DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
PROMOTION AND TENURE GUIDELINES
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY
Approved by the Department of Computer Science
January 4, 2000
Approved by the College of Arts and Sciences
Promotion and Tenure Review Board
January 11, 2000
Revision: December 5, 2003
Faculty members must consult the College of Arts and Sciences Promotion and Tenure Manual. In
the event of a conflict between the two documents, the College manual takes precedence.
All materials, discussions, conclusions, and letters that are part of the review process will be held
in strictest confidence, and no party to the process, other than the candidate, may divulge any
information about it to anyone not directly involved.
3 The Department of Computer Science Promotion and Tenure Guidelines supplements and
4 complements the College of Arts and Sciences Promotion and Tenure Manual. The basic,
5 fundamental, expert peer-review of the candidate takes place within the Department. Accordingly, the
6 purpose of this set of guidelines is to describe and elaborate upon the criteria for promotion and tenure
7 at the departmental level. Departmental guidelines are intended to conform to the Board of Regents of
8 the University System of Georgia, those of Georgia State University, and those of the College of Arts
9 and Sciences. In the event of any conflict, the System, University, and College policies will take
10 precedence. Therefore, it is important for candidates to study carefully the criteria, requirements, and
11 procedures outlined in this document and in that of the College of Arts and Sciences.
15 The Department of Computer Science at Georgia State University (GSU) assumes as a primary
16 aspect of its mission to provide research and instruction in the fundamental concepts and applications
17 of computer science both for the students of the university as well as other citizens of the State of
20 The Department seeks to fulfill this mission in four ways by: (i) offering bachelor of science,
21 masters of science, and a proposed Ph.D. degree programs that prepare computer science majors for
22 careers in business, industry, education, science, and government; (ii) participating in various research
23 and funding activities; (iii) providing a wide variety of computer science courses appropriate to
24 majors in the discipline; and (iv) engaging in advisement, academic counseling, and other related
25 services to the University and the larger community.
27 Georgia State University is in the center of a large metropolitan area where there is a significant
28 workforce engaged in information technology. For the mutual benefits of the community, the
29 University, and the Department, the Department seeks to address the need for technologically
30 competent employees that is a critical concern for the emerging “high-tech” industry in Georgia as
31 well as a recognized national crisis for years to come. The Department is committed to collaborate,
32 for instance, with Yamacraw industry partners and associates and is developing trusted relationships
33 with such state industries. Further, these relationships with industries channel the ways that the
34 Department seeks to fulfill its mission. Clearly, our degree programs are quality sources of computer
35 scientists, who are potential employees in the information technology industry. The Department
36 values industry relationships to help identify principal trends in technology that can be factored into
37 its curriculum planning. The Department encourages the participation by faculty and students in
38 industry projects under the rubrics of state-of-the-art research endeavors and co-ops, respectively.
39 Faculty are encouraged to research the processes by which the artifacts of computer science are
40 produced as well as the production of such artifacts, to develop research initiatives that take advantage
41 of appropriate software and hardware development processes and of equipment that are generally
42 found in industry, and to seek funding and support from industries as well as from traditional funding
45 To meet these responsibilities, the Department of Computer Science is committed to attracting and
46 maintaining a faculty with exceptional research and instructional abilities, expertise in the various
47 areas of computer science, and a facility and willingness to serve both the University and the greater
48 community. Therefore, this document is prepared to assist in this mission and in consideration of the
49 policies of the Board of Regents, Georgia State University, and its College of Arts and Sciences. In
50 the event of conflict, the College Promotion and Tenure Manual takes precedence over this set of
51 departmental guidelines.
53 As such, all recommendations for promotion and tenure within the Department are evaluated
54 based on the past performance of each candidate in the areas of professional development, instruction,
55 and service. Candidates should strive for excellence in all three components while keeping in mind
56 the criteria described in this document. The purpose of this document, along with that of the College,
57 is to help the appropriate committees and individuals involved in the process make these evaluations,
58 and to help the candidates prepare their dossiers so that they display their accomplishments in a clear
59 and convincing fashion. Clearly, the granting of tenure is a serious commitment of future resources.
61 The College Area Advisory Committee on Promotion and Tenure (CAACPT) independently
62 evaluates all candidates according to the College Promotion and Tenure Manual, a portion of which
63 provides guidelines for the departmental review and the production of this departmental document.
64 The departmental review by the Departmental Promotion and Tenure Committee (DPTC) is made in
65 accordance with this departmental document and the College Promotion and Tenure Manual.
67 THE PROMOTION AND TENURE PROCESS
68 IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
70 Policies relating to promotion and tenure (P&T) at Georgia State University, and in the College of
71 Arts and Sciences, are described in the College Manual. The College Manual also describes the P&T
72 process, the P&T committee, and the schedule for the various steps in the process. In all cases,
73 candidates must satisfy the minimum requirements set forth by the Regents, Georgia State University,
74 and the College of Arts and Sciences.
76 EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
77 As described in the University Policy on Promotion and Tenure:
79 All candidates for promotion and/or tenure will be evaluated in the three areas of (1)
80 [Instruction:] teaching, advising, and serving students (to include instruction both inside and
81 outside the classroom environment and professional practice, when appropriate), (2)
82 [Professional Development:] academic achievement and professional development (to include
83 research, other forms of scholarship, and creative activity), and (3) [S]ervice: (to include
84 departmental, college, university, and professional service as well as public service involving
85 professional expertise). In each of these areas candidates will be evaluated as to whether or
86 not they have met, exceeded, or clearly surpassed the expectations for promotion or tenure at
87 peer institutions, defined to be those institutions rated at the same level by the Carnegie
88 [System] or a comparable criteria.
90 Thus, the three areas that will be evaluated by the P&T committee for all candidates for promotion
91 and/or tenure are professional development, instruction, and service. These evaluations will be based
Revision: December 5, 2003 3
92 on peer judgements from materials submitted to the committee by the candidate and the outside
95 Terms of Evaluation
96 As described in the College Manual, “[c]andidates will be evaluated in professional development,
97 instruction, and service, using the terms outstanding, excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor. The
98 evaluations should take into account expectations appropriate to the rank under consideration, the
99 standards of the candidate’s discipline, and the mission and resources of the department. Guidelines
100 for the application of the terms outstanding, excellent, very good, etc. as they apply within the
101 candidate’s field are specified in each department’s promotion and tenure guidelines. Participation
102 in professional associations shall be counted in the category of service rather than professional
103 development. Guidelines for applying the terms of evaluation are given below… .”
105 Guidelines for the Terms of Evaluation in the Department of Computer Science
107 Specific items to be considered are listed in the College Promotion and Tenure Manual.
108 Candidates should consult that manual concerning the format and organization of the materials to be
109 submitted to the DPTC and the CAACPT. The materials submitted by each candidate will be
110 evaluated on an individual basis. It is the candidate's responsibility to build his/her case for promotion
111 and/or tenure.
113 The terms, descriptors, and evidence are the same regardless of the level at which the promotion
114 and/or tenure is sought. However, evidence for more extensive activity and accomplishment is
115 required at the level of professor than at associate professor, and at associate professor than at
116 assistant professor. Each candidate will be assigned a rank of outstanding, excellent, very good, good,
117 fair, or poor in each of the three areas of professional development, instruction, and service. In each
118 case, there are tables that provide the definitions and evaluation factors for rating.
120 Assessment of Professional Development
121 Assessment of professional development reflects the professional accomplishment and
122 effectiveness of the candidate. Peer review is a vital component of professional development
123 activities and can take the forms of referees, panels, committees, editorial board, or some such juried
124 review process appropriate for the work, with the key element being an external review that provides
125 an assessment of the professional value of the work. Professional accomplishment and effectiveness
126 is demonstrated by, as appropriate to the specialty or area of the candidate, a combination of:
127 publications in peer-reviewed media (including (alphabetically) books appropriate to the discipline
128 and chapters in books, electronic formats, journals, and proceedings of national and international
129 conferences and workshops); success in proposing funding or support from traditional (e.g., national
130 agencies, foundations, state agencies, and internal award programs) and/or industry-related sources;
131 peer recognition in the forms of invitations to present at conferences or workshops, elections to posts
132 in professional organizations, or invitations or appointments to serve on committees or as session
133 organizers or chairs; and professional activity in the form of contributions to professional meetings.
135 The goal of the Department is for the faculty to be recognized within their respective specialties or
Revision: December 5, 2003 4
136 areas as leaders who make significant contributions to the advancement of those specialties or areas.
137 All faculty are expected to submit proposals seeking extramural funding or support for their research
138 activities, and reviews of these proposals provide an important indication of the value with which the
139 activities are viewed by the sources of the funding or support. Success in professional development
140 activities may be affected by many factors including the difficulty of the work, access to appropriate
141 equipment or facilities or processes, and the number and backgrounds of students available to assist in
142 the work. It is the responsibility of the candidate to assess the availability of appropriate equipment,
143 facilities, processes, personnel, and space so that the plans for professional development activities are
144 ambitious yet feasible.
146 The definitions and evaluation factors for rating along with the associated level of accomplishment
147 and appropriate evidence are listed in Table I.
149 Table I. Definitions and Evaluation Factors for Rating of Professional Development
Professional Development Definition Evidence Considered in
Internationally recognized Publications,1 funding,2 awards (prizes), and
research program invitations3
Nationally recognized Publications1 and funding,2 or exceptional
research program publications and promising proposal reviews2
Very good Publications1 and startup funding2
competitive research program
Good Active research program Some publications1 or funding2
Occasional publications or paper
Fair Limited research program
No publications, funding, or paper
Poor No research program
151 “Publications” indicates publications in peer-reviewed media, including (alphabetically) books appropriate to the
152 discipline and chapters in books, electronic formats, journals, and proceedings of national and international conferences
153 and workshops.
154 “Funding” indicates competitive peer-reviewed funding or support from national agencies, foundations, industries, state
155 agencies, and internal programs such as Quality Improvement Funds, Research Initiation Grant, Research Program
156 Enhancement, and Research Team Grant.
157 “Invitations” include invited papers, presentations, and workshops related to the individual’s area of professional
160 Considerations on Evaluating Quality of Contributions to Professional Development:
161 The following will be evaluated to judge the quality of the applicant's contributions to professional
164 1. Publications in peer-reviewed media:
165 i. Papers: Significance and scope of results; prestige, stature, and scope of media; acceptance
166 rate; quality and quantity of citations.
167 ii. Books appropriate to the discipline: Published reviews; citations; number of printings.
168 iii. Chapters in books: Published reviews of book in which chapter(s) appears.
Revision: December 5, 2003 5
170 2. Funding/Support: Degree of competition; scope of funding or support agency; appropriateness of
171 funding or support agency to the candidate’s research; scope of award; quality of proposal
175 3. Invited Presentations: Prestige of conference or workshop.
176 4. Reviewing and refereeing: Amount of reviewing and refereeing; prestige of media or organization
177 for which work was done.
179 In judging the quality of a candidate’s contributions to professional development, the DPTC and
180 the Chair will be guided by the following:
182 A. Publications. Because explosive change is expected to continue to be the normal state in the
183 discipline of computer science for years to come, the Department recognizes that the core
184 indicator of scholarly attainment in computer science should be publication in competitive peer-
185 reviewed, or juried, media (e.g., books, chapters in books, electronic journals, electronic postings,
186 journals, proceedings, workshops – listed here in alphabetical order). The particular media and its
187 physical characteristics are not issues. The competition for contributing to a particular instance of
188 a media is important. The candidate should clearly indicate for each publication if it was juried
189 and the degree of competition for a particular instance of a media that contains the publication.
190 Evidence of competition would include the acceptance rate for the proceedings or electronic
191 postings of a specific instance of a conference and an historical rate of acceptance by a journal or
192 conference. The Department recognizes and will take into account that different media have
193 different bases for judging competition and for reviewing and that each specialty or area has
194 different expectations in regard to the appropriateness of specific publishing media.
196 B. Citations. The quality and appropriateness of a contribution of a candidate may be clarified by the
197 use and recognition it receives from other researchers. For this purpose of clarification, citations to
198 and reviews of the candidate’s professional development publications will also be assessed, as
199 available and as appropriate to the specialty or area.
201 C. Productivity. The Department recognizes and will take into account that each specialty or area
202 has different expectations in regard to the numbers of publications and of funding or support
203 efforts undertaken.
205 D. Co-authors. The Department accepts and values multiple authorship in publications and funding
206 or support efforts because specialties or areas in the discipline are becoming increasingly
207 interdependent and collaboration can focus the talents of multiple experts to produce rapid
208 advance of the discipline. The Department anticipates no particular research model will be used in
209 publications and funding or support efforts of the faculty that would be expected to document the
210 roles of the co-authors. So, while the Department recognizes that multiplicity of authorship
211 occurs differently in different areas or specialties, candidates with co-authored works and funding
212 or support efforts should clearly indicate their contribution to the works and efforts. The
213 evaluation committee(s) will incorporate assessment of this contribution in its letter of
214 recommendation. Overall, the evidence must indicate that the contributions in each specialty or
Revision: December 5, 2003 6
215 area, which is exhibited in a candidate’s contributions to professional development, form a
216 coherent role for the candidate in that specialty or area in order to warrant promotion and/or
219 E. Funding / Support. The Department recognizes that funding or support may be secured from a
220 number of sources for a variety of needs in conjunction with a candidate’s professional
221 development activities that vary with the specialty or area. Traditional sources (e.g., national
222 agencies, foundations, state agencies, and internal award programs) may be sought to support
223 more traditional research needs (e.g., equipment, training graduate assistants, and release time for
224 research). The Department recognizes the emerging need in the discipline to have access to state-
225 of-the-art environments (e.g., complex mixed-hardware networks and industrial-strength software
226 and hardware development processes) that are generally found in industries. Industry may also be
227 an efficient source of support in regard to in-kind contributions and matches of equipment. In any
228 case, the candidate should clearly indicate how the source at which each funding or support effort
229 is directed fits needs of the candidate’s research activities and describe the juried process that
230 provides the external assessment of the professional value of the work proposed for funding or
231 support. In the case of industry funding or support, which typically involves contractual
232 arrangements, the candidate should also indicate the competition for acquiring the funding or
233 support, which would include the acceptance rate of responses to RFPs, levels of funding or
234 support obtained by competing proposals, and/or the track record of proposals accepted by the
235 source at which the funding or support effort is directed. Overall, the candidate’s funding or
236 support efforts should evidence relationships with publications, past and/or planned. A funding or
237 support effort that evidences professional development that is not related to the majority of the
238 past work of the candidate will be regarded as a “seed” or startup effort, which should not be
239 confused, however, with funding or support that allows a candidate to extend, generalize,
240 synthesize, or modernize past work of the candidate.
242 Assessment of Instruction (Teaching Effectiveness)
243 Assessment of instruction reflects accomplishment, performance, and effectiveness in instruction-
244 related activities. The definitions and evaluation factors for rating along with the associated level of
245 accomplishment and appropriate evidence are listed in Table II.
258 Table II. Definitions and Evaluation Factors for Rating of Instruction
Revision: December 5, 2003 7
Instruction Rating Definition Evidence Considered in
Outstanding Innovative, inspirational teacher, 6 of 8 items below, including (a), (b),
recognized as national leader in and (c):
development of instruction and/or (a) develop new courses and/or
training of students. significant modification of
(b) supervision of student work,
including: theses, projects, and
co-ops, and service on student
(c) good student perceptions;
(d) publications with students, or
supervision of student
publications or other student
(e) instructional creativity in existing
(f) instructional grants, including
both competitive peer-reviewed
awards as well as state and
(g) publications in instructional
journals and conferences or
publication of instructional
(h) teaching awards.
Excellent Innovative, inspirational, creative 5 of 8 items, including (a), (b), and
teacher; provides major leadership in (c)
development of instruction in
Very Good Innovative teacher; provides leadership 4 of 8 items, including (a), (b), and
in instructional development (c)
Good Meets obligations well; local level 3 of 8 items, including (b) and (c)
Fair Limited performance; substandard 1 of 8 items
Poor No evidence of accomplishments in
Needs significant improvement
any of the 8 categories
260 Considerations on Evaluating Quality of Contributions to Instruction:
262 The following will be evaluated respectively to judge the quality of the applicant's contributions to
263 each of the respective eight items (listed (a) through (h)) in the last column of Table II:
265 (a) Quality of courses developed; quality of modifications to existing courses.
267 (b) Quality of accomplishments of students supervised; level of students; amount of supervision.
269 (c) Quality of student evaluations.
Revision: December 5, 2003 8
271 (d) Significance and scope of student accomplishments such as the quality of student publications,
272 and the stature and scope of journals or conferences in which the student publications appeared.
274 (e) Degree and novelty of innovations used in instructing current courses.
276 (f) Amount of competition for instructional grant awards; scope of agency or organization granting
277 instructional grant award; amount of instructional grant award.
279 (g) Significance and scope of instructional publication results; peer-review, stature and scope of the
280 journal or conference; acceptance rate. Significance of instructional textbook, including adoption
281 and stature of publisher.
283 (h) Significance and scope of organization issuing teaching award.
285 Assessment of Service
286 Evaluation in the area of Service reflects contributions and effectiveness as demonstrated by
287 departmental, College, and University service, by service to professional organizations, and by
288 profession-related service to the community. Service is a critical ingredient to the successful
289 functioning of the Department. Further, a faculty member can contribute worthwhile, valuable service
290 to the community by participating in industrial projects that can benefit from the contributions of an
291 expert in the specialty or area of the faculty member. Candidates are expected to perform service
292 requests competently and in a timely fashion. However, only minimal service to the Department and
293 College is expected of junior faculty during the first three years, and an average amount of service to
294 the Department in the fourth and fifth years. Table III below provides definitions and factors for
311 Table III. Definitions and Evaluation Factors for Rating of Service
Service Rating Definition Evidence considered in
Revision: December 5, 2003 9
Outstanding Major Effective Leader Major effective role in one of (a),
(b), or (c):
(a) service on College, Senate, or
other University or System
(b) service on departmental
(c) service to professional
organizations and the community
including obtaining an office in a
serving on the organizing
committee for a conference,
serving as an editor for a
professional publication, or
providing specialty skills and
knowledge to an industry project.
Excellent Effective leader Has played an effective role for (a)
and an active role for one of (b)
Very Good Helpful citizenship; departmental Has played an active role for (a)
leadership and an effective role for (b).
Good Acceptable citizenship; minimal Has played an effective role for (b).
Fair Needs improvement; substandard Has served on at least one
leader departmental committee.
Poor Needs major improvement None of the three categories listed
313 Considerations on Evaluating Quality of the Candidate’s Contributions to Service:
315 The following will be evaluated respectively to judge the quality of the applicant's contributions to
316 each of the respective three items (listed (a), (b), and (c)) in the last column of Table III:
318 (a) Quality of contribution to committee; scope and responsibilities of committee.
319 (b) Quality of contribution to committee; scope and responsibilities of committee.
320 (c) Reputation and scope of professional organization, conference, or publication; responsibilities of
321 position held.
323 Promotion to Associate Professor
324 In order to be recommended for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor, a candidate must be
325 evaluated as at least excellent in professional development or instruction and at least very good in the
326 other. The candidate must also be rated as at least good in service.
328 The DPTC of the Whole (i.e., the professors and the associate professors who are the members of
329 the DPTC) and the Chair of the Department independently will evaluate the credentials of all
330 candidates with all deliberations to be completed according to the College calendar. The DPTC of the
Revision: December 5, 2003 10
331 Whole, in judging professional development, determines if the candidate has developed a research
332 program that has produced publications in national, peer-reviewed media, which includes electronic
333 and print formats. The publications are rated according to the rating descriptions given below. At a
334 minimum, the successful candidate is expected to have published several publications, as appropriate
335 to the specialty or area of the candidate, while at Georgia State University. A candidate must also
336 have a promising record of seeking funding or support for professional development activities. This
337 funding or support may be from a mix of foundations, industries, national agencies, state agencies,
338 and internal award programs. The record of funding or support is rated according to the rating
339 descriptions given below. When funding or support has not been secured, evidence of vigorous and
340 consistent efforts to acquire such funding or support from national agencies, foundations, industries,
341 state agencies, and internal award programs will be considered. Indication of effort to secure funding
342 or support may include reviewers' comments on proposals. If a candidate elects to submit these, the
343 full set of comments and scores from the funding or support source must be made available to the
345 For the candidate to be judged outstanding (an internationally recognized program) in professional
346 development, there should be evidence of international recognition. This evidence may include
347 invitations and citations of accomplishments in conjunction with national recognition of publications
348 and funding or support. This rating will rarely apply for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor
349 as it is more appropriate for a long history of such recognition. For the candidate to be judged
350 excellent (a nationally recognized program), there should be evidence of publications and of funding
351 or support efforts as follows. The mix of publications must include publications in peer-reviewed
352 media suitable for the areas or specialties to which the publications belong. Publications in this mix
353 may involve electronic and print formats but competitive peer-reviewed media is the core indicator of
354 scholarship. The mix of funding or support efforts must include one of the following: efforts that
355 resulted in acquisition of extramural funding or support from foundations, industries, national
356 agencies, or state agencies; or vigorous and consistent efforts to acquire extramural funding or support
357 from foundations, industries, national agencies, or state agencies plus the acquisition of funding from
358 internal award programs that is “seed” or startup funding. Evaluation as very good (emerging national-
359 level program) demonstrates a mix of publications in peer-reviewed media suitable for the areas or
360 specialties to which the publications belong plus the acquisition of funding from internal award
361 programs that is “seed” or startup funding. However, an exceptional record of high-quality research
362 publications coupled with vigorous and consistent efforts to secure extramural funding or support may
363 also warrant the rating of very good. In this case, the reviews from the funding or support proposals
364 should clearly indicate the strong potential for eventually acquiring the extramural funding or support.
365 The evaluation of good reflects success in publication with evidence of effort to acquire funding or
366 support. A fair evaluation reflects some success in publication, whereas poor indicates no
367 productivity in research.
369 For the ratings of outstanding or excellent in instruction, a candidate must exhibit: teaching
370 competence, teaching effectiveness, the facility to engage students in constructive exchanges,
371 imparting new insights into the material, and sound standards in both undergraduate and graduate
372 instruction. Involvement in both undergraduate and graduate instruction is recommended by the
373 Department for demonstration of excellence in teaching. Data to be reviewed by the DPTC include
374 syllabi, examinations, problem sets (including programming assignments, as appropriate), and student
375 evaluations, as well as numbers of students directed in independent work, such as independent studies
Revision: December 5, 2003 11
376 and theses directions. Information about graduate students who have successfully completed their
377 degrees, as well as those who show progress toward a degree, by accumulating met requirements for
378 the degree, will also be reviewed. The quality of students and publications by and/or with students
379 will be weighed more than the number of students. Co-authorship is a clear indication of a significant
380 contribution by the candidate to a student publication. Otherwise, the extent of the contribution to
381 each student publication by the candidate should be supported by documentation. Evidence for an
382 evaluation of outstanding or excellent in instruction may be on the basis of recognition of instruction-
383 relevant publications and funding. The Department will permit the candidate to develop evidence
384 from course materials and student evaluations as indicated above to support evaluations of excellent,
385 very good, good, etc.
387 In light of the very low numbers of faculty, relative to the demand for its undergraduate and
388 graduate programs, that the Department is likely to have in years to come, a sound service role is
389 especially important for each of its faculty members. The Department expects all its faculty members
390 to contribute to self-governance of the Department, College, and University, commensurate with rank
391 and experience, and to nurture the professional reputation of the Department in the computer science
392 community. For promotion to and/or tenure at the rank of Associate Professor, membership on
393 Departmental committees, membership on committees of professional organizations and of
394 conferences, service as reviewer for publications in peer-reviewed media and funding agencies, a
395 session chair at conferences, an invited presenter, and presentations at professional meetings (notably
396 those presentations involving students) are among activities reviewed in promotion and/or tenure
397 considerations by the Department. (Depending upon the committee and meeting, membership and
398 meeting activities may also indicate professional recognition that should also be submitted as
399 contributions to professional development.)
401 If a candidate has been given credit for service at other institutions at the time of her/his
402 appointment at Georgia State University, any work done during the period for which probationary
403 credit for tenure is given shall be included in the consideration for promotion and/or tenure at Georgia
404 State University. Any work done prior to any promotion at the former institution will not be
405 considered for promotion and/or tenure of that candidate at Georgia State University. Assistant
406 Professors may be judged to have performed service suitable for promotion to the Associate Professor
407 rank by a rating of good.
409 Tenure at the Rank of Associate Professor
411 The criteria are the same as those for a recommendation for promotion to the rank of Associate
414 Promotion to Professor
415 Promotion to the rank of Professor is a recognition awarded only to candidates who have
416 distinguished records of achievement and standing in their professions and at Georgia State
417 University. Outside reviewers will be asked to provide letters before the departmental review process.
418 Both the quality and number of achievements required for a recommendation to the rank of Professor
419 substantially surpass those required for recommendation to Associate Professor. The same evaluation
Revision: December 5, 2003 12
420 scales (outstanding, excellent, very good, etc.) established for promotion to Associate Professor apply
421 to promotion to Professor but the magnitude and history of accomplishments must be substantially
422 greater. A candidate for promotion to Professor must present at a minimum clear evidence of
423 excellence in both professional development and instruction that significantly surpasses the
424 requirements for rank of Associate Professor and must present a very good record in service in the
425 Department, College, and/or University.
427 Such accomplishments include the establishment and maintenance at Georgia State University of
428 an independent research program and the procurement of competitive extramural funding or support
429 from foundations, industries, and/or national or state agencies. The recognition of the candidate's
430 expertise as evidenced by a history of publication in high-quality media, appropriate to the specialty
431 or area, should exceed that required for a recommendation to the rank of Associate Professor. Other
432 evidence of achievement could further include membership on editorial boards of significant computer
433 science publication media or on program committees of significant conferences, as well as serving as
434 a referee for those publication media or conferences, a member of review boards for funding
435 organizations, a reviewer for promotion and tenure at other universities, or a member of an
436 accreditation board. Accomplishments in professional development or teaching may be given special
437 consideration. Accomplishments in professional development as documented by national recognition,
438 coupled with excellent achievements in instruction and a major service role may warrant promotion to
439 Professor. Excellent accomplishments in professional development include a history of significant
440 extramural support for the research program coupled with high productivity evidenced by peer-
441 reviewed, or juried, publications in media that are appropriate to the specialties and areas of the
442 publications of the candidate. Similarly, accomplishments in instruction, as documented by national
443 recognition, coupled with excellent professional development and at least a very good record in
444 service may warrant promotion to Professor. Outstanding accomplishments in instruction could
445 include extramural support for educational projects or achievements such as the publication of a
446 nationally recognized textbook.
448 If a candidate has been given credit for service at other institutions at the time of her/his
449 appointment at Georgia State University, any work done during the period for which probationary
450 credit for tenure is given shall be included in the consideration for promotion and/or tenure at Georgia
451 State University. Any work done prior to any promotion at the former institution will not be
452 considered for promotion and/or tenure of the candidate at Georgia State University.
454 A candidate for promotion to Professor must submit his/her credentials to the DPTC in basically
455 the same format in which these credentials are submitted to the CAACPT. The Department may
456 recommend specialized guidelines and a modified format for the documents to facilitate evaluation of
457 the candidate’s professional credentials. For instance, a facilitating format may be warranted if the
458 candidate’s publications are in nontraditional media.
460 Tenure at the Rank of Professor
461 The criteria are the same as those for a recommendation for promotion to the rank of Professor.
Revision: December 5, 2003 13
463 DEPARTMENTAL PROCESS
465 The promotion and tenure review process in the Department begins during the academic year prior
466 to the submission of materials and evaluation at the College level and beyond. The departmental
467 review involves both the Chair of the Department and the Departmental Promotion and Tenure
468 Committee (DPTC). The DPTC is a standing committee of the Department consisting of all tenured
469 associate professors and professors. No candidate for promotion or tenure may serve on the DPTC
470 during the period of her/his own consideration for promotion and/or tenure. After the departmental
471 process, recommendations are forwarded to the College Area Advisory Committee on Promotion and
472 Tenure (CAACPT) according to the following sequence of events.
474 A. All faculty who are eligible for consideration for promotion and/or tenure shall be asked in
475 writing by the Chair of the Department if they wish to be reviewed by the DPTC. (Refer to the
476 College calendar for the deadline by which this must be done.) Eligibility is set forth by rules
477 of the Board of Regents and the College in which either time in rank or in untenured status is
478 the major criterion. All interested candidates will be provided with copies of the current
479 version of the departmental guidelines and of the College manual.
481 B. Responses from candidates desiring to be evaluated for promotion and/or tenure must be
482 received by the Chair along with a list of six possible outside reviewers. (Refer to the College
483 calendar for the deadline by which this must be done.) Although faculty members are
484 normally considered for both promotion and tenure during the same review process,
485 candidates may request consideration for only promotion or tenure.
487 C. The Chair, together with the DPTC, will submit a list of an additional six possible outside
488 reviewers to the Office of the Dean. (Refer to the College calendar for the deadline by which
489 this must be done.) There should be no duplication in the names of the proposed reviewers of
490 the previous list. Also provided to the Dean’s Office will be brief profiles on the reviewers
491 and the professional development materials to be transmitted to the reviewers for each
494 D. The Dean’s Office provides the Chair and the DPTC with copies of the letters of assessment
495 that have been received from the outside reviewers. (Refer to the College calendar for the
496 deadline by which this must be done.)
498 E. Candidates must submit complete dossiers of supporting materials to the Chair in the required
499 format. Prior to submission of his/her dossier, a candidate should consult with the Chair or
500 members of the DPTC for advice concerning format, procedure, and style. No materials can
501 be added to the dossiers after the date specified in the College calendar.
503 F. After receiving the materials from the Chair, the DPTC will review the dossiers to determine
504 the committee recommendation. Only the professors on the DPTC are eligible to vote on
505 candidates at the rank of professor or associate professor. The professors and associate
506 professors on the DPTC (that is, the DPTC Committee as a Whole) are eligible to vote on
507 candidates at the rank of assistant professor or instructor. The DPTC will forward to the Chair
Revision: December 5, 2003 14
508 its letters of assessment and recommendation for each candidate. (Refer to the College
509 calendar for the deadline by which this must be done.)
511 G. The Chair separately and concurrently evaluates each candidate. After this evaluation, the
512 Chair will forward to the CAACPT the following items: the letters of assessment and
513 recommendation from the DPTC, the Chair’s letters of assessment and recommendation, and
514 the candidates’ dossiers. (Refer to the College calendar for the deadline by which this must be
515 done.) At this time, copies of the reports by the Chair and the DPTC will be made available to
516 the candidate.
518 H. Any candidate not nominated for promotion and/or tenure may nominate himself or herself.
519 (Refer to the College calendar for the deadline by which this must be done.) This is called
520 self-nomination, and all deadlines stated above for submission of the dossier also apply to
521 these self-nominated candidates.
523 I. The Chair of the Department and the DPTC will send reports for candidates who are self-
524 nominated to the Dean. (Refer to the College calendar for the deadline by which this must be
525 done.) Likewise, candidates’ responses, if any, to the reports of the Chair and the DPTC are
526 due to the Office of the Dean.
528 J. The CAACPT presents its report to the Office of the Dean. (Refer to the College calendar for
529 the deadline by which this must be done.)
532 REVISIONS OF THE GUIDELINES
534 Any approved version of this set of guidelines may be revised at a called departmental faculty
535 meeting by a majority of the full-time faculty members of the Department of Computer Science.
Revision: December 5, 2003 15