Standards for the Evaluation of Research
Research is an essential and critical component of University activity. The originality, quality, impact and value of the work must be assessed. The candidate must provide the Ad Hoc RTPC with ample descriptive evidence of the nature of his/her scholarly activity. Moreover, to assist the evaluation process, the candidate shall submit the names of at least five (5) experts in her/his field who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. In addition, the Chair may independently identify two (2) further experts who are considered capable of judging the candidate's work. The selection of these persons shall be discussed with the FAC and the candidate.
All Faculty of the department are expected to seek excellence in research. Indicators on which the assessment of the quality of research is based are provided in Tables 2A and 2B.
Indicators of the standard of a Faculty member’s research record include the quality and quantity of published work as well as the faculty member’s success in obtaining extramural funds. In all cases, quality of research is valued more than mere quantity. It is recognized that the attributes of an individual Faculty member’s research activity will vary across sub-disciplines.
Within this context, during annual reappointment reviews, all Faculty members who will seek tenure or promotion are expected to provide evidence supporting their research records. In particular, it is expected candidates will provide specific information about article and journal quality and impact, funding history and plans. They should also include materials, in supplementary files when appropriate, of any other evidence of research and scholarly activity they deem relevant. In turn, the members of the Department’s Ad Hoc RTPC and the Chair shall evaluate a candidate’s record in light of the Department’s expectations for successful promotion and tenure decisions.
Table 2A. Evaluation Components for Assessment of
Research for Promotion and Tenure
|
Research Rating |
Indicators of Rating |
|
Excellent |
At least 10 quality points, of which at least 7 are publication points, at least one is a grant point, and at least one is a discipline impact point |
|
Very Good |
At least 7 quality points, of which at least 5 are publication points, and at least one is a grant point or a discipline impact point |
|
Good |
At least 4 quality points, of which at least 3 are publication points |
|
Below Expectations |
Below good rating |
Quality points are assigned as follows:
|
Publication Points |
Indicator |
|
n |
n high quality papers published or accepted for publication in top tier journals during review period** |
|
n/2 |
n high quality papers published or accepted for publication in middle tier journals during review period |
|
Grant Points |
Indicator |
|
2n |
n extramural grants awarded or held during review period, each exceeding $15,000 annually ($10,000 for RC candidates) |
|
1 |
At least one extramural grant proposal every 2 years (4 years for RC candidates) of review period, each exceeding $15,000 annually ($10,000 for RC candidates) |
|
Discipline Impact Points |
Activity |
|
1 point for each activity listed on the right, with the total not exceeding 2 points. |
|
|
Graduate Program Points |
Indicator |
|
n |
n Kent State doctoral dissertations directed to completion in review period |
|
n/2 |
n Kent State Master’s theses directed to completion in review period |
**On the recommendation of the Committee, papers of unusual quality and significance may be awarded multiple quality points
*** On the recommendation of the Committee, research monograph publication may in addition be awarded one or more publication points
Table 2B. Journal Ranking for Guidance in RTP Decisions
|
Top tier journals |
Journals with high ranking in the discipline, as evidenced by inclusion in the SCI listings; exceptions must be approved by GSC and FAC |
|
Middle tier journals |
Journals with medium ranking in the discipline, as evidenced by inclusion in the SCIE, but not SCI, listings; exceptions must be approved by GSC and FAC |
|
Low tier journals |
Journals with low ranking in the discipline, as evidenced by exclusion from the SCIE listings and not approved for higher ranking by GSC and FAC |