Skip to main content
About

Procedures on Tenure, Promotion and Interim Review Processes

Adopted by the Faculty: April 2, 2025
PRC Approved: April 4, 2025, PPC Approved: April 9, 2025

This document expands on the policies laid out in the Faculty Handbook, and incorporates and supplements the Provost’s Retention, Promotion, and Tenure policy. In this document, “tenure” refers to tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor, and “promotion” refers to promotion to the rank of professor. The “RPT Committee” refers to the Advisory Committee on Retention, Promotion, and Tenure of the School of Computing, Data Sciences, and Physics (CDSP). References to the Dean mean the Dean of CDSP and not one of the Associate Deans unless so specified. For brevity, “department” or “unit” refers to the relevant department or program and “Chair” refers to the relevant department chair or program director. References to the “Chair” can also refer to the head of the unit’s evaluation committee (the “unit committee”) if the unit assigns the latter primary responsibility for overseeing tenure, promotion, or interim reviews. The “unit report” refers to the report of the unit committee.

All reviews shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the university’s non-discrimination policies and with awareness of the potential for bias. Committees should evaluate candidates based on merit and approved criteria and be vigilant against bias related to personal characteristics or circumstances not pertinent to performance.

I. Procedures for Promotion & Tenure

As described in hiring paperwork, faculty joining W&M as assistant professors without tenure are generally granted an initial three-year term and are re-appointed for a second identical term if their interim review is positive. Unless there have been extensions granted during these terms, tenure review occurs in the sixth year of an assistant professor’s appointment. If, following consultation with their Chair and the CDSP Dean’s office, contributions in research, teaching, and service are consistent with elevation to tenured faculty standing, candidates can advance consideration of tenure earlier than the sixth year. In all cases, the tenure decision is final. A negative tenure decision can be appealed in the same year, but it cannot be overturned in future years. A terminal year will be granted after a tenure denial, in line with university policy, except in rare cases.

A. Compiling the Dossier

  1. Electronic dossiers must be assembled using Blackboard. To create a Blackboard dossier, please:
    1. Log into Blackboard at https://blackboard.wm.edu
    2. Click first on the Blackboard Course Generator tab and then on the “Request a Faculty Dossier” and fill out the form. The dossier, with all necessary directions, will then appear on the creator’s Blackboard course list.
  2. Each dossier submitted to the RPT Committee should contain the following items:
    1. A complete and current curriculum vitae of the candidate that clearly distinguishes between research that is published, accepted for publication, and currently under review. Identifying information, such as dates, volumes, issues, DOI identifiers, and/or page numbers for publications are mandatory. Peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed publications should be clearly distinguished.  A list of grant proposals both pending and funded should be included in the CV. Sources of external funding should include the candidate’s role on the project, the total amount of the award, and in the case of awards involving more than one institution, the amount of funding directed to William & Mary.
    2. Scholarly material as described in item I.B.7 (information provided to external reviewers).
    3. Peer-reviewed publications about teaching should be included in the dossier, either as research or teaching, but not both. The unit will make this decision in consultation with the candidate. An explanation as to why the publications have been so considered should be included in the unit report or the Chair’s letter.
    4. A narrative statement, referred to in the Provost’s memo as a “self-evaluation” by the candidate, should consist of an evaluation by the candidate of their own research, teaching, and service. This should include a statement of future plans in all three areas. The narrative should be no more than 8 single-spaced pages (12-point font). Candidates should include a discussion of their main contributions to their collaborative work.
    5. A minimum of four letters from external reviewers with full or abbreviated CVs along with a sample of the letter sent to the external reviewers from the unit, solicited as described in Section B.
    6. Evaluation of teaching (using both student evaluations and a second method, per Section I.C).
    7. Joint Appointment Memorandum of Understanding (JAMOU) in the case of jointly appointed faculty, with a note about the division of duties and responsibilities.
    8. Minutes of all faculty meetings at which the recommendation of the departmental/program committee is discussed and voted upon. The vote totals, the number of faculty eligible to vote, and the date of that vote must also be included (see Section E).
    9. The departmental/program report, which should be limited to no more than 8 single-spaced pages (12-point font), excluding supplemental tables. The report should articulate the expectations of the unit for retention, tenure, or promotion, especially those pertaining to research and external grants. The report should provide context, not simply summarize the candidate’s narrative statement or the external reviewers’ letters. Rather, it should give the committee’s independent assessment of the candidate’s dossier. The report (and the Chair’s letter) may use quotations from the external reviewers’ letters but not attribute those quotations to specific reviewers or name their institutions.
    10. The report of the department Chair/Program Director (if relevant) (see Section I.E.6-I.E.10).
    11. A copy of the standards of the unit for tenure and promotion.
    12. Candidates may include any additional materials, including relevant letters from W&M faculty, colleagues, and students, and letters from colleagues or students elsewhere. Such materials, however, must be clearly distinguished from external review letters. With the exception of solicited external reviews or other letters required by departmental/program procedures, candidates are not required to submit additional materials.
    13. If a candidate’s date for mandatory review for tenure has been changed since the time of appointment, or if the candidate has been approved for early tenure, this change must be clearly documented and a copy of the Provost’s approval must be included in the dossier. In the case of early tenure, candidates must indicate that they realize that they will have only one opportunity to be considered for tenure.
    14. Candidates and their department Chair/Program Director should review the entire dossier, including redacted external reviewers’ letters, but not their CVs or the report on how reviewers were chosen. (The list or table of contents does not need to itemize every document but should account for each dossier folder and subfolder as appropriate.) The candidate should sign and date a list of contents of the dossier attesting that the dossier contains all the items, and that the candidate has seen them. This attestation is signed by the department Chair/Program Director as the representative of the Dean, and must be included in the dossier.
  3. Timelines
    1. The candidate can add relevant material to the dossier at any time before it is sent to external reviewers.
    2. Once the dossier is out for review by the external reviewers, the candidate cannot add to it until the redacted external letters have been added.
    3. The candidate will have at least one week to review and respond in writing to redacted external letters before any unit vote takes place. The response should be no longer than 1 single-spaced page (12-point font), addressed to the unit evaluation committee, and added to the dossier for consideration at all subsequent stages of review. A response from the candidate is not required.
    4. The candidate will have at least one week to review and respond in writing to the unit report before a faculty vote. After the faculty have voted and the Chair has provided their letter, the candidate will have at least an additional week to respond before the dossier is sent to the RPT Committee. The candidate may apply to the Dean for an extension of this period. The response should be addressed to the Chair and should not exceed 1 single-spaced page (12-point font). The candidate’s response will be added to the dossier for consideration at all subsequent stages of review. A response from the candidate is not required.
    5. If new materials (other than the candidate’s response) are added to the dossier, a note of the date on which they were added, and whether or not they were sent to the external reviewers, must be included. The Dean and RPT reserve the right to ask the department (and program, if relevant) to redo its evaluation in light of any new materials.

B. External Review of Research

Selection of External Reviewers

  1. The minimum number of external letters to be included in the dossier is four. The candidate should generate a list of possible external reviewers. The unit should compile a second list. All members of the unit may contribute to this list, regardless of rank. The candidate may review the unit’s initial list and exclude individuals from that list for reasonable cause with the approval of the Chair. If the Chair does not approve a proposed exclusion, the candidate may appeal that decision to the Dean.
  2. At least one reviewer should be chosen from the list produced by the candidate and at least one should be chosen from the list created by the department. Candidates may not know the final list of the external reviewers under any circumstances.
  3. External reviewers should come from institutions of a quality commensurate with the reputation and standards of W&M. Letters should be solicited from individuals at or above the rank to which the candidate aspires to be promoted. A copy of the solicitation letter should be included in the candidate’s dossier (in the Secure Materials folder).
  4. The following statement must also be included in the original solicitation letter sent to external reviewers:

    "The University will, to the extent permitted by law, hold your letter (or statement) in confidence. The Virginia Freedom of Information Act permits the university to withhold confidential letters and statements of recommendation respecting applications for employment or promotion. The letter may be disclosed within the university, if necessary, in connection with an internal investigation into allegations of discrimination or the like, and will be disclosed as required under subpoena or other legal process. The candidate will be allowed to view redacted versions of the external reviewer letters."
  5. External reviewers must be wholly disinterested, i.e., what has traditionally been known as “arms-length.” According to the Provost’s memo, “individuals with whom a professional or personal relationship exists such as might reduce the objectivity or perceived objectivity of the review” are not at “arms-length.” The test for being wholly disinterested is that potential reviewers should not have even the appearance of a vested interest based on their own careers or a personal interest in the career advancement of the faculty member under review. For example, external reviewers should not have mentored, financially supported, or taught the faculty member during the faculty member’s graduate education or post-doctoral experience; be a former colleague or supervisor; should not have collaborated closely with the faculty member on publications or grants. It is permissible that the letter writer has been in contact with and/or served with the candidate in editorial roles, on review panels, or in conferences and professional organizations. A reviewer who has appeared as a coauthor with the faculty member on publications with large author lists may still be arms-length if there have been no meaningful interactions between the reviewer and the faculty member. If a unit has a question as to whether a proposed reviewer is wholly disinterested, the Chair/Program Director should consult the Dean in advance of soliciting letters. The Dean will then discuss the case with the Chair of the RPT Committee and, if necessary, the Dean's Advisory Committee (as defined in the CDSP bylaws). The final decision rests with the Dean.
  6. If, after letters are received, the unit finds that an external reviewer is not, in fact, “arms-length,” the letter will be moved to a supplemental materials folder and a note added to the solicitation record as to why the letter was disallowed by the unit. If the RPT Committee, during its reading of the dossier, finds that an external reviewer is not “arms-length,” then the committee will inform the Dean and the department (and program, if relevant), and request permission from the Dean to disallow the letter. If this is approved by the Dean, then the Dean will inform the department, and the letter will be removed. If this results in fewer than four letters that are “arms-length,” the department must obtain a replacement letter and reconsider the dossier as soon as possible.
Information Provided to External Reviewers
  1. The goal of external review is to obtain an unbiased assessment of research that has been vetted or approved by peers, and this should be noted in the solicitation letter. Work accepted for publication but not yet published must have an acceptance letter or contract accompanying it. The following items are to be sent to and considered by external reviewers:
    1. A copy of the candidate’s complete and current CV.
    2. The entire narrative statement, including the evaluation of research, teaching, and service.
    3. Articles that are published or accepted for publication in journals that are considered reputable by the discipline and/or unit.
    4. Book chapters that are published or accepted for publication in edited volumes.
    5. Published books, book manuscripts that have been accepted for publication, and book manuscripts with an advance contract, with the prospective publisher clearly indicated and the advance contract attached.
    6. Conference proceedings that have been peer-reviewed.
    7. Additional research-related materials, for example, grant proposals, computer software, websites, or public resource databases may be included.
    8. Articles and book manuscripts not yet accepted for publication, provided that the status of each piece is accurately described (e.g., papers in preprint archives or those under review, etc.), and assessed in the unit report.
  2. External reviewers will be asked to provide information about their relationship to the candidate in a manner that will allow this information to be kept confidential from the candidate. They will also be asked to provide a full or abbreviated CV.

    Information on the relationship with the candidate can be provided in one of the following ways:
    1. A separate letter attached to the letter evaluating the candidate
    2. An initial paragraph of the letter evaluating the candidate
    3. A final paragraph below the signature line of the letter evaluating the candidate
  3. Units must also instruct the external reviewers that only the evaluative text of their letters will be shared with the candidate and that any identifying information about them or their institution in the evaluative letter will be blocked out.

C. Assessment of Teaching

  1. A description of the kinds of courses offered by the candidate, such as survey or introductory, upper level, or seminar must be included in the unit report or in the Chair’s letter. Any gaps in teaching must be clarified (e.g., whether the candidate utilized junior leave, scheduled semester research leave [SSRL], or the family medical leave act [FMLA]). Clarification of gaps in teaching may be done in the candidate’s CV, the unit report, the Chair’s letter, or in the section listing courses taught.
  2. A second means of evaluating the faculty member’s teaching must be included besides student evaluations. A unit’s failure to comply with this W&M policy may delay a candidate’s evaluation. The unit report must state the nature of the second method of assessment (e.g., review of exams and syllabi, peer observation) and include relevant documents in the dossier (i.e., review of syllabi, peer observation reports).
  3. Candidates for tenure will include all evaluations for each course taught since their W&M appointment, or for the previous five consecutive years, whichever is shorter. Candidates for promotion will include all student evaluations for each course taught since tenure, or for the previous eight consecutive years, whichever is shorter.[1]
  4. The unit is required to provide a single table summarizing the candidate’s scores for all courses on the question “what is this instructor’s overall teaching effectiveness.” The unit should also include in this table a specified numerical comparison (e.g., the departmental/program mean) with other departmental/program courses. The table should be uploaded as a separate document in the Teaching section of the dossier. Additionally, the unit must include the comments from the student evaluations in one of the following forms: a PDF of the complete evaluations or a compilation of all student comments, clearly identified by course, semester, and year.

D. Service

  1. Service on committees both within and outside of the faculty member’s unit, or in other W&M roles such as pre-major advising, is expected of all candidates considered for tenure.

E. Unit Review

  1. Tenured faculty at or above the rank to which the candidate is seeking promotion should participate in the unit review. Untenured faculty members may not participate in decisions on promotion and tenure, except in advising on possible external reviewers (see 1.B.1 above on selecting external reviewers).
  2. Whether the Chair votes as a member of the unit will depend on unit personnel policies. When the Chair votes, the Chair’s letter will be primarily descriptive of the process. When the Chair does not vote, the Chair will provide an independent assessment of the candidate in their letter.
  3. If units have fewer than three faculty members at the appropriate rank (associate professors and professors for tenure evaluation and only professors for promotion), then the Dean will add faculty members at the appropriate rank to the existing unit committee from other CDSP units. The added members need not participate in the decision to choose the external reviewers, but if fewer than three members of the department are on the committee, then the committee will seek input from other members of the unit (see 1.B.1 above on selecting external reviewers). In all respects, members added by the Dean are full members of the unit evaluation committee and shall vote upon the candidate’s dossier.
  4. In units where there is a strong division of opinion on a candidate, i.e., if there is a minority opinion of at least one third of the members voting, then units must provide minority and majority reports that are signed by all supporting faculty members. If a minority report is not submitted because the minority constitutes fewer than one third of voting faculty members, then the unit report or the Chair’s letter must fully explain the division of opinion. Candidates must be given adequate time to respond in writing to these reports (see I.A.3 regarding timelines), with an extension if it is requested by the candidate and approved by the Dean.
  5. Faculty members jointly appointed in programs or other departments must have their dossiers considered according to the provisions of their JAMOU regarding the role of the department and the program. The JAMOU should be included in the dossier. The letter of the interdisciplinary program director or second department chair, as well as the report from the committee of the second unit, shall be part of the candidate’s dossier with the same status as that of the tenure department. The tenure department shall take account of the letter and report from the second unit in its deliberations. If any faculty member is eligible to vote in both the candidate’s tenure department and the unit to which the candidate is jointly appointed, that faculty member may only cast one vote.
  6. For JAMOUs, there must be two separate and distinct reports unless the department and program intentionally collaborate on a single joint report signed by both the Chair of the tenure department and the Chair/Program Director of the joint unit.
  7. Faculty members who are affiliated with, or have a significant involvement in, an interdisciplinary program or another department outside of their tenure department that is not governed by an existing JAMOU may request from the Dean in writing that the interdisciplinary program or other department be allowed to review the candidate’s dossier and provide a letter summarizing their contributions to the program or second department.
Chair’s Report
  1. Department Chairs and Program Directors are expected to provide their assent or disagreement with the unit vote as well as a brief summary of the reasons for their decision. If they do not wish to take a position on the case, they must state their abstention clearly in their letter included in the dossier. In the case of joint appointments or significant activity in an interdisciplinary program, Program Directors are expected to do the same. The Chair or Program Director’s report should be 1-2 single-spaced pages (12-point font) maximum. The report should put the department or program discussion into context, validate the vote, and state whether the Chair or Program Director agrees or disagrees with the majority vote and why.
  2. Where a teaching faculty member is the Chair, a faculty member who has tenure (for a tenure case) or is a professor (for promotion cases) will write the Chair’s letter in their place. The faculty member will be selected by the Dean, in consultation with the Chair.
  3. Where an associate professor is the Chair, a professor will write the Chair’s letter in their place for promotion cases only. The full professor will be selected by the Dean, in consultation with the Chair.
  4. The Chair’s letter on a candidate must clearly indicate the extent of the candidate’s record that is based on work done at W&M if the candidate held an academic appointment prior to their W&M appointment. Teaching, service, and research—the latter including publications accepted and grants received—from before the candidate came to W&M will be considered in the decision on the candidate, but the case must be made that the candidate has established an ongoing, sustainable research, teaching, and service program since arriving at W&M (see I.B.7 above on information provided to external reviewers). Candidates coming in at the rank of associate professor whose tenure review occurs at the time of hire are evaluated based on their previous record.
  5. When a Chair is the candidate for promotion, the unit personnel committee will appoint a proxy chair for all promotion cases that year. The proxy chair will not vote as a member of the unit but will provide an independent assessment of the candidate in a separate letter, as outlined in item I.E.2 above on voting.

F. Review by RPT Committee

  1. The RPT Committee’s consideration of materials beyond the mandatory items depends largely on how the department or program references or utilizes non-mandatory materials in its case for or against tenure or promotion. The RPT Committee will apply the standards adopted by the vote of the candidate’s unit (and approved by the Procedural Review and Personnel Policy Committees), as well as applicable W&M standards as specified in the Faculty Handbook.
  2. The RPT Committee’s report is advisory to the Dean. It will be provided to the candidate by the Dean simultaneously with the Dean’s letter to the Provost. The RPT report and the Dean’s letter will both be added to the dossier.

G. Review by the CDSP Dean

  1. The Dean bases their decision on the materials in the dossier and the report from the RPT Committee.
  2. The Dean’s letter to the Provost on each tenure and promotion case will be copied to the candidate, the Chair of the candidate’s department, and to the Program Director where appropriate. The Dean, the Associate Deans, and the Chair of the RPT Committee will have access to it on the Blackboard site. The candidate has the right to respond to the RPT report and the Dean’s letter by submitting a letter to the Dean which will be included in the dossier.
  3. The process of reading dossiers for tenure and promotion in the Dean’s office is as follows:
    1. The RPT Committee reads the dossier and provides a report with a vote to the Dean.
    2. The Dean and Associate Deans read and discuss the dossiers. Reading the files and discussing them with the Dean is part of the job responsibilities of the Associate Deans.
    3. The Dean makes their recommendation in a letter to the Provost.
    4. The dossiers are made available to the Provost, who will provide their written decision to the Dean, the candidate, and the Chair of the candidate’s unit.

II. Procedures for Candidates Hired with Concurrent Tenure Review

  1. Tenure earned elsewhere is not transferred; tenure is awarded by W&M. Units hiring external candidates with tenure or with a promotion in rank, from associate professor to professor, must compile a dossier that closely approximates the typical W&M tenure or promotion dossier. The exception is that a sample of student evaluations, rather than all evaluations, may be used. Alternatively, if such evaluations are not available, a report on teaching effectiveness, such as a class taught during the interview, may be used with the Dean’s permission. Course syllabi should be included in any case, and they may be used as part of the required second means of evaluation. Any other changes must be approved in writing by the Dean and Provost.
  2. Letters used by the candidate as part of the application process are generally unacceptable as part of the tenure file, although in some instances it may be possible to use the same individuals as tenure references. No more than two external tenure review letters from a recent tenure process at the candidate’s home institution may be used to support a W&M tenure review, unless the Provost determines that compelling cause exists to permit more than two letters to be used.

III. Procedures for Promotion to the rank of Professor

  1. A candidate for promotion to professor must have significantly grown their research and service and have continued to develop as a teacher and mentor, since earning tenure. Candidates for promotion to professor must demonstrate significant and effective service to CDSP, W&M, and their professional communities.
  2. Consideration for promotion to the rank of professor will normally take place no earlier than the sixth year after tenure. Promotion to full professor after fewer than six years may be possible, based on exceptionally strong performance in research, teaching, and service. Consideration for promotion after six years shall not be taken as a weakness in the candidate’s file nor be taken as a reason to hold the candidate to a different standard. In the case of promotion to professor earlier than six years after tenure, the candidate’s file must indicate that this is early consideration.
  3. Candidates for promotion are asked to clearly distinguish publications, grant submissions, and other achievements since tenure, for example by bolding or highlighting items in the CV that belong to the post-tenure review period.

IV. Procedures for Interim Reviews

  1. Unless hired at advanced standing (see section II pertaining to hiring a candidate with tenure), the Dean’s letter of intent will schedule an interim, or pre-tenure review. Under normal circumstances, pre-tenure faculty members must normally have an interim review in the fifth or sixth semester of their appointment, per university policy, in a tenure-eligible faculty position in CDSP.
  2. Pre-tenure faculty are required to participate in their own interim review. Because the goal of interim review is to evaluate progress towards tenure, the pre-tenure faculty member’s self-evaluation is a critical part of this process. Interim review reports by the Chair and Dean should inform the candidate about those aspects of their record in research, teaching, and service that need strengthening over the period before tenure consideration to bolster the probability of a successful outcome. The vote of the unit’s eligible faculty recommending whether the candidate should be retained must be recorded and reported in the unit report or the Chair’s letter. If the Provost reaches a negative decision, the candidate will be given notice of termination according to the schedule set out in the Faculty Handbook (section III.B.6).
  3. The interim review should closely align with those of the tenure review and be consistent with the contract under which a faculty member is operating. No external letters are required. Candidates will be evaluated for tenure based on their performance during the entire probationary period.
  4. The unit will work with the candidate to provide the following for the interim review:
    1. The complete and current CV of the candidate that clearly distinguishes between research that is published, accepted for publication, and currently under review. Identifying information, such as dates, volumes, issues, DOI identifiers, and/or page numbers for publications are mandatory. Peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications should be clearly distinguished. A list of grant proposals both submitted and/or funded should be included in the CV. Sources of external funding should include the candidate’s role on the project, the total amount of the award, and in the case of awards involving more than one institution, the amount of funding directed to William & Mary.
    2. Unpublished research that candidates wish to be considered can be submitted as evidence of a credible pipeline of their forthcoming publications. Candidates should include copies of all publications during years prior to their W&M appointment, and information about service responsibilities and courses taught, in their interim review dossier.
    3. Publications about teaching should be included in the dossier, either as research or teaching, but not both. This decision will be made by the candidate in consultation with the department.
    4. A narrative statement by the candidate evaluating their own research, teaching, and service. This should include a statement of future plans in all three areas. The narrative should not exceed 4 single-spaced pages (12-point font). The CV and narrative statement will make clear which publications or research are based on work done since arriving at W&M. Candidates should include a discussion of their main contributions to their collaborative work.
    5. Evaluation of teaching as described in Section I.C.
    6. The report of the meeting at which the recommendation of the unit committee is discussed and voted upon. The report should not exceed 4 single-spaced pages (12-point font), excluding supplemental tables. The vote totals, the number of faculty eligible to vote, and the date of that vote must also be included (see Section I.E on unit review). The report should provide context for the candidate’s dossier, not summarize the candidate’s narrative statement. The unit report should offer an independent assessment of the candidate’s dossier.
    7. Candidates with joint appointments must be evaluated by both units . Candidates who have significant involvement in a unit outside their tenure department, which is not governed by an existing JAMOU, may formally request that the Dean invite the other unit to review their dossier and provide a letter summarizing the contributions of the faculty member to that unit.
    8. The report of the Chair (see I.E.6-9 regarding the Chair’s letter).
    9. Candidates and their Chairs should review the entire interim dossier. They should sign and date a list of contents of the dossier attesting that the dossier contains all the items, and that the candidate has seen them. This attestation is signed by the Chair as the representative of the Dean.
  5. The RPT Committee will review the interim review dossier and make a recommendation to the Dean.
  6. The Dean will summarize the evaluation of the candidate’s interim review in a letter to the candidate, copied to the unit Chair as appropriate.
  7. The Dean will forward the interim review outcome to the Provost by the required deadline, which will include a copy of the RPT Committee report and the Dean’s recommendation on whether the candidate should be retained and proceed towards tenure consideration.  In the case of a recommendation not to retain the candidate, the final decision rests with the Provost.
  8. Interim reviews will be completed by spring of the third year and forwarded by the Dean to the Provost by the annual deadline set by the Provost’s Office (4.11.16 Promotion and Tenure Policies of the Faculty Handbook).

[1] By default, faculty will omit course evaluations for the spring semester of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic disruption to the academic year. Faculty may, however, choose to include those evaluations, and those who do so should clearly indicate this election in their dossier.