Peer Review

Faculty peer reviews are conducted periodically, generally every three years, by the school's Peer Review Committee for faculty in all tracks to evaluate progress and provide recommendations for advancement in rank according to the established APT criteria. The peer review process is intended to be a supportive one that provides helpful advice to the faculty member on her/his progress in advancing in rank and preparing for a future promotion review.

Peer Review Committee

The Peer Review Committee is comprised of nine members at the associate professor or professor rank elected by FGA, with at least one member elected from each division, each for a two year term, plus one ex officio member from the school’s APT Committee. Peer Review Committee members may not concurrently serve on the APT Committee.

The current Peer Review Committee members are:
Devon Noonan, Associate Professor - Track I (Chair)
Donna Biederman, Associate Professor - Track II (Chair-elect)
Chip Bailey, Associate Professor with tenure - Track I
Midge Bowers, Associate Professor - Track II
Les Harmon, Associate Professor - Track II
Rachel Richesson, Associate Professor - Track I
Ryan Shaw, Associate Professor - Track I

Peer Review Process

Peer reviews are conducted for Track I faculty three years following the initial appointment. Following promotion to associate professor without tenure, Track I faculty are reviewed by the APT Committee for a fifth year review or every three years if necessary until tenure is achieved.

Peer reviews are conducted for Track II and Track III faculty every three years following initial appointment and promotion to associate professor. Following promotion to professor on Track II and Track III, peer reviews are conducted at five year intervals by the APT Committee for reappointment.

A promotion in rank can substitute for a peer review in the review timeline and outside letters are not needed for a peer review.

The responsibilities of the Peer Review Committee and faculty member, and guidelines related to the peer review process are below. 

  • Faculty members are notified usually in late spring that her/his peer review will take place that year and to submit the required peer review materials (peer review worksheet, CV, intellectual statement and teaching evaluations) to the Director, Faculty Affairs by a designated date via email.

  • The peer review worksheet completed by the faculty member is to reflect her/his current work and achievements during the three-year review period in relation to the criteria for the next promotion rank (detailed information and instructions are provided to the faculty member when notified of the review).

  • The faculty member’s CV is considered the lead document for peer reviews. Information reported in the peer review worksheet should be consistent with the information reported in the CV.

  • Using the school’s current APT criteria, Peer Review Committee members review the worksheet and provide consensus evaluative comments that assess the faculty member’s current work, progress toward promotion and specific recommendations that support the faculty member’s advancement.

  • Two Peer Review Committee members meet with the faculty member to share the full peer review and discuss the evaluative comments and recommendations.

The final peer review document is provided to the faculty member and Division Chair and included in the faculty member’s academic file in the Faculty Affairs Office.

Scroll back to top automatically