IUPUI Promotion & Tenure Guidelines

The Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Promotion and Tenure Dossiers are revised annually, based on feedback received during each year's promotion and tenure cycle. Upon completing their deliberations, the IUPUI Promotion and Tenure Committee suggests edits or revisions to the campus guidelines. These changes are meant to clarify - not alter - the process for all those involved and are made in collaboration with the IUPUI Faculty Council Executive Committee. 

To view the guidelines that govern dossier submissions for the 2016-17 P&T review cycle:

To view the guidelines that govern dossier submissions for the 2017-18 P&T review cycle: 

Generally speaking, the committee's recommendations can be summarized as follows, with the relevant page numbers in the final version of the guidelines identified:

2016-17 Guidelines
Medicine Formative Review for Nine-Year Timeline (page 5)
  • Clarify that second formative review for medicine faculty on the extended nine-year timeline will be done in year five. 
Invited Presentations (pages 10, 13, 18, and 21)
  • Clarify that requirement applies only if invited presentations are vital evidence for candidates’ reputation. 
Negative Votes (page 11)
  • Clarify language to make explanation of negative votes mandatory. 
Dossier Content (pages 13-24)
  • Update section to reflect submission changes.
Unfunded Grants (page 17)
  • Provide grant guidance in the candidate’s statement section. 
Appendices (page 24)
  • Add expectation that appendices have table of contents. 
Reconsideration (page 31)
  • Clarify what constitutes a negative recommendation.
Public Scholars (page 35)
  • Add language regarding Public Scholar appointments.
Open Access (page 35)
  • Add language regarding IUPUI’s commitment to open access scholarship distribution.

2017-18 Guidelines

Guiding Principles (page 4)
  • State the principles that guide the promotion and/or tenure review process at IUPUI. 
Public Scholarship  (pages 10, 17, 27, 28 and 52)
  • Add public scholarship, where appropriate, to ensure it is considered.
Discipline Specific Authorship Convention  (page 11)
  • Highlight the need for department chairs to address authorship convention for their discipline by making it separate bullet point.
Independent Research and Funding (page 11)
  • Add expectation that department chairs address research independence and funding to support it.
External Referee References (page 15)
  • Recommend that names of external reviewers are not used in committee letters or they should be redacted in candidate's copy of the letter. 
External Assessments (pages 16 and 25)
  • Add reminder that all external assessments need to be on signed and on letterhead to be valid. 
Curriculum Vitae (page 17)
  • Add reminder that candidates need to list publications under appropriate area (teaching, research or service) as they apply to their appointment. 
Teaching Documentation for External Assessments (page 18)
  • Add reminder that if the candidate's area of excellence is teaching that appropriate documentation is sent to external assessors so they can adequately make judgments. 
Documentation of Independent Research and Funding (page 21)
  • Add expectation that candidates address research independence and provide evidence of research funding to support it.
Reconsideration (page 31)
  • Clarify when a re-vote isn't necessary.
Public Scholarship Evidence (pages 27 and 34)
  • Provide guidance for public scholars.

For your convenience, the appendix documents found in the guidelines may be accessed as individual documents on the P&T Resources page.  All forms are available electronically and may be electronically signed and updated.  You may also type them then print, sign, and scan to add them electronically to the dossier.   

PLEASE NOTE: Not all dossiers will require all forms.

Any comments, questions, or suggestions for future revisions of this document should be sent to eloC ytsirhC.