service, etc.). Describe your activities in developing or restructuring course content, and in developing curriculum (series of related courses), including implementation of innovative instructional practices. List your primary contributions and give dates. Don’t include things that are expected of every teacher in every course, such as updating course objectives or switching to a new textbook. Also include here any professional development related to teaching. Format each example as a separate paragraph, beginning with a boldfaced phrase serving as a title.
4. B1.4 Graduate and Undergraduate Students and Postdoctoral Trainees - List current and former graduate and undergraduate students and postdoctoral trainees for whom the candidate has had a major instructional or mentoring responsibility. Indicate instructional role (major professor, graduate committee member, thesis or project mentor, etc.) and year the degree was or will be completed. List current and previous students and trainees in separate lists.
5. B1.5 Team or Collaborative Efforts - Indicate special efforts undertaken to team or collaborate with another individual, group, or institution in the planning or delivery of instruction. Put "none" if not applicable.
6. B1.6 International Teaching - Identify instructional activities (short and long-term) and/or curricular developments that have taken place in countries other than the United Sates. Indicate the location, time frame, and nature of the teaching experience (i.e. workshop, seminar, course, etc.). Put "none" if not applicable.

B2. Student (eSET/SLE) and Participant/Client Evaluation

Summarize all course/program evaluations with numerical ratings. The median scores from evaluations by learners or participants of every course taught by the candidate should be included in tabular format.

For courses taught from Spring 2020 through Winter 2022, it is at the faculty member’s discretion to use Electronic Student Evaluation of Teaching (eSET) scores and/or Student Learning Experience (SLE) survey scores in their P&T dossiers, without prejudice. This applies to all courses, including E-campus courses. Supervisors do not have access to eSET/SLE scores for this time, faculty should access their scores through the eSET/SLE website. In lieu of eSET/SLE scores, faculty may want to provide narrative about how they modified their course(s) for remote delivery and worked with students to ensure their success. For courses in which a faculty member opts to not include eSET/SLE scores due to COVID-19, please include the following notation: “Course eSET/SLE scores omitted per COVID-19 accommodations recommendations.”

Candidates are responsible for pulling their own scores and ensuring the correct numbers are reported. Candidates are able to access eSET/SLE by logging into MyOregonState and selecting the appropriate menu options. Scores can also be directly accessed by logging in using an ONID username and password. Further instructions on pulling eSET/SLE scores can be found on the Center for Teaching and Learning website.

Report the median (NOT the mean) for the questions:

• The course as a whole was
• The instructor's contribution to the course was

Report the comparison departmental median (NOT the mean) for the questions:

• The course as a whole was
• The instructor's contribution to the course was

If there are co-taught courses, indicate with an asterisk (*) in the table and identify below the table what percentage of the course was taught by the candidate and any specific role of the candidate in teaching the course.

B3. Advising

Describe advising responsibilities, both formal academic advising (give number of student advisees, how often they typically meet with the adviser), and co-curricular advising (e.g. faculty adviser for student professional organization). Provide evaluations of advising performance, if any, including dates, and describe how student input was obtained. Evaluation will consider the innovation and creativity of the services, and their effectiveness; it may be based on systematic surveys of and assessments by students and former students who received these services, when signed by the students. Also include here any professional development related to advising, including titles and dates.

This section is separate from research supervision, which is listed above in section B1.

B4. Other Assignments

For faculty with primary responsibilities other than teaching and advising, information that identifies these duties and the indicators for assessing effectiveness should be included in this section.

• Other assigned duties - provide a paragraph which describes or summarizes the assigned responsibilities, target audience, collaborative aspects, international activities and number of individuals served.
• Participant/client evaluation - summarize evaluations highlighting the services provided and, to the extent possible, the impact of these services on identified needs.

Put "none" if not applicable.

C. Scholarship and Creative Activity

Scholarship and creative activity are understood to be intellectual work whose significance is validated by peers and which is communicated. As specified in the P&T Guidelines, such work in its diverse forms is based on a high level of professional expertise; must give evidence of originality; must be documented and validated as through peer review or critique; and must be communicated in appropriate ways so as to have impact on or significance for publics beyond the University, or for the discipline itself.

C1. Scholarly and Creative Activity

In identifying scholarly and creative activity, include the candidate's role in the activity. When work that is the product of joint effort is presented as evidence of scholarships, clarification of the candidate's role must be provided. All authors should be given in the order they appear in the paper. Where not obvious, the dossier should explain how the work was validated and communicated. It is also important to know the significance of the scholarship and creative activity and the stature of the sources in which they appear. These can be commented on after each listing, and discussed in letters of evaluation from the P&T committee, the Department Head, or Dean.

Clarify the role of the candidate in the publications. For example:

• I led the analysis and writing.
• I led and executed this project.
• I wrote this manuscript with feedback from co-authors.
• I co-developed the conceptual framework for this paper, and contributed to the analysis and writing.
• I participated in conceptualization of the study, preparation of many samples, and helped write the paper.
• I played a minor collaborative role, with one of my students providing the data for one set of experiments.

Candidates should separate publications based on work done while at OSU from those based on work done before being hired at OSU.

Manuscripts in preparation should not be listed.

Put "none" if not applicable.

1. C1.1 Books and Book Chapters
2. C1.2 Refereed Journal Publications
3. C1.3 Peer-Reviewed Archival Conference Publications
4. C1.4 Other Peer-Reviewed Publications
5. C1.5 Papers Currently Under Peer Review or Accepted But Not Yet Published (state which)
6. C1.6 Other Publications

C2. Professional Meetings, Symposia and Conferences

For professional meetings, symposia, and conferences, note the dates, location, and role of the faculty member (e.g. organizer, chair, invited speaker, discussant, poster presenter). Where these are presented as scholarship or creative activity, explain the validation process and the significance or stature of the event. Also add participation in invitational workshops. Put "none" if not applicable.

1. C2.1 Presentations to Professional Groups
2. C2.2 Participation at Invitational Workshops

C3. Grants and Contracts

All funded grants should be reported. It is at the discretion of the candidate to report unfunded but submitted grant applications. If unfunded but submitted grant applications are reported, indicate this using asterisks (*) in the table.

C4. Patents, Cultivars and Inventions

Put "none" if not applicable.

C5. Other Information

Include any other information as appropriate, put "none" if not applicable. Include here any professional development related to scholarly activity, including titles and dates.

D. Service

Faculty service is essential to the University's success in achieving its central mission. Service is an expectation for promotion for all ranks at Oregon State University.

D1. University Service

List in separate groups with subheadings departmental, college, and university committees (or other responsibilities), with dates.

D2. Service to the Profession

List involvement with professional associations/societies, especially offices held, research advisory or review panels, and other evidence of regional, national, or international stature and service to the profession. Provide dates for all activities. Include journal editorships, conference and workshop organization, conference program committees, grant reviewing (list agencies and numbers of grants reviewed), and journal reviewing (list all or a representative set of journals and the approximate total number of articles reviewed per year for the period being evaluated).

D3. Service to the Public (Professionally Related)

List service provided to the public which is consistent with professional training and responsibilities. Provide dates. Service that is relevant to a faculty member's assignment, and which draws upon professional expertise or contributes significantly to university relations, is considered and valued in promotion and tenure decision.

D4. Service to the Public (Non-Professionally Related; optional)

Community service not directly related to the faculty member's appointment, though valuable in itself, and ideally a responsibility of all citizens, is considered in promotion and tenure decisions to the extent that it contributes to the University.

D5. Impact

If service is a significant percentage of FTE, outcomes or impact should be described. Put "not applicable" if does not apply.

E. Awards

The nature of the award (including its stature and significance) and reason received, e.g., teaching and advising, scholarship, etc., should be identified.

E1. National and International Awards

E2. State and Regional Awards

E3. University and Community Awards

IX. Letters of Evaluation

Done by administrator.

The P&T dossier for professorial candidates only includes solicited letters of evaluation from outside leaders in the field (6 minimum, 8 maximum for professorial faculty).

For professorial candidates: 6-8 letters should generally be from leaders in the candidate's field, chosen for their ability to evaluate the parts of the dossier for which they have specific expertise. Letters should not be solicited from co-authors or co-principal investigators who collaborated with the candidate in the last five years. In general, letters should not be solicited from former advisers (undergraduate, graduate or postdoctoral), or former students. Letters should generally be from tenured professors or individuals of equivalent stature outside of academe who are widely recognized in their field. External letters for professorial faculty should never be solicited from clients or others whom the candidate has directly served in their work.

External letters for professorial candidates are required to be from outside OSU. They should in general be from professionals at the full professor level or with equivalent status. Retired OSU faculty members are not considered external. They should not be asked to write letters for professorial cases.

• Candidates must submit a list of 5-8 evaluators who meet the criteria stated above to the Department Head by the end of the winter term preceding the academic year in which formal evaluation will occur.
• From this list at least three letters will be obtained for the final dossier.
• The other evaluators are to be selected by the Department Head, Dean, or faculty committee according to practices determined within the unit.
• No more than half of the letters in the final dossier may be from the list suggested by the candidate.
• The candidate should not contact the potential reviewers to ask for support, all contact in relation with the promotion and tenure case should come from the unit head or designee.

For Faculty Research Assistants, Research Associates, and all categories of Instructors: external letters are not required or permitted for the P&T process.

X. Other Letters, Materials and Addenda (optional)

Done by administrator and candidate.

Additional letters from sources other than administrators, unit P&T committees, the student committee, and external reviewers are not necessary. Signed letters of support, advocacy, or clarification from friends, colleagues, students, and clients should be included only if they are necessary for fairness and balance. If there is some compelling reason to include such letters, the unit supervisor should write a statement identifying the significance of the letters, whether solicited or unsolicited, and the need to include them in the dossier. All letters must be open to the candidate. Include any other material that may be relevant to a full and fair review. Do not include supplemental materials with the dossier (such as copies of journal articles, etc.). Those materials should be kept within the department and available upon request by the University P&T Committee.

Throughout the process of review, the open parts of the dossier remain available to the candidate at his or her request. The candidate will be notified when letters of evaluation by reviewers at the unit and college levels are added to the dossier.

Addenda:

• The original dossier should not be changed or replaced, any corrections or additional material should be submitted as addenda to the dossier.
• If manuscripts are accepted for publication after the dossier is certified, it is the faculty member’s responsibility to inform their unit supervisor. That information will then be considered in the review as an addenda to the dossier.
• Addenda to the dossier must be dated and submitted either to the Department Head or the College P&T Coordinator. Addenda can include correction of factual errors, accepted manuscripts, etc.

XI. Candidate's Signed Statement

Initiated by administrator, candidate receives a complete copy of open part of the dossier.

Prior to the dossier receiving its first formal review by the department P&T committee, the candidate must sign (Docusign is allowed) and date a certification that the open part of the dossier is complete. Should the candidate and the supervisor of the tenure unit disagree on the inclusion of some materials, the candidate may indicate his or her objection in the statement of certification. The candidate retains the right of access to recommendations added by Deans, Department Heads, and unit P&T committees.

For Department Heads and Administrative Assistants: College of Science Promotion and Tenure Instructions and Dossier Guidance

Updated: 2-1-2023

General Overview of Process

Refer to the college timeline for specific dates for the P&T process.

General notes and guidelines for Department Heads and departmental Administrative Assistants include the following:

• For the required tenure cases, the Department Head notifies the candidate in the fall term preceding the academic year in which formal evaluation will occur at the latest.
• Department Head submits names of all candidates from the department to the Associate Dean of Academic and Student Affairs by the end of the winter term preceding the academic year in which formal evaluation will occur.
• Department Head receives names of student to write letters from candidate by the end of the winter term preceding the academic year in which formal evaluation will occur and recruits student letter writers and student letter committee members in the spring term (see more details below). Department Head should NOT receive the student letters (these should be submitted to the Administrative Assistant for the department).
• Department Head receives external reviewer names from professorial candidates by the end of the winter term preceding the academic year in which formal evaluation will occur and sends out requests for external letters no later than August (see more details below).
• Department Head and Administrative Assistant review dossier for accuracy and completion in August-September prior to submission.
• Dossier submission deadlines should follow the college timeline.
• Use the COS P&T Dossier Template for Departments for guidelines on formatting and submitting components of the dossier.
• Please submit a high resolution photograph and a short biography (1 paragraph) for each candidate to the COS P&T Coordinator on the same date that the dossier is submitted to the college.

Dossier Preparation

Refer to the faculty handbook for the general procedures for P&T and dossier preparation.

The dossier should contain all information since hiring. It should also contain all information from a previous institution if there is a prior service credit agreement. The offer letter has to be included when there is such an agreement after the position description. The case is evaluated on all work done since the last promotion, or since the hiring date, including prior service in the approved time, if applicable.

Instructions below for dossier preparation replicate the faculty handbook guidelines and include additional information for the College of Science. The electronic system will add page numbers to the dossiers for you. Please do not add your own pagination. Please use the COS P&T Dossier Template for Departments for formatting and instructions on sections to be submitted.

I. Cover Page

Done by administrator.

II. Form A

Done by administrator.

III. Confidentiality Waiver

Done by candidate.

The signed Waiver of Access original form should be included in this section.

IV. Position Description

Done by administrator, check all position descriptions are signed.

A copy of the candidate's current position description must be included. If there have been shifts in the candidate's assignments in the review period, please include all position descriptions. Provide a table that summarizes the actual FTE distribution across primary domains of activity for each year of the review period. Please refer to this example of tables that show changes in FTE distribution as a guide and refer to the “ Guidelines for Position Descriptions for Academic Faculty” to describe the allocation of FTE for a faculty member. If there is a prior service credit agreement, add offer letter.

V. Candidate's Statement

Done by candidate.

A. Candidate statement

The candidate should include a statement (three page maximum, single-spaced, 12 point font, one inch margins) that addresses the individual's contributions in the areas of teaching, advising and other assignments; scholarship and creative activity; diversity, equity and inclusion; and service.

B. COVID-19 statement (optional)

An optional COVID-19 impact statement may be included (one page maximum, 12 point font, one inch margins). This statement is in addition to the 3-page candidate statement and does not impact the length of that statement.

VI. Student Letter of Evaluation and Peer Review of Teaching

Done by administrator.

As required by the OSU P&T guidelines, students will be invited to participate in the review of faculty for promotion and tenure. The purpose of the student evaluation letter is to document the student perspective of the candidate’s effectiveness as a teacher and advisor.

The Department Head and unit Administrative Assistant should follow the guidelines below for the student letter:

1. The Department Head requests and receives a list of names from the candidate of current and recent students (not postdocs), including advisees from the candidate.
2. The unit P&T committee and the supervisor (normally Department Head) jointly generate an additional list of student names.
3. The Department Head requests student letters of reference from that combined list. An attempt should be made to request input from students whose collective experience represents the profile of the teaching and advising duties of the faculty member. For example, if a faculty member teaches all undergraduate courses, it is appropriate for all letters to come from undergraduates. If the faculty member teaches a combination of courses, the students should have a combination of backgrounds that will provide sufficient information to evaluate the candidate’s performance. If the candidate regularly teaches E-campus courses, E-campus students should be included.
4. Invitations to the students requesting the evaluative reference must inform the students who will see their letters (letters should NOT go to the Department Head or the unit P&T committee, only to the student committee and office administrator). Access to those letters will be determined by whether the candidate has signed a waiver of access. Students must also be informed that only signed letters will be used as part of the process and that only. Use the Student Letter Invitation Template Document to draft invitations to student evaluators.
5. As a rule ½ of the letters should be from the list generated by the candidate and ½ from the list generated by the unit. The total number of letters should be on the order of 4-12, depending on the level of the candidate’s teaching duties. Dossiers for candidates who teach an average of 6 or more courses per year should include student feedback based on at least 8 student letters. Candidates who teach an average of fewer than 6 courses per year should include student feedback based on at least 4 student letters.
6. Units that use a series of standardized questions to help guide student input are strongly encouraged to work with Faculty Affairs and OSU Legal Counsel prior to asking for information from students.
7. Letters received from student referees are kept on file in the unit office. Consult the OSU records retention schedule for the required period the letters must be kept on file. The names of the students and the content of the letters are kept confidential if the candidate has signed a waiver of access. Names of student letter writers should be removed from the letters and anonymized before providing letters to the student committee.
8. The Department Head will form a student committee, whose task is to write a letter summarizing the input from student referees. Use the Student Committee Invitation Template Document to draft invitations to student committee members. Members of this committee should be current students and should not be a current advisee of the candidate (letters from current advisees may be part of the student input, but not part of the student committee).
9. The student committee is provided with the student referee letters (with letter writers anonymized), the student oriented teaching and advising portion of the dossier (excluding faculty peer review), plus any additional available information pertinent to their review.
10. The student chair of the student committee is selected by the P&T committee or unit supervisor. The only duty of this committee is to write a summary letter that includes information from the student referee letters and the teaching and advising portion of the dossier.
11. The student committee should be instructed to include in its summary the perspectives represented by all the student referee letters (e.g. not to integrate opinions into an intermediate position). Instructions to the student committee should be provided by the Department Head using the Charge to Student P&T Committee Template Document. The Department Head should review the student committee letter prior to submission to ensure it is a summary and not opinions of the committee members and send back to the student committee for revision if there are concerns.
12. All members of the committee sign the summary letter and present it to the unit P&T committee and unit supervisor. The summary letter and the names of the individuals on the student committee will be known to the candidate and P&T committee even if the candidate has signed a waiver of access.

A. Process Used to Identify Student Committee

A description of the process used in the unit for the selection of the student committee

B. Instructions Given to Student Letter Writers

C. Charge to Student Committee

D. Description of Students Providing Letters

Include a short description of the group of students that provided letters, the nature of their relationship to the faculty member and whether the candidate or the Department nominated the student to write the letter.

E. Student Committee Letter

Student committee summary letter signed by all students on the committee

F. Peer Review of Teaching Letter

A summary letter of peer reviews of teaching will be submitted. The summary letter of peer review of teaching should be written by a committee of faculty in the unit. Do not submit individual reviews of teaching.

On-going and regular peer evaluations of teaching should be based on a review of course syllabi, texts, assigned reading, examinations, class materials, and other assessments such as attendance at lectures. Peer teaching evaluations should be systematic and on-going, following unit guidelines for peer review of teaching. A letter from the unit's peer teaching review committee that summarizes all peer teaching reviews over the evaluation timeframe should be included in the dossier.

VII. Administrative Letters of Evaluation

Done by administrator.

These letters are to evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidate's performance. These letters should not simply be a restatement of evaluations at previous administrative levels and should summarize and comment on key points in the letters of evaluation solicited from qualified reviewers in the candidate's field. Evaluators should be identified only by a coded reference number or letter when referring to a comment in a confidential letter and every effort should be made to maintain anonymity of the reviewer when referencing comments. All letters must be signed by all committee members. Supervisors of FRAs should not participate in the P&T process.

A. Departmental P&T Committee Letter

Use the Department P&T Committee Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality Declaration Template Document for your departmental P&T committee to ensure no conflicts of interest occur at the departmental level. Any abstentions in voting should be avoided and committee members should only abstain from voting when there is a clear conflict of interest. Context should be provided for "no" votes and explanation given for abstentions in this section. See the Conflict of Interest section below. In the first paragraph of the letter, the voting breakdown should be explained, including abstentions from voting and the reasons for abstaining.

B. Department Head Letter

Please note that if the Department Head was a Masters or Ph.D. mentor to the candidate at any point, they should NOT write this letter and should delegate to the Associate Head of the department. See the Conflict of Interest section below.

C. Letters From Other Administrators (optional)

For faculty positions reporting to a direct supervisor, a letter from that supervisor needs to go here. Supervisor letters for FRAs are required.

D. College P&T Committee Letter

Any abstentions in voting should be avoided and committee members should only abstain from voting when there is a clear conflict of interest. Context should be provided for "no" votes and explanation given for abstentions in this section. See the Conflict of Interest section below. In the first paragraph of the letter, the voting breakdown should be explained, including abstentions from voting and the reasons for abstaining.

E. Dean Letter

F. Rebuttal Response Letters (optional)

If the candidate has no rebuttal to the departmental P&T committee letter and/or the Department Head letter, the candidate sends an email stating no rebuttal to the College of Science P&T Coordinator (Gabs James at gabs.james@oregonstate.edu) within 7 days of receiving the letters.

If the candidate has a rebuttal response to the departmental P&T committee letter and/or the Department Head letter, the candidate sends the rebuttal to the College of Science P&T Coordinator (Gabs James at gabs.james@oregonstate.edu) within 7 days of receiving the letters.

If the candidate has a response or rebuttal to the College P & T committee letter or the Dean letter, the candidate will then have 7 days from receiving the letters (add to timeline PDF also) to provide a response directly to the University level P&T committee. Rebuttal letters at this level should be emailed to Sara Daly at Sara.Daly@oregonstate.edu.

VIII. Promotion and Tenure Vita

Done by candidate, should be checked by Department Head and Administrative Assistant for accuracy and completeness.

The vita for promotion and/or tenure review should be formatted to follow the section headings indicated in the COS P&T Dossier Template for Candidates.

Note: Candidates are responsible for pulling their own eSET/SLE scores. Department Heads and Administrative Assistants should confirm that the correct median scores are reported in the table. The table should report the credits, term, enrollment, and number of students responding for each course, and:

• Report the median (NOT the mean) for the questions:
  • The course as a whole was
  • The instructor's contribution to the course was
• Report the comparison departmental median (NOT the mean) for the questions:
  • The course as a whole was
  • The instructor's contribution to the course was

IX. Letters of Evaluation

Done by administrator.

Solicited letters of evaluation from outside leaders in the field (6 minimum, 8 maximum) for professorial faculty. External letters are not required or permitted for Faculty Research Assistants, Research Associates, and Instructors.

After the appropriate potential external reviewers are identified, contact them by August 15th ask them if they are available for reviewing a dossier in the time frame set by the department and college.

Individuals serving on the COS P&T committee should not serve as external reviewers for candidates.

For professorial faculty: Letters should generally be from leaders in the candidate's field, chosen for their ability to evaluate the parts of the dossier for which they have specific expertise. Letters should not be solicited from co-authors or co-principal investigators who collaborated with the candidate in the last five years. In general, letters should not be solicited from former advisers (undergraduate, graduate or postdoctoral), or former students. If letters from any of these generally excluded evaluators are critical to candidate assessment, a detailed explanation of why their participation is essential and of why there is expectation for objectivity must be provided by the unit leader who requested their letter. Letters should generally be from tenured professors or individuals of equivalent stature outside of academe who are widely recognized in the field. External letters for professorial faculty should never be solicited from clients or others whom the candidate has directly served in his/her/their work.

External letters for professorial candidates are required to be from outside OSU. They should in general be from professionals at the full professor level or with equivalent status, unless the person can give very specific information for the case under consideration.
Retired OSU faculty members are not external, in particular if they have an emeritus appointment. They should not be asked to write letters for professorial cases.

Professorial candidates must submit a list of 5-8 evaluators to the Department Head by the end of the winter term preceding the academic year in which formal evaluation will occur who meet the criteria stated above and from this list at least three letters will be obtained for the final dossier. If additional names are needed, these will be obtained from the candidate by the Department Head. The other evaluators are to be selected by the Department Head, Dean, or faculty committee according to practices determined within the unit. All letters must be requested by the Department Head, dean, or the unit's P&T committee chair, not the candidate. The candidate must not request letters of evaluation, nor should they have knowledge of the evaluators who are selected. Provide a brief (paragraph) description of the outside evaluators indicating how they meet the criteria. More detail must be provided if an evaluator would generally be excluded, per the preceding paragraph. Clearly indicate which outside reviewers were chosen by the candidate. If an evaluator was suggested by both the candidate and others, that evaluator will be considered among the candidate’s pool of evaluators unless there is clear indication in the description of that evaluator why he/she/they should be included in the “other evaluator” pool. In the final dossier, no more than half of the letters of evaluation can be from the list suggested by the candidate.

Use this external letter request template document to generate letter requests for professorial candidates. DO NOT remove the essential and required language around COVID-19, this should be included in all instructions for external reviewers. Include a copy of the letter used in the dossier. Each reviewer should be sent a copy of the candidate's position description, candidate’s statement, and current vita. Copies of publications are not usually sent to reviewers but may be sent at the discretion of the individual soliciting the letter.

Provide a log of contacts with the reviewers, including letters, emails, and telephone calls. Letters from external reviewers must be available prior to initiating the internal review of the dossier.

A. Log of Contacts with External Evaluators

It is required to include the log of all contacts with external reviewers. Include a full accounting of solicitation attempts, including those who declined or never responded.

For external letter writers, there should be a one paragraph description of the external reviewer, including why they were selected, and from which list they were.

Decisions made to exclude any letters received from external evaluators must be noted in the records with an explanation for the removal decision and a detailed description of the process used to identify which letter was to be removed.

B. Sample Letter Requesting Letter of Evaluation

C. Letters of Evaluation

The external reviewers should be asked to use letterhead and list their titles. External letters should be signed.

X. Other Letters, Materials and Addenda (optional)

Done by administrator and candidate.

Additional letters from sources other than administrators, unit P&T committees, the student committee, and external reviewers are not necessary. Signed letters of support or advocacy from friends, colleagues, students, and clients should be included only if they are necessary for fairness and balance. If there is some compelling reason to include such letters, the unit supervisor should write a statement identifying the significance of the letters, whether solicited or unsolicited, and the need to include them in the dossier. All letters should be letters of evaluation and should be open to the candidate. Include any other material that may be relevant to a full and fair review. Do not include supplemental materials with the dossier (such as copies of journal articles, etc.). Those materials should be kept within the department and available upon request by the University P&T Committee.

Throughout the process of review, the open parts of the dossier remain available to the candidate at his or her request. The candidate will be notified when letters of evaluation by reviewers at the unit and college levels are added to the dossier.

Addenda:

• The original dossier should not be changed or replaced, any corrections or additional material should be submitted as addenda to the dossier.
• If manuscripts are accepted for publication after the dossier is certified, it is the faculty member’s responsibility to inform their unit supervisor. That information will then be considered in the review as an addenda to the dossier.
• Addenda to the dossier must be dated and submitted either to the Department Head or the College P&T Coordinator. Addenda can include correction of factual errors, accepted manuscripts, etc.

XI. Candidate's Signed Statement

Initiated by administrator, candidate receives a complete copy of open part of the dossier.

Prior to the dossier receiving its first formal review by the department P&T committee, the candidate must sign (Docusign is allowed) and date a certification that the open part of the dossier is complete. Should the candidate and the supervisor of the tenure unit disagree on the inclusion of some materials, the candidate may indicate his or her objection in the statement of certification. The candidate retains the right of access to recommendations added by Deans, Department Heads, and unit P&T committees.

College of Science Promotion and Tenure Committee Elections

Updated: 2-1-2023

According to the faculty handbook, the college P&T committee is intended to be an independent voice of evaluation and membership is determined by a transparent process approved by a majority of the faculty members.

The committee election process was approved by vote for the College of Science.

Committee members should not provide external letters of evaluation for candidates while they are serving on the college P&T committee.

Accepted Fall 2015; Updated Spring 2018

See the College of Science P&T Committee Election Process Document for details on the election process for the college. See the Historical Record of College of Science P&T Committee 2009–Present for a record of the college P&T committee.

College of Science Promotion and Tenure Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality

Updated: 2-1-2023

The faculty handbook prescribes how to deal with conflicts of interest. Evaluators who have a relationship with a candidate should be forthcoming in making that relationship known, consistent with university policies. This includes personal relationships as well as professional relationships such as those with former advisees and collaborators. A faculty member or administrator involved in the promotion and tenure process must declare any conflict of interest that arises from these circumstances before any discussion takes place. A conflict of interest occurs when the evaluating party could realize personal, financial, professional, or other gain or loss as a result of the outcome of the P&T process, or when the objectivity of the evaluating party could be impaired by virtue of the relationship.

See the College of Science Conflict of Interest Document for complete details on how conflicts will be addressed in the college.

Potential conflicts of interest declared by a unit P&T committee member or by the Department Head are treated at the unit P&T committee level and the outcome of the discussion is reported to the Dean. The Dean has the authority to find a conflict of interest where the unit committee decided there was none. The members of the departmental P&T committee must sign a Department P&T Committee Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality Declaration prior to the committee work commencing declaring any conflicts of interests and agreeing to protect the integrity of the process and the confidentiality of the candidates. All information related to the promotion process, including materials, documents, electronic communication, verbal communication, or other information communicated by any other form or format is, and will remain, confidential.

College P&T committee members that are signatories of a unit level evaluation shall recuse themselves from votes on these cases. For all other cases, when the status of a conflict of interest has been discussed at the committee level, the outcome of the discussion is reported to the Dean. The Dean has the authority to find a conflict of interest where the committee decided there was none. The members of the college P&T committee must sign a College of Science P&T Committee Conflict of Interest & Confidentiality Declaration prior to the committee work commencing.

If the Dean has a conflict of interest, this will be reported to the Provost for a resolution.

In all cases, it is a college rule that anybody who was the MS or PhD thesis advisor of the candidate is excluded from the promotion & tenure process.

College of Science Midterm Review for Tenure-Track Faculty

2-1-2023

See OSU's policy for midterm reviews.

Yearly period review of faculty (PROF) should address the candidate’s progress in terms of expectations at the unit, college, and institutional level. In the middle of the probationary period there should be a more extensive midterm review within the unit with the intent to review progress toward indefinite tenure.

The goal of a midterm review is not to check if a candidate is “halfway” there, but rather to evaluate if the candidate will be in a successful position at the end of the probationary period. The key question is growth of the candidate according to the appropriate measures. Another goal of the midterm review is assessing the resources that were provided to the candidate. If those resources are insufficient, the unit should consider increasing resources or adapting expectations. This is also a time to judge if improved mentoring for the candidate is needed.

The tenure clock will begin on the September 16th following the faculty member’s hire, so partial years do not count. Under normal circumstances faculty will be considered for tenure in their sixth year of service in professorial rank. In those cases, the unit should complete a midterm review in the spring term of the third full year of employment. This will allow the candidate two more years to address critical issues. The midterm review should follow all university guidelines. For example, student input is required, but external letters of evaluation of scholarly work are not. See the full list of requirements on the OSU website for midterm reviews.

If there is a prior service agreement stated in the offer letter, the probationary time is shortened.

If one year of prior service is recognized:

• Evaluation of the candidate is based on four years of work at OSU
• Evaluation of the candidate is based on one year of work at a previous institution
• Midterm review should take place at the end of the second full year of service at OSU, giving the candidate two more years to react to the feedback.

If two years of prior service is recognized:

• Midterm review should take place in the winter term of the second year at OSU

In all these cases it is not required to solicit feedback from the previous institution, but a unit is allowed to do so in deemed necessary.

Awarding one or two years of prior service still allows the tenure evaluation to be based on the majority of work done at OSU. If a unit feels a need to award more than two years of prior service, a decision on tenure will be based mostly on work performed before the candidate has joined OSU.

If a candidate receives a tenure clock extension and a midterm review has not yet taken place, the midterm review should be in spring term two years before the start of the academic year in which the candidate is evaluated for tenure. Such a midterm evaluation should be based on the standard time the candidate would have been in the job without an extension, and not on the longer time scale with the extension.

Download these sections as PDFs