Following deliberations of the review committee, a report will be provided to voting faculty.  This report must be signed and dated by all members of the review committee. Eligible voting faculty will meet and vote. . If the Review Committee's Report is modified subsequent to the departmental discussion, provide both reports (original and modified) signed and dated by all members. Review Committee Reports should contain all of the following headings and applicable supplements.  

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.  
  •  Service.

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:

  1. Description of the search process.
  2. Candidate-by-candidate assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of short list candidates.
  3. 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 
environment.

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 
compositions).

 

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 
position.

 

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 
appointment dossiers:

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.