Time in Rank Limits / Mandatory Review Cycles / Extension Requests

Extensions to time of review for research faculty will follow the policy and procedures developed for tenure track instructional faculty as outlined in SPG201.92 “Tenure Probationary Period: Effects on Tenure Clock of Childbearing and Dependent Care Responsibilities.”

Our existing policies do allow deans to be flexible and supportive of COVID-19 related requests for additional time. We recognize that there may still be some delays attributable to research disruptions that occurred due to COVID-19. For these situations, units may elect to postpone the promotion cycle for one year. This should be done in consultation with the candidate and should not be viewed as automatic. Rather, units should look at the circumstances and determine whether productivity was sufficiently impacted to grant an extension. Such extensions need not be approved by OVPR, but notification must be provided. 

We acknowledge that many faculty on our campus have experienced new disruptions to their scholarly activity since January 2025, including disruptions in grant reviews, funding announcements, and research activity.  These extensions do not need the approval of OVPR, however we do request at a minimum, an email notification of extension approval.

The basic expressions of a research faculty member’s scholarly work are found in peer-reviewed publications authored and/or co-authored by the research faculty member.

In evaluating the scholarly merit of publications, a major consideration is the level of the researcher’s participation in, and contributions to, the work, especially multi-authored contributions.

Peer-reviewed publications are generally expected and preferred. If non peer-reviewed work is offered as part of the portfolio, the appointing unit should seek an assessment of its academic contribution from external reviewers.

It is expected that nominees for the senior ranks (associate and above) will have achieved a level of national or international recognition in their fields. “National and international recognition” means that leaders in the field are able to recognize excellence in the nominee’s published work, and to identify contributions he/she has made to the field. National and international recognition is judged primarily from the responses provided by external “arms-length” reviewers. Additional information may also be obtained based on the frequency of citations of an individual’s publications in the appropriate citation indexes for the field of study.

A record of research funding as a principal investigator from outside sources does not, by itself, guarantee research competence, just as inability to attract research funding does not necessarily demonstrate a lack of research competence. On balance, however, a record of peer-reviewed research funding reflects well on the nominee’s standing in the scientific community, and funded research of various types provides evidence that the nominee has satisfied the first two criteria for advancement. Having secured research funding reflects particular credit on the nominee when he/she has obtained it through a competitive, peer-reviewed process at the national level, such as that required by NIH and NSF.

Recognition of Scholarly Activities for Research Scientists

The University recognizes the vital role that Research Scientists play in advancing our research mission. When evaluating performance for annual review, promotion, and reappointment, it is important to acknowledge the broad range of scholarly activities that extend beyond conventional research products (e.g., publications, grants, and conference presentations).

Research Scientist faculty contribute to the academic and research community through diverse forms of engagement and leadership. These activities strengthen the University, help to advance their fields of study, and are related in some way to the faculty member’s research (i.e., contributing to “reputation”).  Below are Suggested Scholarly Contributions that should be considered when evaluating Research Track faculty (this is not an exhaustive list and we anticipate additions to this list as this change in the promotion criteria is implemented)*

• Conference peer review
• Organizing a panel/workshop – local, regional, national
• Invited panel presenter
• Leadership role in a professional society
• Mentorship of trainees (esp outside the immediate lab setting)
• Journal peer review
• Editorial position
• National committee
• Community engagement (e.g., research translation)
• Policy contributions
• Study section/ grant peer review
• Guideline committees, advisory boards
• Leading data training and dissemination

Service activities that do not represent scholarly contributions:

• Serving on a promotion committee
• Serving on a space committee

Activities like these both strengthen the University’s research enterprise and our scientific communities, and should be considered as meaningful components of evaluation for Research Scientist faculty, both in annual reviews and in promotion considerations.

The scholarly independence of a faculty member is evidenced when he/she undertakes leadership in the conception, execution, and dissemination through publication of important scholarly work. Candidates can demonstrate this by serving as the Principal Investigator on research projects, by serving as the sole author, lead author, or primary author on a fair proportion of publications, by demonstrating other major contributions to the preparation of manuscripts, and by achieving recognition from their peer group through invited lectures, awards, etc. Comments from external reviewers are also used as a measure of the nominee’s creativity, initiative and productivity that can reveal the level and growth of a faculty’s scholarly independence.

Nominees will have demonstrated a reasonable level of contribution to service at various levels including diversity and climate activities, within their departments, the school/college, or the University as a whole, as well as in various activities at community, state, national, or international levels.

Research Scientist faculty appointments are intended for individuals whose primary activity is research. Faculty appointed on the Research Professor Track are expected to participate in significant levels of non-didactic teaching.

If a research faculty member takes part in instructional track teaching while holding a research faculty appointment, it is expected that the unit for which the research faculty member is teaching will establish a fractional instructional appointment for the teaching. Appointments to non-tenure track instructional titles covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the University and the Lecturers’ Employee Organization (LEO) are governed by the terms of that agreement. If a research faculty member accepts a fractional instructional teaching appointment, the appointing unit for his/her research appointment must make arrangements to reduce the percentage of the faculty member’s research appointment to the appropriate fractional level, with a corresponding reduction in his/her compensation.

When units evaluate the teaching done by a research faculty member, as described above, they should apply the same criteria the unit uses in evaluating the teaching of instructional faculty.