***DRAFT -- Originally 2006, now 2009 -- still in review***
(Being Revised 09 February 2009)
The following procedures have been developed to provide peer review for tenured Library faculty being considered for promotion.
Beginning in 2009, promotion from Associate Professor to Professor will be a three year process. In the preferred timeline. candidates will inform the University Librarian three years in advance of their desire to be considered for promotion to Professor. Dossiers should be substituted for the Annual Report format three years in advance for all candidates who expect to seek promotion to Professor. The Peer Review Committee for these candidates will be appointed at the time the candidate begins the three year cycle for promotion. These Peer Review Committees have broad-reaching responsibilities for reviewing the candidate's Librarianship, Research, and Service activities and advising the candidate of their readiness for promotion. The three year timetable can be modified in light of the candidate's progress and the Peer Review Committee's recommendations. And candidates who wish to do so can bypass the three year cycle and be considered for promotion in the previous manner.
Peer Review Committees are appointed to perform three consecutive evaluations for tenured Library faculty seeking promotion to a higher rank and a single evaluation for tenured Library faculty requesting a special broader faculty review in accord with the terms of Provost Communication 21.
Peer Review Committees assess all three areas -- librarianship, research and.service. Peer Review Committee reports follow the format of Provost Communication 9: Promotion and Tenure. The process also provides opportunities for informal discussion of progress in all three areas of consideration during the review period.
Peer Review Committee Reviews are conducted during the spring semester each year. Schedule and timeline milestones are defined in the Master Calendar for P & T, Peer Review, and Annual Faculty Review. Peer Review Committees are encouraged to meet informally at any time with candidates to review progress, discuss upcoming evaluation, discuss procedural changes, etc.
When an individual seeks review for promotion, the University Librarian asks the relevant Division to have three of its full professors review the documentation provided by the candidate. If three full professors are not available, the University Librarian will appoint full professors from other Divisions to complete a committee of three. This committee reviews the documentation provided and makes a recommendation to the University Librarian about whether a candidate is ready to proceed with the promotion process. The University Librarian then meets with the candidate to discuss the review. If the candidate confirms interest in continuing the promotion review process, a Peer Review Committee is appointed by the University Librarian, in consultation with the Library Executive Committee. Ideally the committee includes at least one person from the Division with which the candidate is affiliated. If possible, the committee should not include a faculty member who works in the same library unit as the candidate undergoing review. The composition of the committee may be changed for a valid reason at the request of the candidate or the Peer Review Committee members by submitting a formal request to the University Librarian.
As soon as possible after the Peer Review Committee is assigned, the Peer Review Committee provides preliminary information to the candidate.
N.B. The Office of the Provost's web site, http://www.provost.illinois.edu/, has additional information pertaining to promotion and tenure, (FAQ ), Rollbacks, Sabbaticals, and Leaves of absence, etc.)
The candidate and both Peer Review Committee members should begin by reviewing carefully the form of the campus promotion dossier (see documents referenced above and Appendix 1 of this document, " Outline of Promotion Dossier"). A complete and current dossier is the core of the Peer Review Committee report. As described below the candidate and the Peer Review Committee both have responsibilities in preparing the Peer Review Committee Report. Generally informational sections of the dossier, documenting the candidate's goals and accomplishments to date, are the responsibility of the candidate; the evaluative sections the responsibility of the Peer Review Committee -- though the Peer Review Committee also is encouraged to provide constructive suggestions to the candidate for improving the candidate's sections of the dossier. Space is provided at the end of the Peer Review Committee Report for the candidate to comment on the evaluative sections of the report if the candidate is so inclined. In preparing the Peer Review Committee Report please keep in mind that for faculty seeking promotion the finished Report will be used by the candidate and paper preparer as a resource in preparing the formal case for promotion which will be submitted to Campus. For the dossier portion of the report, format is to be based on the format expected by the campus for promotion and tenure dossiers. Campus guidelines for promotion dossiers are typically updated every year. While every effort is made to synchronize Appendix 1 of this document with campus guidelines for promotion and tenure (i.e., Provost Communication #9), Peer Review Committees are advised to adhere to the campus guidelines in the event of a conflict in format specification between current campus guidelines and Appendix 1 of this document.
Sequence of Events
After a faculty member expresses interest in being considered for promotion in three years, the following schedule should be followed.
Evaluation of Librarianship
The Peer Review Committee interviews referees regarding librarianship, synthesizes this information, and makes evaluative statements about the individual's progress. The candidate's Unit Head, Division Coordinator, or other appropriate Library faculty member should be included among the referees consulted regarding candidate's accomplishments and progress in area of librarianship. See Appendix 2 for suggestions of internal (librarianship) referees to consult; Appendix 3 for possible areas of review to discuss with referees; Appendix 4 for guidelines for interviewing internal referees; and Appendix 6 for sample questions for use by Peer Review Committees. Interviews should be conducted with Library faculty and, where appropriate, at least three additional persons including, for example: head(s)/chair(s) of liaison department(s); chair of liaison departmental library committee; and other colleagues as appropriate.
Evaluation of Research and Service
The Peer Review Committee gathers evaluations from others relating to research and service and synthesizes this information into an evaluation of the individual's progress in areas of service and research. See Appendix 2 for appropriate types of internal and external referees to consult regarding service and research. The Peer review committee should interview at least one UIUC librarian or colleague, in addition to the immediate supervisor, who can address progress towards research, and/or service and, where appropriate, external referees who can evaluate research and service.
Preparation of Peer Review Committee Report
This document is maintained jointly by the Library Faculty Review Committee and the Library
Promotion and Tenure Advisory Committee. Comments and suggestions for edits should be forwarded to
the attention of those committees.
Editor for this version: Nancy O'Brien.