In compliance with https://policy.psu.edu/policies/ac40, the College of IST has constructed a policy for the periodic review of tenured faculty to supplement the annual review.
The periodic review mandated in university policy AC40 supplements the annual review by providing an opportunity for a longer range look at tenured faculty accomplishments and future plans. Each tenured faculty member will be evaluated with an extended review every fifth year after the most recent promotion decision.
Critical review is a natural element of a productive academic career. A faculty member’s work is reviewed regularly in many different ways. Teaching is evaluated by peers and students; proposals for funding are evaluated by individual reviewers or panels of specialists; papers and books submitted for publication are reviewed by authorities in the field; published books are reviewed by other scholars; a faculty member’s contributions in teaching, research and scholarship, and service are carefully scrutinized when the individual is considered for hiring or promotion.
In addition, performance reviews are not only necessary for the process of determining merit salary increases; they also provide an occasion for self-evaluation and reassessment of the role a faculty member is playing, which may evolve significantly during the course of a career. They are an opportunity to acknowledge and recognize good work, point out areas for improvement, and, in a few cases, identify productive new uses of a faculty member’s talents. They are a means of ensuring that the diverse talents of the entire faculty are productively applied to the many responsibilities of the University. In addition, performance reviews can help identify resource targets—places where additional resources could re-energize a faculty member whose energy or morale has run low or could lift an already productive member to new levels of achievement. Finally, they are an opportunity to substantively evaluate and discuss the faculty member’s readiness for promotion, where applicable, and progress toward tenure, where applicable.
Who is Subject to Review?
To promote further professional development, the annual reviews should be supplemented every five years by an in-depth evaluation of a tenured faculty member's accomplishments, future goals, and progress towards those goals. Tenured faculty will be evaluated every fifth year after their most recent promotion decision, provided they do not have an agreed-upon retirement date within two years of the proposed review. Faculty who have already signed a phased retirement plan will not be reviewed in this process. Faculty holding professorships will also have the continuation of that appointment reviewed as a part of the five-year extended review process; heads will be notified of which professorships are up for review in each cycle. This periodic review will replace the annual review in the year it is done.
Procedures
Faculty members and their department head will be informed by the dean’s office at least two semesters in advance of the submission deadline. The notification will occur in January or February, telling them that the AC40 materials will be due the following January 15th.
The Five-Year Extended Review Dossier should be assembled by the department head by running the appropriate report in Activity Insight. Included in this report will be the faculty member’s courses taught and assessments of teaching effectiveness during the previous five years.
The faculty member will submit a brief (no more than 1600 words) statement of accomplishments in the past five years that provides a guidepost to the vitae rather than a restatement of it. The narrative statement should describe accomplishments in the past five years, outline the faculty member's goals for professional development, and future objectives specific to their goals. The faculty member should also include their desired timeline for going forward for promotion to Professor, if that is something they plan to do.
The department staff will assist in assembling other required items for the dossier (listed below).
The department head will evaluate the materials and meet with each faculty member under review. The head should comment on strengths and weaknesses, make constructive suggestions for improvement, and recommend changes in assignments or resources provided to the faculty member, as appropriate. For those faculty members whose named professorships are up for review and renewal, the head should make an explicit recommendation to the dean, based on their overall evaluation, as to whether or not the professorship should be renewed. A substantive discussion of the faculty member’s readiness for promotion, where applicable, must be part of the review.
Department heads will be evaluated by the dean or the associate dean for faculty affairs. Other Academic Administrators with faculty appointments will be evaluated by the dean.
Written documentation of the results of the extended review will be provided by the department head to the faculty member by the end of the year in which the review takes place. The faculty member may respond in writing to the head if desired. In the event that improvements in performance and/or the redirection of contribution to the department are necessary, the faculty member and the department head will work on an appropriate response plan, the implementation of which will be monitored by the dean. A copy of the feedback and the response plan goes to the dean.
The department head will submit to the dean the materials providing the basis for the review, their letter, and the faculty member’s written response, if any. The dean or the associate dean for faculty affairs will review the materials and incorporate recommendations into decisions on resource adjustments and/or requirements for future actions. The dean will decide if a named professorship is recommended for renewal and for how long.
Following the University schedule, the Office of Faculty Affairs should be notified via e-mail confirming that the AC40 extended reviews have been completed for the current academic year. (The deadline for this notification is standardly in June). The dean’s office will send this notification.
Timetable
The faculty member being reviewed should submit relevant materials to the department head by January 15. The department head should forward their letter to the dean no later than April 15 of the same year.
The Dean will have the discretion to delay the extended review process due to unforeseen circumstances such as extended sick leave. However, sabbaticals and academic leaves (with or without pay) should be included in determining the review schedule. When a faculty member’s approved leave (sabbatical or other instance of approved leave) defers their five-year evaluation, the accomplishments and materials produced during the approved leave year should be included in the next AC40 review. In such instances, that review would include materials for the past six years, consistent in principle with the pre-tenure process. The subsequent review would then be undertaken five years from the new review date. As in any AC40 review, the evaluation will focus on quality and quantity of scholarly products – not time since degree, hire, or previous promotion.
Dossier
In addition to the Five-Year Extended Review (generated by Activity Insight), each dossier will also include the following:
- Dossier cover sheet listing name, complete title, date and faculty signature line, indicating they have reviewed the dossier and that the contents are satisfactory
- Faculty member’s narrative statement (1600 words max)
- Faculty member's CV
- Faculty member’s FARs from the past five years, after the most recent promotion or since newly appointed at Penn State to associate rank
- Past five years of Peer Evaluations, after the most recent promotion
- Full SRTE/SEEQ evaluations for the past five years, after the most recent promotion
- Letter to the faculty member from the department head; if the faculty member is a department head, letter from the dean or associate dean for faculty affairs
- Faculty response to the head/director’s letter (if there is one)
- Response plan (if there is one)
Revisions approved by Dean Tapia 6/6/2025 - combined IST_AC-30 and IST_AC-31 into one document; revised to reflect the creation of departments and the role of the department head; incorporated required university updates to AC40