Procedures for Peer Review Committees for Tenured Library Faculty

***DRAFT — Originally 2006, now 2009  — still in review***

(Being Revised 09 February 2009)

Table of Contents:

Applicability

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.

Preamble

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.

Composition of Committee for Review of Candidate’s Potential

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.

Preliminary Information and Meetings

As soon as possible after the Peer Review Committee is assigned, the Peer Review Committee provides preliminary information to the candidate.

  1. Peer Review Committee ensures that candidate has the URL and/or copies of:

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.)

  1. Candidate will supply to Peer Review Committee:
    • Current curriculum vitae
    • Job description and/or statement of primary responsibilities
  2. Peer Review Committee meets informally with candidate to:
    • Make introductions
    • Communicate criteria for evaluation.
    • Share process and procedures for evaluation, including a review of the documents cited above.
    • Discuss candidate’s primary responsibilities and priorities and personal goals in librarianship, research, and service.
    • Discuss importance of selecting outside reviewers.

The Peer Review Committee Review and Report

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.

  1. The candidate begins using the dossier format (in place of the Annual Report format) for annual reports. The University Librarian, in consultation with the Executive Committee, appoints a Peer Review Committee for the potential candidate.  This Peer Review Committee begins an ongoing evaluation of the candidate’s Librarianship, Research, and Service activities. **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.
  2. 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.
  3. The Peer Review Committee will provide candidate with any revisions to relevant documentation & guidelines.
  4. Candidate will supply to Peer Review Committee:

The dossier format incorporates information from: 

  • Annual report
  • Current curriculum vitae
  • Statement of primary responsibilities
  • Statements of goals and accomplishments for librarianship, service, & research.
  1. The Peer Review Committee meets with unit head or other appropriate faculty member to discuss candidate’s performance in carrying out primary responsibilities and priorities.
  2. The Peer Review Committee meets with candidate to review procedures and discuss evaluation criteria. During these scheduled meetings, the Peer Review Committee is expected to:
    • Review procedures and discuss the significance of formal evaluation.
    • Review the candidate’s accomplishments and progress in librarianship.
    • Review the candidate’s progress and accomplishments in research & service.
    • Provide constructive suggestions to the candidate for improving the candidate’s sections of the dossier.
    • Discuss with candidate which publication(s) would be best to send to external evaluators.
  3. The Peer Review Committee then gathers evaluative data and adds to the candidate-supplied dossier the evaluative portions. Evaluative statements should be of high quality, suitable for use by the paper preparers with quotable sections. The Peer Review Committee also will append a signature sheet to the dossier (format as described below).
  4. A copy of the now completed dossier is provided to the candidate.  The Peer Review Committee then meets with the candidate to discuss the dossier in full and to share assessment of candidate’s progress in three areas: librarianship, service, and research and publication. When meeting with the Peer Review Committee to discuss the evaluative sections of the dossier, the candidate will be asked to sign the signature sheet appended to the dossier by the Peer Review Committee (see details below). The candidate’s signature attests to the candidate’s receipt of the document and also to his/her understanding of its contents; it does not imply the candidate’s agreement with the content of the evaluative sections of the dossier. The candidate may add comments or responses to the evaluative sections of the dossier as authored by the Committee. The Peer Review Committee members also sign and date the report.
  5. The Peer Review Committee then adds covering material as described below and submits a copy of all as per instructions in the current year’s Master Calendar for P & T, Peer Review, and Annual Faculty Review (see link on Index of Promotion & Tenure, Peer Review, and Annual Faculty Review Documents).

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.  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

  1. The candidate supplies the Peer Review Committee with his/her completed outline for the Promotion dossier in an electronic form including the candidate’s statements of librarianship, service, and research goals and objectives. The candidate writes all but the evaluation sections. The Peer Review Committee writes the evaluation sections.
  2. The formal report shall be written in a narrative style and of professional quality high enough to be included in promotion and tenure documentation. The final Peer Review Committee’s written report includes:
    • A cover sheet for FRC listing the following: Candidate’s name, tenure status and rank (e.g., tenured/associate professor), divisional affiliation, names of referees contacted in preparation of the report, and names of the Peer Review Committee members.   The cover sheet is not provided to the candidate; it is sent to the University Librarian’s Office with the final report.
    • The Peer Review Committee completes sections IIIB. Evaluation of Librarianship and Instruction; IVB Evaluation of Service; VB. Departmental Evaluation of Research Accomplishments; VC. Departmental Evaluation of Future Potential, and integrates these into the electronic document to create one cohesive document. Referees may be quoted, but should not be identified by name. For example, the report should not say Professor Appletree said, “I have never known such a splendid librarian in my 40 years on this campus.” It should say, instead, a Professor in the Classics Department stated, “I have….An end sheet with signatures and dates from Peer Review Committee members and candidate. This should bear the following wording for the candidate: “I have read the evaluative sections of this report.” Similarly, for the Peer Review Committee members the following statement should be included, “We have discussed the content of this report with the candidate. “Peer Review Committee, upon completion of its final report will deposit all pertinent archival files to the University Librarian’s Office.
  3. Final Peer Review Committee report is distributed and discussed with the candidate as described above (without the cover sheet). Candidate signs copy of written report as acknowledgment of receipt of the report. Candidate can add comments or responses to the written report — these must be forwarded with the final report to the University Librarian’s Office. The candidate may request a meeting with the PTA Committee to clarify procedures or express concerns.
  4. Peer Review Committee maintains archival files. These files are confidential and are kept by the members of the Peer Review Committee until the completion of the promotion process or until the candidate leaves the university. At that time, the files, including all formal notes and other records, will be transferred to the University Librarian’s Office.

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.