The unit head identifies and recruits external reviewers to write review letters. Consultation with appropriate experts is encouraged, but the unit head is ultimately responsible, and correspondence with potential external evaluators should not be delegated to others. Recruitment of external reviewers should take place in February or March of the file prep year. A minimum of five external letters is required for each case, making it advisable to arrange for at least six or seven. The unit head can use the "External Reviewer Selection Worksheet" in the course of selecting and recruiting external reviewers. The Office of the Provost does not require that this checklist be included in P&T dossiers, but it is recommended as a method to assist unit heads in doing this extremely important work. The College of Arts and Sciences requires dean-level approval of potential external reviewers before contacting them, and other schools and colleges may also request this step.
The unit head must compile a list of possible external reviewers. The candidate may also provide a list of potential reviewers, which should be compiled without knowledge of the unit’s list. If the candidate suggests a reviewer who also appears on the unit’s list, that reviewer may be considered as unit-proposed rather than candidate-proposed.
All external review letters should be solicited from disciplinary and professional leaders with no more than a professional knowledge of or relationship to the candidate. An absolute majority of the letters included in the dossier must also come from reviewers selected independently by the unit rather than suggested by the candidate.
- Reviewers should be at or above the rank being sought, ideally at the rank of full professor, though an associate professor can serve as a reviewer, if that reviewer clearly represents an essential voice in the critical evaluation of the candidate’s scholarship/creative practice.
- Identify reviewers at institutions of comparable or higher quality.
- Reviewers should be leaders and respected colleagues in the disciplinary or professional field.
- Avoid reviewers with close relationships to the candidate. The following relationships should be considered disqualifying: dissertation advisor or member of doctoral committee; former departmental colleague within the last ten years; collaborator within the review period; former informal or formal mentor or advisor. No more than two external reviewers can overlap with the reviewers for the candidate’s previous promotion review. Close personal relationships are also disqualifying. Many other professional relationships are acceptable, but prospective reviewers who express concern about their ability to present an unbiased review or are uncomfortable playing the role of a reviewer should be excused.
- Occasionally the head, committee, or dean recognizes a submitted letter as having one of the above conflicting relationships. In these cases, letters from reviewers who are too close to the candidate should be disqualified. Do not remove them from the dossier but mark them clearly as disqualified, and do not consider them in your review.
If there is any question about the suitability of an external reviewer, do not hesitate to contact the vice provost for academic affairs (vpaa@uoregon.edu); we welcome inquiries on this important topic.
Once the list of prospective reviewers has been constructed, draw from this list to recruit reviewers. Unit heads are responsible for communicating with external reviewers throughout the promotion and tenure process.
- Typically, there will be three communications with those selected to serve as an external reviewer: an inquiry regarding availability to serve, a formal request for evaluation, and an acknowledgment that you received the review letter. Required templates for all three are available in the document, External review letters sample language.
- We expect all units to make use of these templates. While they may be customized, do not make leading statements about the quality of the candidate’s work or the expected outcome of the review. Please ensure that all reviewers are sent the same communications, the same set of materials to review, and each one is asked to address any personal or professional relationships with the candidate. One example of each communication should be placed in the dossier.
Each external reviewer should receive:
- The candidate’s statement (signed and dated).
- The candidate’s CV (signed and dated).
- The unit's promotion and tenure criteria document.
- The candidate’s scholarship, research, and/or creative activity.
- Include only materials from the review period.
- Indicate the review period.
- Materials may be a subset (5 or more publications, for example) of the candidate's choosing, dependent on unit/department norms and policies, but all relevant scholarship should be accessible to the reviewers.
- Links to work are an acceptable alternative to emailing or mailing copies of publications.
- This scholarship may include examples of work in progress.
If a prospective reviewer declines to serve as a reviewer, retain a copy of that reviewer’s declination message. All declinations must be documented in the dossier. If the declination is received orally, by telephone or in person, provide a note in the dossier to that effect, including any reason(s) stated for the declination. It will be necessary to track the progress of the incoming reviews, and in some cases, remind late reviewers about the deadline. Finally, be sure to acknowledge and thank the reviewers for their letters as you receive them.