3.7 Evaluation Criteria for Merit Raises for Tenure-Track Faculty After the First Semester

(Adopted April 2009; Research Criteria Revised April 2015)

Research: Criteria based on promotion and tenure guidelines with an emphasis on journal

5 Far exceeds expectations, publishing 3-4 or more refereed publications in high-quality

4 Exceeds expectations, publishing approximately 2-3 refereed publications in high-quality

3 Meets expectations; publishing 1-2 refereed publications.

2 Below expectations; no refereed publication but other publication activity.

1 Well below expectations; no publications but other research activity that could lead to publications.

0 No research activity.

* While the department's “gold standard” is publication of refereed manuscripts in high quality
journals, additional research activities are also valued. Specifically, additional points can be
added to the above rankings for additional research accomplishments, such as book chapters,
awards noted as prestigious by academic analytics, and other miscellaneous publications (e.g.,
encyclopedia entries, non-refereed Internet articles, book reviews, etc.).
** Points may also be earned for the publication of books. Emphasis will be placed on authored
or co-authored books for associate and full professors, and we will consider books for untenured
faculty if books are a norm in the faculty member’s area. The year a book is published, a book
will count as meeting the minimum research expectations. A book published in a high quality
outlet (e.g., an academic press, such as Oxford) will count as exceeding expectations.
*** External grants and fellowships that accrue indirect costs to the Department will result in a
.5 boost to a faculty member’s research score for every year that the grant is active.
**** A faculty member will be awarded an additional .5 to their research score for each
completed dissertation they direct or co-direct in a given year. A .25 will be awarded for each
completed MA thesis directed or co-directed.
Teaching: Criteria based primarily on student evaluations**

5 Exceptional teaching quality; typical ratings in the 4.5 and above range*

4 High quality teaching; typical ratings average around a 4.1 to 4.4*

3 Good teaching; typical ratings in the 3 to 4 range*

2 Marginal teaching: below 3; needs improvement*

1 Seriously deficient teaching

* Based upon a 5 point scale—convert four point scales to 5 points

** Additional teaching activities such as advising graduate students, supervising undergraduate
honors' projects, or participating in pedagogically oriented professional development activities
could result in additions point being added to the above ratings.
Service: Criteria based on service to the department, the college/university, the discipline, and
the public.

5 Includes significant service to three areas or exceptional service in two areas

4 Includes significant service at two areas; limited in the other areas

3 Includes significant service at one area, limited in the other areas

2 Includes limited service at one level, almost none in other areas

1 Includes no real service component