Main Policy Content
- Libraries Internal Working Guidelines
- Cross References
To clarify implementation of the University Libraries promotion and tenure review policies and procedures.
LIBRARIES INTERNAL WORKING GUIDELINES:
- The administrator responsible for compiling the dossier and conducting the first-level administrative review is the candidate's associate dean or director who reports directly to the Dean. When conducting the first-level administrative review, the responsible administrator will consult with other supervisors in the line of reporting of the candidate, if any. The responsible administrator shall alone author and sign the evaluative statement summarizing the administrator's evaluation of a candidate on each of the criteria.
Peer evaluations are solicited every review cycle by the first-level administrator who compiles the dossier, in consultation with individuals in the line of report between the candidate and the Dean. Peer evaluators are Penn State faculty members in a good position to evaluate one or more aspects of the candidate’s core responsibilities in librarianship.
Letters of peer evaluation are filed permanently in the dossier under the Scholarship of Librarianship (third bullet on the divider). Peer evaluations of instruction are required for candidates whose core responsibilities include course-related or other non-credit instruction (see UL-ING01 Peer Review of Instruction); these letters are filed in the dossier along with other peer evaluations.
Peer evaluators may include a candidate’s unit head (direct supervisor), and may include the campus chancellor or other academic officer for candidates at campuses other than University Park. Members of faculty review committees may have authored letters of peer evaluation for candidates under review.
Promotion to Full Rank
A member of the University Libraries faculty, either fixed-term or tenure-line, may be nominated for promotion to full rank by the appropriate Associate Dean or Director, by the immediate supervisor in consultation with the Associate Dean or Director, or by the first-level faculty review committee in consultation with the Associate Dean or Director. Individuals wishing to be nominated should consult with their immediate supervisor and Associate Dean or Director. The Dean must support a recommendation to begin a promotion review (see Administrative Guidelines for HR23, section V, part C. Nomination Process for Promotion).
Preparation of the Dossier
The faculty member collaborates with the Associate Dean or Director and with the Dean’s office to produce the promotion dossier.
The promotion dossier focuses on contributions made after the candidate attained the rank of Associate Librarian. Contributions to the Scholarship of Librarianship, the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (if appropriate), and Service and the Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and the Profession should be documented from the date of the last promotion or for the last five years, whichever is shorter. However, contributions made to the Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments are documented for the entire length of the candidate’s professional career, from the beginning of the candidate’s scholarly publication record.
The promotion dossier does not include earlier Statements of Evaluation written by faculty review committees and administrators during previous promotion or tenure reviews (see the dossier divider “Statements of Evaluation of the Candidate by Review Committees and Administrators”).
Results of Evaluations
For fixed-term faculty, the Dean of the University Libraries will review all recommendations, make the final determination, and notify the candidate and the appropriate Associate Dean or Director of the outcome of the review by early April. Approved promotions will become effective July 1 immediately following the decision.
Tenure-line faculty will be informed of the results of promotion reviews according to University procedures described in “Information to Faculty Members about Evaluations of Performance,” Administrative Guidelines for HR23, section V, part I).
Other Guidelines in this manual should also be referenced, especially the following:
Effective Date: July 2007
Date Approved: July 2007 (Dean)
Revision History (and effective dates):
- February 2018 - Categorization changed from UL-HRG to UL-ACG to reflect new PSU Academic Policy classification
- April 26, 2017 - Revised to reflect legislation passed by the Library Faculty Organization
- July 2013 - Revised to reflect administrative re-organization of 2011 and to align with revisions to UL-HRG13
- November 2009 - Revised to remove reference to former membership of peer review committee at University Park between "public service" or "technical service" faculty
- June 2007 - Revised to reflect the decision to have Hershey fall under the Commonwealth Campus Libraries' process and Dickinson under the University Park Libraries' process; added the new process for campus input into the review of campus librarians; edited the summary evaluation letter process
- July 1, 2005 - New guideline
Last Review Date: April 2017