P1
- The Chair compiles the list of external reviewers in early Spring. The Candidate may provide a
list of desired external reviewers and may also provide a list of reviewers deemed inappropriate.
The list of external reviewers should represent an appropriate balance between those identified by
the Candidate (if the Candidate has done so) and those identified by the department. - The Dean will review and approve the list.
- The Chair shares the final list of external reviewers with the departmental P&T Committee. The
Chair/P&T Committee should call the proposed external reviewers in May to ascertain their
availability and willingness to serve as external reviewers. - The departmental P&T Committee solicits external letters, allowing ample time for peers to
respond. The list should be compiled in time for the P&T Committee to send letters out by July
15. - No fewer than ten external review letters must be received. At least five letters should be from
reviewers outside Cornell who have not been closely associated with the Candidate and who have
not been selected by the individual under consideration. Letters are due no later than September
15.
P2
Written assessments of the candidate’s qualifications for promotion from recognized
outside experts. The candidate is invited to provide:
- A list of potential referees
- An optional, separate list of scholars in the field who, the candidate believes, for either personal or professional reasons, might not write with objectivity and/or impartiality.
The department also independently constructs its own relatively large list of potential
referees which should not be discussed with the candidate.
All three lists (the candidates’ two lists and the department’s list) constitute a permanent part of the
dossier.
The dossier must contain at least seven letters from external referees. At least five of
these letters should be written by referees from the department’s list of potential
referees.
Letters to external referees requesting an assessment of the candidate should ask referees:
- To indicate whether they have any current or prior collaborative or supervisory associations with the candidate — e.g., as on a research project or as a coauthor, or as a former teacher, advisor, or PhD director. External associations of these sorts do not disqualify referees from offering their assessment of the candidate as long as they are clearly identified, since departments may well seek views informed by close collaborations of these sorts, as part of a well-rounded dossier. At least five letters, however, should be from peers outside Cornell who have not been closely associated with the candidate.
- To provide comparisons with scholars in the field at comparable stages in their careers, naming such scholars if particular comparisons would be helpful.
- To indicate whether, on the basis of the materials provided to them in the dossier, they think the candidate should be granted tenure at Cornell.
Obtaining written assessments from faculty in other departments at Cornell may be appropriate, but departments should exercise discretion in soliciting opinions from Cornell colleagues because authors of letters of recommendation are excluded from service on the candidate’s ad hoc committee.
If the department elects to write to scholars on the candidate’s second list, the resultant letters should be weighed in light of the candidate’s noted objections.
The candidate’s list and the department’s list might, in many fields, contain considerable overlap. The chair’s covering letter should explain why this is so.
Letters written by referees should be identified as being selected by the candidate, by the department, or by both, either in the chair’s covering letter or on a page preceding the external referees’ letters. The chair should also provide brief biographies showing the referees’ credentials.
p3
Note – ALL solicitations for letters must be done by the department and not the candidate.
The role of external evaluators is to assess the candidate’s accomplishments, stature in the field, and future promise. External evaluators should be given a charge that is as specific as possible and should be provided with as much material relating to the candidate’s performance as is conveniently possible, excluding other confidential evaluations. In your request to external reviewers, please include a request to the reviewer to please provide the full details of the contact he/she has had with the candidate through his/her career. Provide a list of all reviewers that were solicited that is segregated into two categories (Recognized Leaders outside Cornell University and Letters to Evaluators suggested by the Candidate) along with a short bio for each reviewer. Do not attach a CV for each; only a short bio or brief informational statement regarding each reviewer. If considering the inclusion of evaluators within Cornell University special care should be taken to attain an appropriate balance in the number of Cornell and external evaluators:
- Letters of evaluation from at least five, but not more than seven, recognized leaders in the field outside Cornell who have neither been closely associated with, nor selected by, the candidate. The letters should request evaluation, not support. The request letter should state the three criteria on page 2 which the faculty will use in judging a candidate for promotion to associate and/or the award of tenure and should ask for comparisons with scholars in the field at comparable stages in their careers. Letters should address scholarly, creative, and extension work. The letters should provide an evaluation of the quality of the candidate’s creative work and its impact on the scholarship of the field. (PDF Sub-Bookmark Name: Recognized Leaders outside Cornell)
- The department should also solicit letters (4-6) from co-authors on publications, co-principal investigators and co-instructors of the candidate or other evaluators suggested by the candidate. These evaluations should address the contribution of the candidate to the publication and the work regarding conceptualization (including integration of ideas), theory development, technique development, methodology, implementation, development of policy and practice implications, program evaluation. This applies to research, extension and teaching activities. (PDF Sub-Bookmark Name: Letters Suggested by the Candidate)
We recommend contacting external reviewers to determine their availability prior to sending them material. Individuals who are unavailable need not be listed among those asked for an evaluation. It is the candidate’s choice whether to provide a list of possible evaluators. If the candidate is aware of individuals who are likely to provide an unfair evaluation, the Chair should be informed. In addition to the outside letters, obtaining written assessments from faculty in other departments at Cornell is appropriate, but authors of such letters are excluded from the candidate’s ad hoc committee.
Note: Letters solicited from peer reviewers can be subpoenaed as part of a legal process, but are treated by the university as confidential documents. Letters solicited from students, Cornell colleagues and others are similarly confidential and should not be shared with outside peer reviewers.
List of all evaluators solicited that is segregated into 2 categories:
- Recognized Leaders outside Cornell University
- Letters to Evaluators suggested by the Candidate
- Short bios or brief information regarding each evaluator
- Copy of solicitation letter sent by chair
- 5-7 External evaluators (not selected by candidate)
- 4-6 Other evaluators (suggested by the candidate)
p4
A. List of Reviewers Submitted by candidate but not included in dossier.
Provide a list of five (5) or fewer peers whom you feel will be competent and objective in providing a candid review and evaluation of your research. In addition to their full contact information, include the following:
- Ensure that your list of suggested reviewers includes only faculty of higher rank, i.e., at least at the tenured, associate level.
- Describe the nature of any professional and/or social relationship between you and thesuggested reviewer.
Note: You may also provide names of 1 or 2 scholars whom you would prefer not be solicited for letters, e.g., because you feel they are unlikely to provide a fair evaluation. You must provide a rationale for excluding any individuals.
B. External Peer Solicitation Letter
Copy of the School Dean’s solicitation letter to prospective external peer reviewer. The solicitation letter should expressly ask for the reviewer’s assessment as to whether the candidate has demonstrated the required excellence and unusual promise for continued achievement in relation to the responsibilities communicated to the candidate.
C. External Peer Reviewers List
List of reviewers, all of whom must be of higher rank than the candidate, with brief informational bio of each (CVs should not be included). List should be separated into two categories:
- Recognized leaders external to Cornell University
- Reviewers suggested by the candidate
D. External Peer Evaluation Letters
Letters from at least ten (10) reviewers, with fewer than half from the candidate’s list of suggested names.
P5
Letters from ten to fifteen (10-15) established external scholars evaluating the candidate’s academic performance and promise
- list names of those solicited for letters, indicate those suggested by the candidate
and those selected by the department, indicate those that did not provide letters, and reasons (if given) for those that did not respond. - brief description of each referee’s credentials
- sample copy of solicitation letter that includes charge to referee and noting those
publications sent for the referee’s consideration - summary of any additional oral information sought from external referees
Solicited letters from tenured and untenured Cornell professorial staff should be included only if there is a specific need for internal letters. Inclusion of unsolicited letters, either external or internal, is discouraged.
P6
Following these meetings, the two committee chairs shall submit their tentative lists of outside reviewers to the dean. The dean shall then consult independently with each of the two committee chairs to draw up the final list to be used by both committees. Insofar as different reviewers are suggested by each committee, an equal number should be selected from each committee’s list. The dean will also consult with the committees to determine which publications and manuscripts in preparation should be sent to reviewers. Different publications and manuscripts may be sent to different reviewers if this is deemed appropriate.
These consultations are intended to assure that the final list includes, first, at least two of the outside reviewers suggested by the candidate and, second, enough qualified reviewers to provide reasonable assurance of obtaining a minimum of ten total responses. In special cases where the number of appropriate outside reviewers is limited, the committees may rely on as few as eight outside reviewers in total. Once the final list is assembled, the dean’s office shall send out requests for reviews. When letters of evaluation are returned, separate copies will be sent to the chairs of the department and ad hoc committees.
P7
External Reviewer letters (Bookmark -External Reviewers) 5 to 7 letters
All solicitations for referee letters must be done by the department chair. The role of evaluators is to assess the candidate’s accomplishments, stature in the field, and future promise.
Include a cover page with the external reviewers list and their contact information who were requested to write evaluative letters; include an example of the letter of request; indicate those selected by the department chair and those selected by the candidate; and indicate which reviewers did not respond. The letters should follow the cover page and a short, NIH-type bio of each reviewer should follow their letter.
The role of external evaluators is to assess the candidate’s accomplishments, stature in the field, and future promise. In your request to external reviewers, include a request to the reviewer to provide the full details of the contact he/she has had with the candidate through his/her career.
