Guidelines for Preparation of Recommendations For Promotions and Continuing Appointment
Academic Affairs Revised 05/02 APPENDIX F
SOLICITED CONFIDENTIAL LETTERS The value of the consultant’s review is in appreciating the candidate’s attainments – in scholarship, teaching, or service – within the context of the professional discipline. As such, consultants should be encouraged and directed to comment on the candidate’s record of achievement from the perspective of the quality standards and productivity norms of the candidate’s academic discipline. In evaluations of scholarship, for example, consultants should be asked to comment as specifically as possible concerning the following topics: a) The quality and quantity of published or submitted work in comparison to the individuals at a similar career level in the candidate’s discipline. b) The quality or standing of the publisher and/or of the journals in which the work has been published. c) The candidate’s area or areas of specialization and the significance of her/his contributions to the field. d) The candidate’s reputation nationally and the impact of specific aspects of the candidate’s work on others. e) The nature of past personal interactions, if any, that the consultant has had with the candidate.
PLEASE NOTE: In addition, under Article 31 of the Agreement Between the United University Professions and the State of New York, when official solicitations for evaluation are made and included in the personnel file, the response may be made available to the employee according to the respondent’s preference. Consultants must be instructed to respond to the following statements, appropriately marked, at the conclusion of their response: 1. May the candidate read this recommendation? ___ Yes ___ No
2. May the candidate read this recommendation if all identification as to its source is deleted? ___ Yes ___ No
If the respondent does not reply to the above, or if the respondent’s reply is negative, the statement shall not be available to the candidate.