Docstoc
EXCLUSIVE OFFER FOR DOCSTOC USERS
Try the all-new QuickBooks Online for FREE.  No credit card required.

department of computer science promotion and tenure guidelines

Document Sample
department of computer science promotion and tenure guidelines Powered By Docstoc
					                     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.
 1                                               PROLOGUE
 2
 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.
12
13                                           INTRODUCTION
14
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
18   Georgia.
19
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.
26
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
43   sources.
44
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.
52
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.
60
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.
66
67                      THE PROMOTION AND TENURE PROCESS
68                   IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
69
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.
75
76             EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
77      As described in the University Policy on Promotion and Tenure:
78
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.
89
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
93    evaluators.
94
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… .”
104
105          Guidelines for the Terms of Evaluation in the Department of Computer Science
106
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.
112
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.
119
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.
134
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.
145
146      The definitions and evaluation factors for rating along with the associated level of accomplishment
147   and appropriate evidence are listed in Table I.
148
149          Table I. Definitions and Evaluation Factors for Rating of Professional Development
          Professional Development                    Definition                           Evidence Considered in
                   Rating                                                                         Evaluation
                                         Internationally recognized              Publications,1 funding,2 awards (prizes), and
      Outstanding
                                         research program                        invitations3
                                         Nationally recognized                   Publications1 and funding,2 or exceptional
      Excellent
                                         research program                        publications and promising proposal reviews2
                                         Emerging nationally
      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
                                                                                 presentations
                                                                                 No publications, funding, or            paper
      Poor                               No research program
                                                                                 presentations
150
      1
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.
      2
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.
      3
157     “Invitations” include invited papers, presentations, and workshops related to the individual’s area of professional
158   expertise.
159
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
162   development:
163
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.
169

      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
172      reviews.
173
174
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.
178
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:
181
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.
195
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.
200
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.
204
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
217      tenure.
218
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.
241
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.
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258               Table II. Definitions and Evaluation Factors for Rating of Instruction

      Revision: December 5, 2003                                                                            7
              Instruction Rating                       Definition                          Evidence Considered in
                                                                                                  Evaluation
      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
                                                                                         existing courses;
                                                                                   (b) supervision of student work,
                                                                                         including: theses, projects, and
                                                                                         co-ops, and service on student
                                                                                         committees;
                                                                                   (c) good student perceptions;
                                                                                   (d) publications with students, or
                                                                                         supervision       of       student
                                                                                         publications or other student
                                                                                         accomplishments;
                                                                                   (e) instructional creativity in existing
                                                                                         courses;
                                                                                   (f) instructional grants, including
                                                                                         both competitive peer-reviewed
                                                                                         awards as well as state and
                                                                                         internal awards;
                                                                                   (g) publications in instructional
                                                                                         journals and conferences or
                                                                                         publication of instructional
                                                                                         textbooks;
                                                                                   (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
                                         university community
      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)
                                         teacher
      Fair                               Limited performance; substandard          1 of 8 items
                                         teacher
      Poor                                                                         No evidence of accomplishments in
                                         Needs significant improvement
                                                                                   any of the 8 categories
259
260   Considerations on Evaluating Quality of Contributions to Instruction:
261
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:
264
265   (a) Quality of courses developed; quality of modifications to existing courses.
266
267   (b) Quality of accomplishments of students supervised; level of students; amount of supervision.
268
269   (c) Quality of student evaluations.
      Revision: December 5, 2003                                                                                         8
270
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.
273
274   (e) Degree and novelty of innovations used in instructing current courses.
275
276   (f) Amount of competition for instructional grant awards; scope of agency or organization granting
277       instructional grant award; amount of instructional grant award.
278
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.
282
283   (h) Significance and scope of organization issuing teaching award.
284
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
295   rating.
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311                 Table III. Definitions and Evaluation Factors for Rating of Service
               Service Rating                       Definition                   Evidence considered in
                                                                                      Evaluation
      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
                                                                                  committees
                                                                             (b) service      on      departmental
                                                                                  committees
                                                                             (c) service       to      professional
                                                                                  organizations and the community
                                                                                  including obtaining an office in a
                                                                                  professional        organization,
                                                                                  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)
                                                                             and (c).
      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).
                                         leadership
      Fair                               Needs improvement; substandard      Has served on at least             one
                                         leader                              departmental committee.

      Poor                               Needs major improvement             None of the three categories listed
                                                                             above.
312
313   Considerations on Evaluating Quality of the Candidate’s Contributions to Service:
314
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:
317
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.
322
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.
327
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
344   committee.
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.
368
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.
386
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.)
400
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.
408
409   Tenure at the Rank of Associate Professor
410
411      The criteria are the same as those for a recommendation for promotion to the rank of Associate
412   Professor.
413
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.
426
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.
447
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.
453
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.
459
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.
462


      Revision: December 5, 2003                                                                           13
463                                 DEPARTMENTAL PROCESS
464
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.
473
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.
480
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.
486
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
492          candidate.
493
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.)
497
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.
502
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.)
510
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.
517
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.
522
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.
527
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.)
530
531
532                             REVISIONS OF THE GUIDELINES
533
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

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:4/7/2013
language:Unknown
pages:15