UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE
NOTES OF GUIDANCE FOR APPLICANTS FOR THE TITLES OF ‘PROFESSOR’ AND ‘READER’
THROUGH THE INTERNAL PROFESSORIAL AND READERSHIP COMMITTEE
1. These notes are advisory only and are intended to address questions raised by applicants
primarily in relation to the presentation of the case for a research title.
2. Prior to making a submission all candidates should discuss their suitability for a title with their
Faculty or School Research Coordinator and inform the Head of School (who will be a member
of the Panel for the purposes of assessing submissions from their School).
3. There is no application form. Applicants should submit documentation in line with the
Professorial and Readership regulations (see below).
4. In line with Section 8.2 of the regulations candidates must provide
a. the names of three referees (at professorial or equivalent level), all of whom must be
b. a curriculum vitae and
c. a letter of application supporting their case for the award under the criteria in Section 3
(Professor) or 4 (Reader).
5. The letter of application must explicitly address the criteria relevant to the award being sought.
Applications which fail to do this will not be progressed.
a. Applicants for the title of ‘Professor’ must indicate which of the criteria listed in Section 3 a
claim of outstanding is being made (this might be in relation to more than one criterion,
b. Applicants for the title of Reader must demonstrate how their contribution is significant in the
context of each of the criteria under Section 4.
6. When listing peer-reviewed publications in subjects in science subjects (broadly construed) in
their CV, applicants should normally indicate for each publication the impact factor of the
journal, and where possible, the citation index for each publication. Where this is not possible
there should be clear statement as to why this is the case. This does not mean that the
judgment of ‘outstanding’ or ‘significant’ will be metrics driven, but it will help panel members,
external referees and external assessors arrive at a more timely and informed assessment than
would otherwise be the case.
For this purpose ‘science’ can be taken to be core sciences (eg physics) applied sciences (eg forensic, Pharmacy),
human sciences (eg psychology), technology/engineering (eg computing) and health sciences (eg nursing, allied health).
In some cases applicants in social sciences, social policy and business & management will want to provide such metric
data. In all cases advice should be taken from the relevant Dean and/or Faculty or School Research Co-ordinator. The
science category is recognised as a ‘fuzzy’ concept. The underlying principle is that where metrics data are available it
is helpful to have it presented as part of the application.
7. When listing peer-reviewed publications in subjects where such metrics are not normally used
(eg Humanities), there is no expectation that such metrics data will be listed but applicants are
welcome to do so if they wish. However, applicants in these areas are expected to provide
copies of any reviews of books or other outputs. Information about the status and quality of the
publisher should also be provided where possible. This does not mean that the judgment of
‘outstanding’ or ‘significant’ will be publisher driven, but it will help panel members, external
referees and external assessors arrive at a more timely and informed assessment than would
otherwise be the case.
8. In each of the above cases there may well be applicants who, although working in a broadly
scientific discipline, are nonetheless submitting a claim based on outputs which are not wholly or
principally journal outputs which lend themselves to metrics annotations. This is entirely
legitimate but must be clearly flagged up in the letter of application.
9. Many candidates will have a mix of outputs some which do lend themselves to metrics
annotations and some which do not. There is no issue if some outputs (eg articles) have metrics
data and some (eg books) do not.
10. The divide between science and humanities is not clear cut and applicants who cut across or
who sit at the borders of this sometimes artificial divide are asked to reflect on the above
guidance and make their case in the clearest way possible.
11. Candidates in disciplines such as Performing Arts, Art and Design and associated areas where
their claim relates wholly or in part to non-traditional academic outputs should provide published
reviews of such outputs (such as, but not limited to, reviews of exhibitions) where available.
Candidates should seek advice of Faculty and School research co-coordinators at an early
RESEARCH AND OTHER EXTERNAL GRANTS
12. External research funding success is a key element in the assessment of both titles. Lack of
clarity around the contribution made by an applicant has led to delays in processing submission.
Therefore in all academic areas applicants are required to indicate
a. on which grants they were the Principal Investigator (PI);
b. the funding body;
c. in the context of consortium or other collaborative bids, the amount of grant the applicant
secured for their own contribution;
d. the date the award was made.
13. Specialist awards (eg such as telescope time in astronomy or access to specialist facilities) must
be clearly described in terms of PI, funder, share of time or equivalent and the date the award
was made. It is particularly important that applicants discuss the presentation of the information
here with relevant senior specialists in their academic area.
14. If you have any query which cannot be answered at Faculty or School level please contact the
Office of the University Director of Research in the first instance.
Chair, Professorial and Readership Committee