1. General Principles

These procedures are a companion to Policy 201 “Faculty appointments, promotions, and tenure” and apply to all faculty in the research professor ranks. These procedures serve as a guide for candidates and faculty in these ranks and department chairs, deans, and all other personnel involved in the appointments, reappointments, and promotions of research faculty.

Notes: Throughout this document,

“Chair” refers to the department chair or other relevant director. If the chair is not at an appropriate faculty rank to review a promotion, the chair may recommend to the dean another faculty member in the Department or a faculty advisory board to act as the chair for review.

“Dean” refers to the school’s dean, or for units without a dean, the VPAA will act as their dean.

“Department” refers to the various academic units engaged in research, including departments, schools, centers, institutes, etc. The faculty advisory board of a center/institute can act as a Department when the center/institute does not have sufficient faculty of an appropriate rank to review promotions. In units without a faculty advisory board, the chair can recommend to the dean the appropriate faculty to comprise an ad hoc department for promotion review.

“Research faculty” and “research professor ranks” are used interchangeably.

In general, salary levels for research professors should be aligned with industry standards and other faculty in the same department or school based on experience, rank, and grant levels. When research professors undertake teaching appointments, which are not required for this role, any salary supplement should be aligned with that received by other faculty performing such duties in the same department.

1.1. Managing the research professor ranks at Rice and within each school

These procedures are intended to provide continuity to the process of appointing and promoting research faculty
These procedures may be supplemented by schools and departments in creating discipline-specific procedures and practices to better match particular needs, as long as such supplemental procedures and practices do not conflict with these procedures.

1.1.1. Supporting the research professor ranks

Departments appointing faculty in the research professor ranks should plan to provide the resources and opportunities appropriate for the productive contribution and the professional development of these faculty members. Such resources may include space allocation (lab and/or offices), equipment, and other appropriate and reasonable resources and opportunities.

1.1.2. Confidentiality

Strict adherence to confidentiality is important at all stages of evaluation processes. Except as specified in these procedures, all personnel involved in evaluations must hold in strict confidence all discussions and materials related to any evaluation process including, but not limited to, letters (including review letters, letters of evaluation, and letters from chairs and deans); statements by chairs, deans, and faculty; and all discussions during deliberations requisite to this process. No person meeting with those involved in the appointment, reappointment, or promotion processes should draw inferences about the process or disclose to the candidate or to others what takes place at any time, unless otherwise permitted as part of the process.

1.2. School-specific processes for appointment, reappointment, and promotion of faculty in the research professor ranks

Before considering any candidate for appointment to the research professor ranks, each school must develop appropriate school-specific appointment, reappointment, and promotion processes (hereinafter “SARP processes”) for faculty in the school’s research professor ranks. The SARP processes are developed by the dean in concert with chairs and the faculty in the school and submitted by the deans to the VPAA and the provost for their approvals. The SARP processes build on the following concepts:

The SARP processes rely on peer evaluations when considering the appointment, reappointment or promotion into these ranks:

Assistant research professors: Tenured, tenure-track and research faculty in the relevant department(s) participate in the discussion of the appointment/reappointment of candidates and vote on the matter.

Associate research professors: Associate professors, associate research professors, (full) professors, and (full) research professors participate in the discussion of the appointment/reappointment/ promotion of candidates and vote on the matter.

(Full) research professors: (Full) professors and (full) research professors participate in the discussion of the appointment/reappointment/promotion of candidates and vote on the matter.

The SARP processes should be as consistent as feasible within the school. The school’s SARP processes start in the department and finish with the provost:

Levels of review and approval:

Department chair assembles and examines dossier, and department votes on whether or not to promote or appoint. Note: Schools may design their SARP processes so that in circumstances designated by the dean, departments can terminate further consideration of cases that have received a negative vote at the departmental level.

Department chair forwards the dossier to dean with his/her recommendation.

For promotions and appointments of associate and full research professors, the dean forwards the dossier to the Provost to submit to the university-wide review committee.

This university-wide review committee can either be the university-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee or another committee designated by the Provost. This committee will review research professor appointments and promotions. The committee will consider the dossier and make its recommendation to the Provost. If the committee finds that the dossier is incomplete or lacking in information, the committee may request additional information or testimony from the school, dean, chair, or any person who submitted a letter for the dossier. The committee may also request through the provost or VPAA information from the candidate, but to maintain confidentiality, the requests shall not be made directly to the candidate from the committee. The committee may also report actual or suspected insufficiencies in a school’s SARP processes to the Provost, along with any recommended changes. This committee does not review reappointments of research professors or appointments of assistant research professors or the SARP processes associated with these reviews.

The provost approves or rejects the appointment/reappointment/promotion and informs the dean. All candidates, whether successful or unsuccessful, will be notified in writing of the decision by the dean.

If the appointment/reappointment/promotion is not approved, the dean or delegate informs the candidate of the remaining time on their contract, process for concluding current research projects, and their rights to appeal.

If the appointment/reappointment/promotion is approved, the provost issues a formal letter indicating the outcome (see Policy 213–71, “Letters Concerning Faculty Appointments.”)

A memo from the dean should be attached to the formal letter from the Provost. The memo from the dean should include the following:

a description of the appointee’s research duties and other responsibilities;

the effective dates;

procedures to be used for their annual review and evaluation; and

statement of expectations of teaching professor track.

A copy and/or a link to a current version of Policy 201 and the current university and school procedures documents must be included with the appointment letter.

Reappointments at the same rank—that is, contract renewals—are managed within the schools or other appointing units. Once a decision is made within the school, the dean notifies the candidate.

The SARP processes promote evidence-based decisions relying on sets of application and dossier materials that are intended to be reasonably consistent across time (for information for each promotion process, e.g., assistant research professor to associate research professor, see the following sections under “Material considered in the SARP processes” in the descriptions). While the SARP processes can require additional material, the required elements of the dossier and application are as follows:

The dossier should include similar elements as dossiers for tenured and tenured track professors at similar rank as outlined in the “Procedures for Faculty Reappointments, Promotions and Tenure.” Additionally, information related to teaching and student evaluations are not required.

A full dossier and letters are not required for new appointments to the assistant research professor level. However, the department chair must at least assemble an application that includes a CV, a list of publications, and a list of references. For new appointments at the associate and full research professor levels, departments should seek letters as part of the application process from scholars attesting to the quality of the candidate’s research.

The SARP processes must include a specified timeline for decisions. This timeline must be set up to ensure that dossiers are turned in to the Provost’s office in early November for reappointments and promotions starting the following July. New appointments should be presented during the semester preceding the start of the appointment. Deans can coordinate with the Provost’s office for abbreviated/expedited reviews of new appointments on a case-by-case basis.

The school makes the SARP processes available to the faculty in the school. All departments in the school that make appointment/reappointment/promotion decisions in the research faculty ranks are expected to follow the school’s SARP processes.

1.3. Responsibilities of personnel involved in the SARP processes

Each school determines the responsibilities of the personnel involved in the SARP processes; however, all SARP processes should adhere to the following general guidelines:

1.3.1. Candidate’s responsibilities

The candidate is usually responsible for providing the initial application/review material and, when required or requested, material for the dossier.

1.3.2. Chair’s responsibilities

Each school determines the responsibilities of the chair in the SARP processes, which at minimum include:

Explaining to candidates the SARP processes and their timelines as well as the professional trajectory of faculty in the research professor ranks,

Obtaining the relevant information and material from the candidates, assembling the dossier, and writing a letter of nomination/recommendation that includes:

• The candidate's proposed rank,
• The candidate’s current department and rank, professional history with years at ranks, education, and context of unusual professional trajectories (if applicable), and
• The candidate’s research record and accomplishments (including, where appropriate, citation statistics), professional service, and other relevant information to assess the candidate’s potential to become an intellectual leader in the field.

At all meetings in the SARP processes, the meeting convener should remind faculty of the confidential nature of the discussions, and summarizing the review process, including the results of the faculty vote, and recommendation.

Advising the dean, in a written summary, on specific personnel decisions for appointments, reappointments, and promotions in the school’s research faculty ranks.

1.3.3. Dean’s responsibilities

Each school determines the responsibilities of the dean in the SARP processes, which include:

Ensuring that reviews are consistently implemented throughout the school,

Reviewing all materials relevant to the department-level committee discussion and making a recommendation to the provost.

1.4. Material considered in the SARP processes

1.4.1. Material considered in the school’s appointment process

Each school determines the material that is needed for the appointment process, but such material is generally expected to include:

A current curriculum vitae, including candidate’s education, current position, professional experience, and, when appropriate, a list of undergraduate and graduate students and postdocs mentored.

A statement of two or three pages summarizing the candidate’s

Research area and accomplishments,

Professional objectives for the next few years,

Knowledge of recent advances in the field,

Expected contribution to the research environment of the department, and

Ability to meet each of the criteria of appointment as outlined at the time of appointment or re-appointment.

Documentation of start-up packages and department, school, and university resources made available to the candidate (when applicable)

Documentation of research accomplishments, including a list of publications annotated for internal reference to indicate the percent contribution by the candidate or the candidate’s research group, a list of grant support or other research support and grants submitted, and other relevant information (e.g., papers delivered, reviews, other relevant work), awards and prizes.

A record of service to current and past employers and to the external professional community.

External letters of evaluation from a minimum of three non-Rice faculty or researchers in the candidate’s discipline; if the candidate is internal, two external letters should be provided, as the chair will provide the third letter. For appointments to associate or full research professor, the school should request a minimum of four letters. Schools may solicit more letters in their SARP processes. SARP processes should specify that letters are requested by chairs.

As specified in the SARP processes, the application is complemented by the material generated at each stage, including the chair’s recommendation and the dean’s recommendation.

Note: The school may add additional components or requirements to the dossier, but a school should not reduce these expectations. Any modification that would reduce or significantly alter these expectations must be submitted to the Provost for approval prior to implementation with a justification for the reduction or modification.

1.4.2. Material considered in the school’s reappointment and promotion processes

Each school determines the material that is needed for the reappointment and promotion processes, but such material is generally expected to include:

All the material considered for the appointment process updated to the present (though new or updated external letters of evaluation may not be required for reappointment),

A list of publications annotated for internal reference to indicate the percent contribution by the candidate or the candidate’s research group, and

For promotion decisions only, additional letters of evaluation amounting to a minimum of four letters from external reviewers drawn by the chair from two lists of potential reviewers generated independently by the department and the candidate. While letters from people with a professional or personal conflict can be included in the dossier (provided that the conflict is appropriately disclosed in the dossier), only letters written by individuals without a personal or professional conflict of interest will count towards this minimum number of external letters for promotion. Additionally, SARP processes should specify the following: (1) at least three of the external letters should be from persons on the department’s list of potential reviewers (anyone on both lists can count towards this number); (2) the candidate can include in their list up to two names of potential reviewers that the candidate does not believe can provide an unbiased evaluation, and the process by which those exclusions are approved and handled; and (3) how the final list of external reviewers to which requests for letters will be sent are approved (this approval processes must include a final approval by the dean or their designee, and such designee cannot be the chair or another faculty member in the department).

Note: The school may add additional components or requirements to the dossier, but a school should not reduce these expectations. Any modification that would reduce or significantly alter these expectations must be submitted to the Provost for approval prior to implementation with a justification for the reduction or modification.

1.5. Performance evaluation of faculty in the research faculty ranks

Policy 214 “Faculty performance reviews” sets the minimum standards for the evaluation of the performance of research professors. Each school may develop additional procedures and incorporate those in the SARP processes.

1.6. Teaching activities

Research faculty with relevant expertise may be recruited for teaching a specific course. This process should take into account appropriate salary supplements (if any) for the time taken from their research and must be consistent with the faculty member’s obligations under any external funding.

1.7. Appeals

Candidates may appeal decisions on reappointment or promotion by writing to the convener of the Faculty Senate not later than thirty calendar days after the candidate has been officially notified of the decision. This review, which is conducted by an appeals and grievances committee convened by the Faculty Senate, examines procedural issues only and does not assess the substantive issues having to do with the candidate's qualifications. Once the review is complete, the convener of the committee files a written report of its findings to the speaker of the Faculty Senate and the president; the president subsequently decides what action to take.

2. Assistant Research Professor

The rank of assistant research professor is best suited for individuals who show promise and commitment to becoming leaders in their field and who wish to be on a career path that involves primarily research.

2.1. Eligibility criteria for appointment as assistant research professor

In addition to the criteria listed in Policy 201 “Faculty appointments, promotion and tenure,” candidates for appointment at the rank of assistant research professor must demonstrate:

• Promise and commitment to achieving leadership in the field,
• Knowledge of recent advances in the field,
• Willingness to establish productive interactions with other scholars in the field at Rice and beyond, and
• Willingness to contribute to the life of the department, school, university, or field through service or, possibly, teaching or other activities at Rice and beyond. (Note that these contributions are not required and should not conflict with funding agency policy.)

Each school determines the specific criteria for appointment to the rank of assistant research professor and applies these criteria consistently across the school.

2.2. Eligibility criteria and process for reappointment as assistant research professor

Policy 201 “Faculty appointments, promotion and tenure” specifies the process for reappointments and terminations. Each school determines the criteria for reappointments of assistant research professor, which may include evidence of:

Progress towards achieving leadership in the field,

Contributions to recent advances in the field,

Productive interactions with other scholars in the field at Rice and beyond, and

Contribution to the life of the department, school, or university through service or, possibly, teaching or other activities at Rice and beyond. (Note that these contributions are not required, but should be included where applicable.)

Each school determines the reappointment process, which may mirror the appointment process. These criteria should be disclosed at the time of appointment/reappointment.

If the reappointment is approved, the dean’s reappointment letter must include:

A notice that the assistant research professor must be promoted to associate research professor by the end of the sixth year or be removed from the research professor ranks (see Policy 201 for details), and

A statement of expectations for eventual promotion to associate research professor.

3. Associate Research Professor

The rank of associate research professor is best suited for individuals who are emerging as leaders in their field through a record of excellence in research, and who wish to be on a career path that involves primarily research.

3.1 Eligibility criteria for appointment/promotion to associate research professor

In addition to the criteria listed in Policy 201 “Faculty appointments, promotion and tenure,” candidates for appointment/promotion at the rank of associate research professor must demonstrate:

• Significant progress towards achieving leadership in the field,
• Substantial contributions to recent advances in the field,
• Productive interactions with other scholars in the field at Rice and beyond, and
• Contributions to the life of the department, school, university, or field through service or, possibly, teaching or other activities at Rice and beyond. (Note that these contributions are not required and should not conflict with funding agency policy.)

Each school determines the specific criteria for appointment/promotion to associate research professor and applies these criteria consistently across the school. These criteria should be disclosed at the time of appointment/reappointment.

When evaluating the candidate for promotion or appointment to this rank, departments, schools, and the university-wide review committee should consider the level of resources the candidate has had access to and the candidate’s level of research when compared with peers with similar resources at a similar rank.

3.2 Eligibility criteria and process for reappointment as associate research professor

Policy 201 “Faculty appointments, promotion and tenure” specifies the process for reappointments and terminations. Each school determines the criteria for reappointments of associate research professors

4. (Full) Research Professor

The rank of (full) research professor is best suited for individuals who are established as leaders in their field through a record of excellence in research, and who wish to be on a career path that involves primarily research.

4.1 Eligibility criteria for appointment/promotion to (full) research professor

In addition to the criteria listed in Policy 201 “Faculty appointments, promotion and tenure,” candidates for appointment/promotion at the rank of (full) research professor must demonstrate:

• Tangible and substantial evidence of leadership in the field,
• Exemplary contributions to recent advances in the field,
• Expanded productive interactions with other scholars in the field at Rice and beyond, and
• Continued contributions to the life of the department, school, university, or field through service or, possibly, teaching or other activities at Rice and beyond. (Note that these contributions are not required and should not conflict with funding agency policy.)

Each school determines the specific criteria for appointment/promotion to (full) research professor and applies these criteria consistently across the school. These criteria should be disclosed at the time of appointment/reappointment.

When evaluating the candidate for promotion or appointment to this rank, departments, schools, and the university-wide review committee should consider the level of resources the candidate has had access to and the candidate’s level of research when compared with peers with similar resources at a similar rank.

4.2 Eligibility criteria and process for reappointment of (full) research professor

Policy 201 “Faculty appointments, promotion and tenure” specifies the process for reappointments and terminations. Each school determines the criteria for reappointments of (full) research professors.