Review Committee Report
Revised March 2023
Report of Ad Hoc Committee Concerning the (Promotion/Appointment) of Professor ______in the Department/School Of ___________ , MM,YY
The ad hoc committee recommends (unanimously/by a split vote of 2-1) that the department support the candidacy of _______ for (promotion/appointment) to the rank of ______.
- Bulleted List of Strengths and Weaknesses
- Composition of unit review committee. Chair W, Profs. X,Y, & Z.
- External evaluators and evaluations. List evaluators with a rationale for the person’s selection.
- Relationship and significance of the relevant broad field and subfield to the discipline.
- Candidate's professional development, current research interests, and likely future directions.
- Significance of the candidate's research agenda in relation to recent intellectual developments in the field.
- Candidate's scholarly trajectory to date, including specific contributions contained in respective published works, their influence on the field, and the breadth of the candidate's interests.
- Disputes in the field.
- Teaching. And Mentoring.
Additional Required Supplements to be provided in the Review Committee Materials Folder
- i. Analysis of members of the appropriate peer group.
- ii. Nature of scholarly productivity in the discipline.
- iii. Statement(s) from other units to which the candidate contributes (Secondary, joint, membership appointments, etc.)
- iv. Description and importance of candidate’s field
- v. Statement appraising quality of journal(s) and/or publisher(s)
FOR EXTERNAL APPOINTMENTS ONLY – Search committee report. If there was no formal search, the Chair should summarize the process that led to the appointment. Include the following with any external appointment dossiers:
- Description of the search process.
- Candidate-by-candidate assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of short list candidates.
- A copy of the published advertisement, including all areas posted.
Sections and Supplements of the the Review Committee Report
Strengths and Weaknesses. At the beginning of the report, include a bulleted list of the
candidate's primary strengths and weaknesses. Nearly all cases have weaknesses; do not ignore or
obscure these. The list may include both real weaknesses that the report later places in context
and apparent weaknesses in the dossier that are explained later as not reflecting true flaws.
The composition of the unit review committee. Initial review committees must include at least one
member from outside the primary reviewing unit, appointed by the Dean of the school where the
dossier will be reviewed.
External evaluators and evaluations. List evaluators with a rationale for the person's selection.
Explain if the letter writer is not arms-length. Document the standing of the evaluator as a leader
in the field. If there are an unusually high number of declines, be sure to discuss any possible
mitigating factors. Provide an explanation if the evaluator is from an institutions that might not
be perceived as one of Duke's peer institutions. Dossiers must include all correspondence with
external evaluators. Some succinct quotations can put the arguments of the committee and Chair in
context, but there is no need to provide extensive quotes from the letters.
Relationship and significance of the relevant broad field and subfield to the discipline. Describe
the subfield in which the candidate works including information about the size of the subfield.
Explain how the candidate's work contributes to ongoing intellectual issues in the discipline and
subfield. Provide evidence that this field and/or subfield continue to be intellectually vibrant
and promising of important contributions.
Candidate's professional development, current research interests, and likely future directions.
Describe the candidate's primary contributions to the field. Include information about whether the
candidate's work crosses disciplinary boundaries and state which is the candidate's primary
research area and which is the secondary.
The significance of the candidate's research agenda in relation to recent intellectual developments
in the field. If the candidate's work crosses disciplinary boundaries or uses methodologies from
different disciplines, describe how interdisciplinary has influenced the quality, reception, and
impact of the work--positively or negatively--in the candidate's primary field, as well as in other fields.) Where
relevant, address the candidate's public engagement, particularly engagement that is grounded in
and draws on the candidate's research.
Candidate's scholarly trajectory to date, including specific contributions contained in respective
published works, their influence on the field, and the breadth of the candidate's interests.
Disputes in the field. Describe any disputes in the candidate's filed that may be important with
respect to this review.
Teaching and Mentoring. Describe the candidate's effectiveness as a teacher. Include information
about courses taught, mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students, and any other contributions
to instruction. Include a summary of the candidate's teaching evaluations and explain any issues
that arise in those evaluations. Identify awards received for teaching. If relevant, discuss the
candidates' contributions to fostering an equitable and inclusive learning and research
Service. Describe the candidate's service to the department, the university, and the discipline.
Has the candidate provided service to the department, school, university, or community and
discipline beyond what is typically expected for a faculty member of their rank? Include service
that aims to advance Duke's values of equity, diversity, and inclusion.
ReQuired Supplemental Information
Statement(s) from other units to which the candidate contributes
Description and importance of candidate's field
Statement appraising the quality of journal(s) and/or publisher(s)
Nature of scholarly productivity in the discipline. Describe what the discipline considers
indicative of productive scholars including information about both publication rate and format
(e.g., books, refereed journal articles, reviews, catalogs, electronic communications, original
Analysis of the appropriate peer group. Analyze a list of the candidate's peers in the
discipline. It can be particularly effective to include the candidate and peers in a table with
relevant metrics for comparing scholarly productivity. The list of peers should include people who
received the doctorate (or other terminal degree) around the same time as the candidate. Include a
narrative description of the candidate's standing among peers and reasons for the candidate's
Search committee report (for external appointments only). If there was no formal search, the Chair
should summarize the process that led to the appointment. Include the following with any external
i) Description of the search process;
ii) Candidate-by-candidate assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of shortlist candidates;
iii) A copy of the published advertisement, including all areas posted.