Information Available on the WEB University Guidelines Eberly College of Science Guidelines Department Guidelines Tenure Review and Start Date (Tenure Clock) Frequency of Reviews 2 nd and 4 th Year Reviews General Annual Timetable for University Park Faculty General Annual Timetable for Campus Faculty Call for University Park Promotion and Tenure, Part I Call for University Park Promotion and Tenure, Part II
Memos to the Dean with Listings of Potential External Evaluators Beginning the Tenure and/or Final Promotion Review Process Packets for External Evaluators Curruculum Vitae – Suggested Guidelines Research Statement Selected Publications Requests Sent to External Evaluators Sample Letter used for University Park candidates Review Schedule General Notes on Dossier
Promotion and Tenure Form(s) Biographical Data Form Eberly College of Science Expectations and Procedures Department Expectations and Procedures Narrative Statement
A. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (orange divider) B. The Scholarship of Re4search and Creative Accomplishments (green divider) C. Service and the Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and The Profe4ssion (pink divider) D. External Letters of Assessment (grey divider) E. Statements of Evaluation of the Candidate by Review Committees and Administrators (blue divider) F. Candidate Signature Statement

All University promotion and tenure activities are guided by the following documents which can all be found at the address immediately following their name. They can also be found at the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs web site at http://www.psu.edu/vpaa/promotion.htm
http://www.psu.edu/vpaa/pdfs/p_and_t_%20guidelines.pdf
http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr23.html
http://www.psu.edu/vpaa/pdfs/p_and_t_faq.pdf
http://www.psu.edu/vpaa/pdfs/p_and_t_faq.pdf
http://www.psu.edu/vpaa/p%20and%20t/immed%20review.htm
The Eberly College of Science adopted it’s own Statements of College Expectations and Procedures which are reviewed each year by the College Promotion and Tenure Committee to make sure that they are up to date. They can be found at: http://www.science.psu.edu/hr2/FacultyAffairsFolder/ECOScriteria.htm
Each department in the College also is required to have it’s own statement of expectations for promotion and tenure which is reviewed annually and forwarded to the Dean’s Office for posting on the College Web site. Astronomy Biology Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chemistry Mathematics Physics Statistics

Faculty in the tenure track and those who are candidates for promotion should familiarize themselves with these documents and should begin early to assemble the file of the materials that will ultimately be needed at various stages of the review process. Further information and assistance in assembling materials can be obtained from the appropriate department heads and their staff members, or from the Human Resources office:
Most new faculty members are hired with zero years of tenure credit. Tenure review begins in the first year after the hire date. For individuals hired to begin in the Fall Semester, the tenure clock starts on the previous July 1 st ; for those who arrive in the Spring Semester, the specific starting date determines whether the clock starts on the previous or the next July 1 st . A January 1 st start dates, the tenure clock goes back to the past July 1 st , for a January 2 nd start date, the tenure clock starts the following July 1 st . Faculty can be awarded tenure credit (from 1 up to 3 years) prior to their appointment. The number of years of credit advances their pace on the tenure review schedule at the beginning of their employment. Appointees at senior ranks may undergo a review prior to the start of their appointment and arrive with tenure already in place (Immediate Tenure).
Normal review of tenure-eligible faculty members occurs during their 2nd and 4th years, with final review occurring during the 6th year. Special reviews may occur during interim years at the discretion of the Department Head or Dean. The status of an individual during any given year is determined by counting the amount of initial tenure credit plus the number of years served as of the next July 1st.
nd
th
Near or just prior to the beginning of the Second and Fourth years of service, tenure-eligible faculty members generate or update factual information, in standard dossier format (see
the academic year.
Department Peer Review Committee Department Head College Dean
Jan/Feb Feb/Mar Mar/Apr Each level of review generates a written assessment of the candidate's progress toward achieving final tenure. Upon completion and insertion into the dossier of all assessment reports, the candidate receives copies of the reports and meets with the Department Head to discuss their contents.

July 1 st The call is issued to kick-off UP P&T activities Late August Faculty candidates for promotion and promotion and tenure assemble packets of information to be sent to external evaluators. Packets consist of a copy of the c.v., a research statement, and copies of selected publications. Early September Memos from the department heads are sent to the dean listing 12 external evaluators with full address and description of their research for each potential evaluator. Mid-September Mid- to Late- September Early-December College faculty are informed about College Committee memberships and provided access to Statements of Expectations and Procedures Letters and packets sent to external evaluators from the Dean Mid-January Mid-February Late February Early March Late April Departments submit one draft copy of dossier to Dean’s Office for review Final completed dossiers arrive from departments and the UP college committee begins its review The Dean begins review of UP dossiers. UP dossiers leave the college for review by the University Committee. The Dean informs candidates whether or not their dossiers have been forwarded to the University Committee. Departments submit 2 nd and 4 th year tenure dossiers to the Dean, as well as any special 3 rd and 5 th year reviews. Department heads report on completion of all faculty evaluations, along with confirmation of 2 nd and 4 th year tenure review meetings. May/June Final decisions on promotion and tenure cases are made by the President; candidates are notified soon thereafter.
May Mid-May Mid-May Summer The call is issued to kick-off non-University Park P&T activities Memos from the department heads are sent to the dean listing Suggestions for external evaluators, c.v.'s and copies of publications are submitted from the campuses to the Dean for non-University Park cases; the Dean writes soon thereafter to selected external evaluators Letters arrive from external evaluators and are made available to campus and departmental review committees. Early Fall Mid-December Early January Mid January Late February Early March Non-University Park dossiers arrive for consideration by departmental committees. Non-University Park dossiers arrive from departments for consideration by the college committee. Non-University Park college committee begins its review. Dean begins review of non-University Park dossiers non-University Park dossiers leave the college for review by the University Committee. The Dean informs candidates whether or not their dossiers have been

May/June forwarded to the University Committee. Final decisions on promotion and tenure cases are made by the President; candidates are notified soon thereafter.
Each July 1 st the Dean issues the Call for University Park Promotion and Tenure which describes the procedures and timetable for the fiscal year’s promotion and tenure. It requests three items which must be submitted to Bronnie McLaughlin in electronic form. All are described in more detail below. (1) a list of members of your department Promotion and Tenure Committee; (2) a copy of your departmental statement of expectations and procedures for promotion and tenure; and (3) a separate memo for each individual being considered for this year’s promotion or promotion and tenure review containing a list of potential external evaluators. It also describes the process for obtaining external evaluators and explains the candidates packets which must be assembled to be sent to the external evaluators. Finally, it includes the timetable for the current years promotion and tenure activities.
Each September 30 th , a memo is sent out on September 30 th (and posted on the College’s website) giving the Membership of the College level Promotion and Tenure Committee, as wel as helpful resources and information for dossier preparation and a finalized timetable for promotion and tenure activities for the current academic year..
The dossier must be complete (containing a signed statement of review by the candidate) before review by departmental committee members may begin. Changes may occur to the factual information after the candidate has signed and before the dossier completes college level review, although all previous levels of review must have an opportunity to consider such changes. Candidates are urged to request changes only for critical items. Listings of work in progress should not appear in the dossier, unless it is supported by research grants or contracts. In other words, a publication in preparation might appear, but must be accompanied by an annotation indicating the source of external funding that supports the work.
document immediately before the Teaching divider. Special care is suggested in assembling the section of the dossier on The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. The University Committee has asked for thorough documentation, in summary form. For all candidates, there should be a detailed record of SRTE scores and student comments, prepared by the department head or other departmental official. Candidates are urged to keep track of their former students and to record any of their awards and subsequent

successes. Peer evaluations should be done regularly for all faculty members, and shared with them in a timely manner. If there are unusual circumstances in any area of the dossier, it is advisable to include brief explanatory notes. For example, if there are few invitations to speak and there is a legitimate reason why such talks could not be undertaken, an explanation is in order. If invitations had to be declined, the declined invitations may be listed with a brief explanation. If the candidate has invitations for future events, please list them. Similarly, information should not appear in more than one place. If an element of information is applicable to more than one section, list it once and provide a "see also" note referring the reader to the other section. Inclusion of a citation study in the dossier is possible and you are encouraged to do one. Informational materials should be arranged in each section in strict order, according to the dossier divider. Note that all elements of the Research section are to be arranged in order from newest to oldest. Pages within each section should be numbered and further identified by the candidate's name and the dossier section title.
If there is a compelling reason to include this type of information, the Department Head and Dean will make the final decision. Note that faculty undergoing review may assemble a separate teaching portfolio available for review by committees but not part of the dossier.
Early in the academic year during which a faculty member has been recommended for promotion or final review for tenure, he/she generates an up-to-date curriculum vitae, writes a research statement, and selects publications to be sent to external references. The candidate also updates the contents of his/her dossier.

The Dean sends a memo to Department Heads and Administrative Staff each July 1 st to initiate the Promotion and Tenure activities for the coming year. See also the Call To Initiate P&T Activities . In this memo the Dean asks the Department Head to write a separate memo for each candidate for review with input from the department promotion and tenure committee and the candidate listing twelve external evaluators in the candidate’s field to assess the caliber of the work. To launch this process, the Dean asks the Department Head to request independently from the department promotion and tenure committee and from the candidate a written list of up to 6 prospective external evaluators each. The Department Head then assembles a final list of 12 names based on the candidate's recommendations, the committee's recommendations, and, where appropriate, his/her own recommendations, identifying the source of each recommended name. There is no problem with overlapping recommendations as long as the department committee and the candidate have produced their lists completely independently. For candidates who work in more than one research area, the evaluator list should include experts in all of the appropriate areas. Do not list individuals who were former Penn State faculty members who may have sat on a department or college committee in consideration of the tenure or promotion of the particular candidate. Ph.D. and postdoctoral advisors should not be included on the lists, unless there is a clear justification for inclusion, in which case that must be explained. If the candidate does a substantial amount of work with other scientists, the name(s) of the major collaborator(s) should be included and clearly identified. Collaborators should be suggested in addition to the 12 other names. Normally, collaborators will be asked to comment on the candidate’s role in the collaboration and will not be asked for an overall evaluation of the candidate. For faculty with split appointments, the department head must request input from the administrator of a secondary unit to be included in the dossier as well as a brief statement concerning the nature of the candidate’s involvement in the secondary unit. Please provide the name and address of the individual who will provide the evaluation. For faculty who are co-funded with inter-college non tenure granting units, University policy says we may request input from those units (e.g., MRI, Huck Institutes), but the College Executive Committee decided that we will not.
The final list of external evaluators should be prepared in memorandum from the department head to the dean, addressing the personnel action(s) for which the candidate will be considered in an organized and easy-to-read format appropriate for subsequent use in the dossier.
The list of external evaluators should be formatted as follows and include: Full Name of the proposed evaluator: Title (rank) of the proposed evaluator: Department: Institution: Current full mailing address: E-mail address: Phone:

Fax: Web Address: Source: ( ) Committee; ( ) Candidate; ( ) Department Head; ( ) Other (you may check more than one category, if appropriate) A brief narrative statement about why the evaluator’s name is on the list, including a succinct description of the individual’s accomplishments and significance in the field, and biographical/career information noting major awards and key memberships. * * * Continue with next 11 or so names using the exact same format * * * If the candidate does a substantial amount of work in collaboration with other scientists, the name(s) of the major collaborator(s) should be included and clearly identified in addition to the 12 other names. Normally, the Dean will write to all of the collaborators that are identified; collaborators will be asked to comment on the candidate's role in the collaboration and will not be asked for an overall evaluation of the candidate. Also, if the candidate holds a joint appointment or has significant interaction with another unit of the University, the Department Head will be asked to confer with the candidate and then supply the name and contact information of the secondary administrator.

The Department Head will also ask the candidate to prepare a curriculum vitae, research statement and copies of selected publications to be included with the Dean's letter to external evaluators. The c.v. should contain information in the following categories:
Personal Educational Background Previous Experience Honors & Awards Professional Memberships List of Publications Invited Talks / Speaking Engagements Contributed talks/ seminars Research Grants and Contracts Other Research Graduate Students & Postdoctoral Scholars Undergraduate & Honors students Teaching experience Advising
May include address(s) and phone number(s) and other personal information that the candidate feels is pertinent List most recent degree first, each entry as follows: Date, Degree, Subject Area, Institution, Advisor (as appropriate) List current appointment first, include dates, title and institution List honors or awards for scholarship or professional activity List memberships in professional and learned societies, indicating offices held, committees, or other specific assignments. List publications in standard bibliographic format. Full citation, including beginning and ending pages; list authors as they appear in the journal; For multiple-authored works, indicate candidate's contributions i.e., principal author, equal co-author, supervisor, etc.); list publications which have appeared, are accepted, or submitted in separate category headings. Articles in Refereed Journals Books Parts of Books Articles in Non-refereed Journals Articles in In-house Organs Research Reports to Sponsors Manuscripts Accepted for Publication Manuscripts Submitted for Publication (where & when submitted) List all pertinent information – date, group addressed, title (may include talks scheduled for the future) Entries should include total dollar award, Date, Title, Agency/ Organization, Duration, and Amount List patents, software, new products developed, etc. List supervision of M.S. and Ph.D., postdocs, past and present Names, Degrees, Dates List all teaching credit instruction, identifying honors courses, including : Term or Semester, Year, Course Name, # of Credits, # Enrolled

Responsibilities Professional service Optional Abstracts, patents, referee work, consulting, committee assignments, etc.
This research statement differs from the Narrative statement in the final dossier in that it is addressed to an audience of experts in the field. It should be written in the first person, and be two or three pages outlining the candidates main research efforts.
Candidates are urged to make a judicious selection of key publications to be enclosed with the Dean's request to external evaluators. While there are no set limits, we have found that sending too little information, or too much, can have a negative effect on the responsiveness of the external evaluator. NOTE: Items "To be Submitted" or "In Preparation" should not be included. The reason for this is that external evaluators will not have had an opportunity to read or hear about this work. All those items listed under "Submitted" must be among those designated to be sent to evaluators and must indicate the journal and month/year submitted. If a submitted item has lingered for a long period, it is advisable to add a parenthetical explanation for the delay). Those listed as "Accepted" must be accompanied by a copy of the acceptance letter at the time the c.v. is submitted to this office. This proof of acceptance will not be sent to the external evaluator, but will be kept in the Dean's files. Note that letters which state that acceptance is contingent upon revisions are not sufficient. Notes about "verbal acceptance" are strongly discouraged. E-mail and FAX notices are acceptable. The Dean's Office will need 12 copies of these packets (inclulding the c.v., research statement and copies of selected publications chosen by the candidate.) These should be organized in spiral-bound packets for the convenience of the evaluators, arranged in the order that items appear in the c.v., research statement, and individual articles separated by colored dividers.

The Dean writes to experts in the candidate's field from outside the Penn State system, enclosing the bound c.v., research statement with copies of the selected publications, requesting a confidential letter of assessment of the candidate's accomplishments and the impact of his or her research in his or her discipline. The names of the external evaluators are selected from those recommended by department heads, departmental committees, and candidates. A copy of the letter is included in the dossier in the section labeled “External Letters of Assessment”
Dear ___________: Prior to recommending promotion and the granting of tenure, our college seeks the opinions of recognized scholars in the candidate's field outside our institution. Dr. ___________________ is being considered for promotion to the rank of _____________ and for permanent academic tenure. In the belief that you may be familiar with his/her research and scholarship, I would like to ask for your confidential assessment regarding the appropriateness of these actions. Enclosed you will find a summary of Dr. _______________'s professional qualifications, along with copies of publications selected by the candidate. Also enclosed is an excerpt from our college's "Statement of Expectations and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure." We would find it most helpful to receive your reactions to the following: 1. In what capacity, if any, do you know Dr. ___________? If you have had interactions with him/her, please briefly describe the context of these interactions. 2. Do the quality and quantity of Dr. ____________’s published work justify the personnel actions being considered by our Department of _____________? Would you recommend him/her for promotion and tenure in your own department? 3. Is Dr. _________________'s a leader in his/her field of specialization or in an interdisciplinary area? It would be especially helpful if you can identify other individuals working in similar areas at a similar stage of career and compare Dr. _________________ 's contributions and standing with theirs. 4. How significant a scientific impact has Dr. _______________ had? Can you identify any genuinely major contributions to science? 5. Penn State University policy requires a binding decision on tenure at this time.
If tenure is granted to Dr. ____________ and he/she remains on our faculty for the duration of his/her professional career, is it likely that his/her presence will significantly elevate the quality and reputation of our department or will his her presence be more likely to maintain the department at its present level of excellence?

While activities such as teaching, advising, and university and public service also enter into the evaluation of candidates, we do not assume that you will have had the opportunity to judge these, and we therefore seek your comments only on research competence and reputation. If you are unable, or would prefer not, to furnish the requested information, please let me know at your earliest convenience. I would also appreciate if you can suggest others who may be in a position to comment on Dr. ______________'s professional status. It is Penn State University policy to keep your letter confidential and to share it only with the committees (departmental, college, and university) and administrators (normally the department head, dean, and provost) responsible for making recommendations on promotion and tenure. While I fully realize the burden of time and effort my request imposes, a response by
bhm1@psu.edu
or fax your response to (814) 865-9492. You may use either method of transmittal for your response with assurance of confidentiality. I will be grateful to have your opinions in this important matter, and would like to thank you in advance for your help. Sincerely yours, Daniel J. Larson Dean Enclosures (except from the ECoS Expectations)
candidate’s review. However, the candidate may provide suggestions for the list of external evaluators. As letters arrive, they are inserted into the dossier and are available for review by the individuals and groups noted above, plus the College-level Review Committee. These letters are kept confidential and are not viewed by the candidate. For candidates with a joint appointment in another unit, the Dean solicits a letter from the administrator of that unit for inclusion in the dossier. Candidates may also make a request to their department head that such a letter be requested where significant collaborative interactions exist even if there is no formal joint appointment. For faculty with split appointments, the department head must request input from the administrator of a secondary unit to be included in the dossier as well as a brief statement concerning the nature of the candidate’s involvement in the secondary unit. Please provide the name and address of the

individual who will provide the evaluation. For faculty who are co-funded with inter-college non tenure granting units, University policy says we may request input from those units (e.g., MRI, Huck Institutes), but the College Executive Committee decided that we will not.
Campus Peer Review Committee Campus CAO/DAA October November N/A N/A Department Peer Review Committee Department Head College Committee College Dean December December January February January January Jan/Feb February University Promotion & Tenure Committee March/April March/April Executive Vice President & Provost May May President May/June May/June Final decisions are announced in May or June. Approved tenure and promotion decisions are effective on the next July 1 st .

While the curriculum vitae is used to provide background to the Dean’s request for an external assessment, the dossier, organized around the primary criteria by which candidates are assessed, is used for the internal review. Upon completion, it will contain both factual information of the sort that appears in the curriculum vitae, and assessments by external professionals and by the internal individuals and groups who are involved in the review process.
This form is the first page (or pages) of the dossier, often called the “Cover Page.” A fully completed, signed cover page must be included at the front of each dossier copy submitted. (Please use the form dated 7/1/2006) NOTE: If a faculty member is proposed for both promotion and tenure, two cover pages must be completed – on for tenure decisions, the other for promotion decisions. The tenure form is always on the It indicates the personnel action under consideration and records the recommendations of each level of review.
. Completed by the Candidate This form is a standard University form similar to that which new employees complete when they are hired. The candidate should complete the form with up-to-date information concerning their previous and current credentials and experience. Please note that the
The Eberly College of Science Expectations and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure should be inserted as the next section of the dossier.
The applicable Department criteria statement for promotion and tenure should be inserted as the next section of the preliminary pages of the dossier. The most recent versions are available on line.
The Narrative Statement is to be typed using a 12 pt font, 1 inch margins, single spaced with double spacing between paragraphs and printed single sided. This should be no longer than 2 pages, however maximum length is three pages. It is the last section in the Preliminary Pages. Be sure to include candidate’s name (Last, first) in the header.

The narrative statement is written by the candidate in the first person and gives candidates the opportunity to place their work and activities in the context of their overall goals and agendas. The purpose of this statement is not to call attention to achievements nor summarize materials that are listed elsewhere in the dossier, but to give candidates the opportunity to place their work and activities in the context of their overall goals and agendas. The narrative should be an objective statement with no evaluative content. It should demonstrate the connections among the parts of the dossier and the integration of the three university functions of teaching, research and service. This statement is critical to reviewers who are not familiar with the candidate’s field and what constitutes important work. Candidates should carefully prepare the narrative so others can understand their fields and how their scholarly work relates to the larger field The narrative statement should not be edited by the Department Committee or the Department Head. This statement is meant to aid the College and University Committees in their review of the dossier by giving the candidate’s perspective on their own research and teaching.
(orange divider) This is the first section in the “rainbow dividers” and contains documentation concerning the candidate’s instructional activity and effectiveness. This section is paginated
The pages must be numbered consecutively in the upper right hand corner. While the majority of information here is generally assembled at the department level, the
     List of courses taught in resident instruction for each term or semester with enrollments in each course. List of courses and workshops taught in support of outreach-based instruction including continuing and distance education, service learning courses, international programs, cooperative extension programs, and clinical assignments. List of advising responsibilities over the period. Concise compilation of results of student evaluations from multiple sources, documented evaluation of candidate’s programs, activities, and skills in relating to clientele.  If student comments from such sources as student evaluations, formal interviews, or exit surveys are reviewed, the findings should be presented by a summary statement that conveys the students’ sense of strengths and weaknesses. Faculty input concerning the evaluation of teaching effectiveness, including any statements from colleagues who have visited the candidate’s classroom and evaluated his or her teaching, or who are in good position to evaluate outreach based instruction or advising.  Peer review shall consider a range of teaching activities including, but not limited to the development of materials such as case studies and class

      assignments, course or teaching portfolios, advising, research collaboration, and graduate student mentoring. Internal letters about teaching effectiveness should be included in this section. Any statements from administrators which attest to the candidate’s teaching and advising effectiveness. Other evidences of resident and/or outreach-based teaching and advising effectiveness (e.g., performance of students in subsequent courses, tangible results and benefits derived by clientele; recipient of teaching awards). Supervision of graduate and undergraduate dissertations, theses, projects, monographs, performances, productions, and exhibitions required for degrees; types of degrees and years granted Supervision of other undergraduate research. Teaching materials available as supplementary materials, including such items as case studies and teaching portfolios. Membership on graduate degree candidates’ committees.
(green divider) This is second rainbow divider; it is green. This section is paginated starting with B-1. Every page must be numbered consecutively in the upper right corner with the candidates full name in the left hand corner. The time span for material included in this section is the candidate’s career. Publications must be listed in chronological order with most recent date first. Do not
This section contains the following, listed in standard bibliographic form with the most recent date first: (Do not include material contained in other sections of the dossier.)  Research and/or scholarly publications Citations should include beginning and ending page numbers or total number of pages, where appropriate; for multiple-authored works, the contribution of the candidate should be clearly indicated (e.g., principal author, supervised person who authored the work, etc.). Electronic journals should be listed in the appropriate categories with documentation as outlined in the Administrative Guidelines, III.C.7.b. Publications should be listed as follows: 1. Articles published in refereed journals (include only articles in refereed journals in this section) 2. Books 3. Parts of books 4. Book reviews

5. Articles published in nonrefereed journals 6. Articles in in-house organs 7. Research reports to sponsor 8. Manuscripts accepted for publication (substantiated by letter of acceptance) - Indicate if peer reviewed and number of pages of manuscript 9. Manuscripts submitted for publication, with an indication of where submitted and when – Indicate if peer reviewed and number of pages of manuscript 10. Manuscripts in progress (second- and fourth-year reviews only) 11. Cooperative extension service bulletins and circulars      Creative accomplishments Papers presented at technical and professional meetings (meeting and paper titles); indication about whether the candidate was the presenter Record of participation in, and description of, seminars and workshops (short description of activity, with titles, dates, sponsor, etc.); indication of role in seminar or workshop, e.g., student, invited participant, etc. Description of outreach or other activities in which there was significant use of candidate’s expertise (consulting, journal editor, reviewer for refereed journals, peer reviewer of grants, speaking engagements, services to government agencies, professional and industrial association, educational institutions, etc.)
Agency: National Science Foundation Principal Investigator: Dr. XXX Co-Investigators: Dr. YYY, Dr. ZZZ, Dr. AAA Project Title: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Award Dates: 8/15/07-7/31/09 Total Costs: $100,320 (Average annual support $51,446) Budgeted Effort: Minimal (Senior Faculty Associate – Dr. XXX) Credited Faculty Participation of Award: Percentage: Dr. XXX 10% No-Cost Extension Granted: No __X_ Yes ____ to _________________ . Agency: National Science Foundation Principal Investigator: Dr. XXX Co-Investigators: Project Title: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Award Dates: 7/15/04-6/30/09 Total Costs: $90,065 (Average annual support $18,013) Budgeted Effort: 66.7% - Summer Credited Faculty Participation of Award: Percentage: 100% No-Cost Extension Granted: No ____ Yes _X___ to _7/30/10__ .

Agency: National Science Foundation Principal Investigator: Dr. XXX Co-Investigators: Project Title: Award Dates: 6/1/08-5/31/11 Current Awarded Total Costs: $48,960 (Average annual support $16,320) Recommended Future Years of Support: None beyond 5/31/11 Budgeted Effort: Minimal Credited Faculty Participation of Award: Percentage: 100% No-Cost Extension Granted: No _X__ Yes ____ to _________________ . Agency: National Science Foundation Principal Investigator: Dr. XXX Co-Investigators: Project Title: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Award Dates: 7/15/07-6/30/010 Current Awarded Total Costs: $254,982 (Average annual support $86,191) Recommended Future Years of Support: None beyond 6/30/10 Budgeted Effort: 66.7% - Summer Credited Faculty Participation of Award: Percentage: 100% No-Cost Extension Granted: No __X_ Yes ____ to _________________ .
Agency: National Science Foundation Principal Investigator: Dr. XXX Co-Investigators: Dr. YYY, Dr. ZZZ Project Title: FRG: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Proposed Period of Performance: 6/1/10 – 5/31/13 Total Costs Requested: $525,011 (Anticipated average annual support $175,004) Budgeted Effort: 33.3% - Summer (Year 2), 50% - Summer (Year 3) Credited Faculty Participation of Award: Percentage: Dr. XXX 33.3%, Dr. YYY 33.3%, Dr. ZZZ 33.3%        Other evidence of research or creative accomplishments as appropriate (patents, new product development, new art forms, citation index analysis, etc.) Record of pursuit of advanced degrees and/or further academic studies Record of membership in professional and learned societies Description of new courses and/or programs developed, including service learning and outreach courses Description of new computer software programs developed Description of new methods of teaching established courses and/or programs List of honors or awards for scholarship or professional activity

      List of grants and contracts for improvement of instruction, with an indication of the candidate’s role in preparing and administering the grants and contracts Applications of research scholarship in the field including new applications developed and tested; new or enhanced systems and procedures demonstrated or evaluated for government agencies, professional and industrial associations, educational institutions, etc. Technology transferred or adapted in the field Technical assistance provided Other evidence of impact in society of research scholarship and creative accomplishments If there are unit-specific objective criteria used for assessing the scholarly substance and quality of the candidate’s achievement in research and creative accomplishment, list the candidate’s performance as measured by these criteria.
(pink divider) This section contains:    Service to the University 1. Record of committee work at campus, college, department and University levels 2. Participation in campus and/or University-wide governance bodies and related activities 3. Record of administrative support work (college representative, etc.) 4. Record of contributions to the University’s programs to enhance equal opportunity and cultural diversity 5. Assistance to student organizations 6. Other Service to society as a representative of the University (limit the list to those activities that use the candidate’s professional expertise) 1. Participation in community affairs 2. Service to governmental agencies at the international, Federal, state, or local levels 3. Service to business and industry 4. Service to public and private organizations 5. Service to citizen/client groups 6. Testifying as an expert witness 7. Other (e.g., participation in task forces, authorities, meetings, etc. of public, nonprofit, or private organizations) Service to the disciplines and to the profession 1. Organizing conferences, service on conference committees 2. Active participation in professional and learned societies (e.g., offices held, committee work, and other responsibilities)
This section contains letters solicited from experts in the candidate's field from outside Penn State concerning the candidate's external visibility in the discipline, along with documentation about the qualifications of the assessors and about the letter solicitation procedure.

Daniel J. Larson Verne M. Willaman Dean (814) 865-9591 FAX: (814) 865-9492 ScienceDean@psu.edu. Eberly College of Science The Pennsylvania State University 517 Thomas Building University Park, PA 16802
Dear ___________: Prior to recommending promotion and the granting of tenure, our college seeks the opinions of recognized scholars in the candidate's field outside our institution. Dr. ___________________ is being considered for promotion to the rank of _____________ and for permanent academic tenure. In the belief that you may be familiar with his/her research and scholarship, I would like to ask for your confidential assessment regarding the appropriateness of these actions. Enclosed you will find a summary of Dr. _______________'s professional qualifications, along with copies of publications selected by the candidate. Also enclosed is an excerpt from our college's "Statement of Expectations and Procedures for Promotion and Tenure." We would find it most helpful to receive your reactions to the following: 1. In what capacity, if any, do you know Dr. ___________? If you have had interactions with him/her, please briefly describe the context of these interactions. 2. Do the quality and quantity of Dr. ____________’s published work justify the personnel actions being considered by our Department of _____________? Would you recommend him/her for promotion and tenure in your own department? 3. Is Dr. _________________'s a leader in his/her field of specialization or in an interdisciplinary area? It would be especially helpful if you can identify other individuals working in similar areas at a similar stage of career and compare Dr. _________________ 's contributions and standing with theirs. 4. How significant a scientific impact has Dr. _______________ had? Can you identify any genuinely major contributions to science? 5. Penn State University policy requires a binding decision on tenure at this time.
If tenure is granted to Dr. ____________ and he/she remains on our faculty for the duration of his/her professional career, is it likely that his/her presence will significantly elevate the quality and reputation of our department or will his her presence be more likely to maintain the department at its present level of excellence? While activities such as teaching, advising, and university and public service also enter into the evaluation of candidates, we do not assume that you will have had the opportunity to judge these, and we therefore seek your comments only on research competence and reputation.

If you are unable, or would prefer not, to furnish the requested information, please let me know at your earliest convenience. I would also appreciate if you can suggest others who may be in a position to comment on Dr. ______________'s professional status. It is Penn State University policy to keep your letter confidential and to share it only with the committees (departmental, college, and university) and administrators (normally the department head, dean, and provost) responsible for making recommendations on promotion and tenure. While I fully realize the burden of time and effort my request imposes, a response by
bhm1@psu.edu
or fax your response to (814) 865-9492. You may use either method of transmittal for your response with assurance of confidentiality. I will be grateful to have your opinions in this important matter, and would like to thank you in advance for your help. Sincerely yours, Daniel J. Larson Dean Enclosures
candidate's review. However, the candidate may provide suggestions for the list of external evaluators. E.
(blue divider) The candidate is not involved in the assembly of this information. Each level of review results in a report which is added to this section before the dossier is passed to the next level. In cases of review for final tenure, all previous tenure review evaluations are included.

The candidate, after completing the dossier sections as noted, should sign a statement for insertion into the dossier using the format recommended in the
. This page must be complete before submission for review by the department committee. Sample - I have reviewed the contents of my dossier, with the exception of confidential materials, as defined in the HR-23 Guidelines. _____________________________ _______________ FINAL NOTES Candidate Date