Provost's Guidelines on Academic Review

The following is an update to the previously published “Notes on the Academic Review Process.” These Guidelines apply to files due to the Provost's Office in 2025.

The Provost’s office is committed to a Promotion and Tenure process that rewards excellence and is intentional, clear, consistent, and equitable. We recognize and respect that all disciplines have specific qualifications for excellence; this document does not mean to intervene but to set some unified guidelines and clarifications about candidate assessment at the University level.

Calendar for Promotion and Tenure

We are streamlining deadlines into a yearly P&T calendar. This will ensure time for consultation with the Deans and for candidates to review their files and possibly respond.

For promotion to associate with tenure, files submitted for review by the Provost are due to the Provost’s Office by April 1st of the candidate’s 6th year (semester 12); files submitted for review by the Executive Vice President for Stony Brook Medicine (EVPSBM) are due to the EVPSBM’s Office by May 1 of the candidate’s 6th year (semester 12).

Faculty who start between January 1 and May 31 will be offered the choice to submit their file on April 1st (or May 1 for files to EVPSBM) after 5.5 years or after 6.5 years–both options will be considered on time–neither early nor late. Faculty who start between June 1 and December 31 will submit their file by April 1st (or May 1 for files to EVPSBM) of their 6th year.
Candidates for promotion to associate with tenure will be alerted of Provost’s or EVPSBM’s decision, and given time to review their file and offer potential response or rebuttal (as stipulated by SUNY BoT) by June.

For promotion to full, all files are due to the Provost or the EVPSBM by January 15th.
Celebration of newly tenured and promoted faculty (and chairs/deans) hosted by the Provost, Executive Vice President for Stony Brook Medicine and President will take place each September.

Each year, Deans will receive, and forward to Chairs or Committees, the names of all faculty members eligible for promotion and tenure the following year.

Time-to-tenure evaluation

As described in Faculty Pathways, tenure clock extensions may be considered for both personal and professional reasons. Requests for early tenure reviews are highly unusual and normally reserved for truly extraordinary achievement and/or matters of retention in the face of competitive outside offers. If a tenure review is unsuccessful, the candidate is entitled to one additional year of appointment.

Review of Faculty

Annual Review of Faculty

Chairs (or their designated committee consisting of senior faculty) are expected to evaluate faculty in annual review meetings to discuss anticipated timelines for promotion. This includes assistant professors (for promotion to associate professor with tenure), associate professors (for consideration of promotion to full professor).

Midpoint Review

Chairs (or their designated committee consisting of senior faculty) should provide an opportunity for assistant professors to receive and respond to feedback approximately midway through their first 6 years.

Documentation of this meeting should include:

a brief description of the feedback the Chair (or committee) provided to the candidate;
a brief description of the process by which the feedback was arrived at;
response paragraph by the candidate.

Template available here; documentation of this feedback can be submitted within the “Chair’s Letter” section of Interfolio.

Mentoring

Clear and consistent communication and feedback to faculty regarding the expectations for promotion and tenure should be provided, as well as specific mentoring on how best to build a strong and compelling dossier for successful academic review. Engaged learning, and constructive mentoring activities should be recognized and rewarded in the department and by the Dean.

Promotion and Tenure

Research/scholarship/creative activity*

Excellence in research/scholarship/creative activity looks different from discipline to discipline and department to department. Thus, it is understood that such standards will be articulated at the School, College, and Department level. We offer the following as a clarification of general expectations:

A candidate supervises an independent, productive research or creative program, or demonstrates a pattern of scholarship or art-making that addresses major and significant problems or topics; the candidate has produced a solid record of original and important publications in top peer-reviewed journals in the candidate’s field, or first or senior author publications in books, monographs, or other recognized intellectual and artistic products that can be objectively evaluated on a retrospective basis; there must be evidence of a strong national reputation (and/or international reputation for Full Professors) and respect among peers documented through invited lectures, citation or use of published work, performance or presentation of art in significant venues and exhibitions, attracting students and fellows, as well as serving as a Principal Investigator of competitively reviewed grants or as lead investigator in a significant study, or equivalent, such as an independent, essential contribution to highly collaborative research or art-making.

For tenure-track and research-intensive faculty, commentary on the significance of the candidate's research or creative activity, the independence of their contributions to their field, the likelihood that the research or creative activity will have an impact on the field and move it forward, the prospects for the continued vitality and productivity of the candidate's research or creative activity, the anticipated visibility of their on-going research or creative trajectory, and the synergies of the work with the mission and strategic goals of the candidate's academic unit and/or School should be provided.

Multi-Author Publications: As research and scholarship are becoming increasingly collaborative and interdisciplinary, articles and other publications include multiple authors. When needed, the dossier should describe the specific role of the candidate in such collaborative endeavors and/or multi-author publications. Appropriate attention should be paid to contributions to collaborative and transdisciplinary research efforts (such as multi-investigator grants and publications and/or dynamic research teams). When relevant, a detailed discussion of non-traditional publications (online) and research outlets (networks) should be included. We acknowledge and value faculty engaged in a broad range of entrepreneurial outreach and creative activities in their teaching, research, and service, such as participation in center grants and team science, publicly-engaged scholarship or creative activity with documented impact, active and service learning curricular innovation in the classroom.

Publication/Performance/Exhibition Venues: The significance of the publication and/or performance/exhibition venues of a candidate's work and contributions should be explained when it is not immediately apparent. It is especially important that the quality and significance of foreign language publications be fully explained and documented (along with a clear indication of the extent to which they have been rigorously peer-reviewed).

To be a tenured faculty member at Stony Brook, you should have a strong record as a teacher and as a member of the Stony Brook community; we individually, and as a group, are committed to the stated Mission of Stony Brook:

to provide comprehensive undergraduate, graduate, and professional education of the highest quality;
to carry out research and intellectual endeavors of the highest international standards that advance knowledge and have immediate or long-range practical significance;
to provide leadership for economic growth, technology, and culture for neighboring communities and the wider geographic region;
to provide state-of-the-art innovative health care, while serving as a resource to a regional health care network and to the traditionally underserved;
to fulfill these objectives while celebrating diversity and positioning the University in the global community.

Evaluation of faculty for promotion and/or tenure includes their contributions to the institution’s mission and stated priorities. We encourage faculty review committees (at the department and college/school level) to consider all the ways an individual candidate might be forwarding this mission. This does not mean, however, that a candidate must provide specific evidence of this.

Teaching Evaluation

Effectiveness as an educator and other mentoring of undergraduate and graduate students and postdocs should be analyzed and discussed. Demonstration of strength in teaching need not be solely based on student response to instruction and may also include discussion of how the candidate has broadened educational opportunities for students (e.g., by developing new courses, degree programs, or curriculum materials); has contributed to the teaching mission of the University (e.g., by teaching across several subfields or contributing to high-demand or high-enrollment courses), or has shown innovation in teaching (e.g., by exploring new teaching technologies and modes of instruction). Faculty are not expected to address all of the above areas in order to demonstrate strength in teaching. These are merely provided as examples of different ways that faculty can demonstrate strength in teaching.

Institutional and Professional Service

It is expected that all faculty on the tenure track will provide departmental, institutional and professional service. Senior faculty and Deans should work with junior faculty to ensure that research or creative activity, teaching, and service are appropriately balanced. At the same time, it is vitally important for junior faculty to develop a sense of their obligations as members of the University community and to be represented in School and University committees and activities.

External Referees

External evaluation letters are an important part of the Candidate's file. The right mix of evaluators will be individual and determined by discipline or area expectations but it is clear that some letters are more important than others. We aim to clarify and standardize the quantity and quality of letters so that everyone knows how to create a file with impactful letters.

Selection

The Candidate and Department/Committee each submit a list of 6 potential referees. Candidates can also submit a “do not contact list” of no more than 2 names, unless a written explanation is included. If the Candidate’s list and the Department/Committee’s list contain the same names, duplicate names should remain on the Candidate’s list and the Department/Committee should select additional names. The Department/Committee may rank the names–soliciting the first 3-4 before expanding the solicitation in cases where referees decline the invitation–or send an email solicitation to all the names at the same time. This can begin prior to the file being completed to secure the referee’s commitment. Any letter solicited and then received must be included in the file.

In the case of a Candidate on a joint appointment, the primary unit is responsible for all aspects of the process, but should consult with the chair(s)/director(s) of the secondary unit(s) regarding the selection of referees. If all agree, the units may work together in creating the list.
Beyond use of the Candidate list of referees and the “do not contact list,” the unit’s selection of referees must be done without consulting the Candidate; however, other internal or external experts can be consulted to ensure the most appropriate list.
It is understood that sometimes requests for evaluation are denied by potential referees and so Departments/Committees should be ready to move on to the next name on the list. Documentation of all correspondence about external referees must be included in the Candidate’s file.

To move forward, a file must contain at least 5 letters, with 2 letters written by referees selected by the Candidate and 3 letters written by referees selected by the department. If the department has solicited at least 12 letters and has not received 5, the department can continue to solicit letters or move the file forward.

Referees must meet the requirements for selection as outlined below:

A referee must be established as a major contributor in a field relevant to the candidate’s scholarship and/or creative works with a level of experience and accomplishment that allows for a rigorous review.
For promotion to associate professor with tenure, a referee must hold the academic rank of associate professor or professor. For promotion to professor, all referees must be at the rank of professor. Exceptions will be made only in well-documented cases where there is an insufficient number or lack of diversity of experts in that field of study at this rank. For both promotion levels, individuals who are not at an academic institution (e.g., in industry or a research foundation), and therefore do not hold the academic ranks listed above, will be considered provided an explanation of their appropriateness and status is made by the Chair or Committee.
A referee must hold an academic appointment at: an institution that is also a member of the AAU and/or is generally considered a peer or aspirational peer of Stony Brook University in that field of study. Exceptions will be made only based on evidence provided by the Chair/Committee that indicates the referee has established a distinguished career that would place that individual (nationally and internationally) among the top scholars and/or creative artists in their field of study.
A referee must have neither the existence nor the appearance of a conflict of interest that would call into question the unbiased nature of the evaluation. Referees must not include:

Direct supervisors or mentors in any official capacity at any stage of the candidate’s training;
Anyone the candidate has directly supervised or mentored in any official capacity at any stage of the referee’s training;
Co-author or co-editorship on any publication (book or journal article), creative work, or grant application at any point in the career of the applicant;
Family (through birth, adoption or marriage) or past/current romantic involvement.

In the case of the co-authorship or co-editorship requirement, exceptions will be considered only in cases where a clear argument can be made that the connection between the candidate and the referee presents no real or perceived conflict of interest.

There are several relationships that do not represent a conflict and in no way can be used to eliminate a potential referee from consideration. These include:

Co-authors on a manuscript with an extremely large number of authors (including but not limited to position papers from professional organizations and mega-multi-authored research reports) in which there was negligible contact and/or mentoring between the candidate and the potential referee;
Co-presenters in a research symposium, panel, or exhibition;
Editor/chapter contributor relationship, series editor/volume editor relationship, or authorship on separate chapters in an edited book (co-editorship would be a conflict);
An editor/board member relationship on a journal editorial board;
A reviewer/contributor relationship on a creative work

The candidate or department may decide to include letters from referees that do not meet the above standards, but these letters should be distinguished from the 5 required letters. If the candidate is unsure about a conflict, they should consult with their Chair or Committee. If Departments/Committees have difficulty identifying appropriate external referees, they should request assistance from their Dean’s office and the Provost’s Office. As a professional courtesy, external referees should be notified about the outcome of the review for which they have provided an evaluation.

Internal Letters

Internal support letters will continue to be accepted, but do not count toward the 5 required letters.

Votes

Split votes and abstentions at either the academic unit and/or School review committee-level should be explained in the file, preferably in the cover letters provided by the Department Chair and the Dean and/or the review committee chair. Faculty are encouraged to vote yes or no; abstentions should be rare. Both sides of split votes should be thoroughly explained (while preserving anonymity). Recusal for conflict of interest should be noted.

Reporting Results

The Chair and/or Dean's letter should discuss the pros and cons of each case thoroughly, identifying strengths as well as weaknesses in the file.

Reconsideration

If a candidate, who has not had a successful promotion/tenure review, requests reconsideration, and provides a new set of materials/publications/scholarly activity for consideration during the terminal year of appointment, additional external referees are to be selected to conduct a fresh evaluation of the promotional package. The letters to the new external referees requesting evaluation of the file should not signal a failed prior review. The file that is forwarded for reconsideration, however, should include all information (including the first set of letters from external referees).

For further questions, please consult the Promotion and Tenure FAQs.