1. QU Academic Promotion Policies Prof. Nitham M. Hindi December 20, 2010

2. Agenda Promotion Process What is needed from candidates? Requirements for promotion (baseline) Department Responsibilities College Responsibilities External reviewers Research and Scholarship Confidentiality Appeal process Questions/Comments

4. What is needed from candidates? Complete application 1; Complete application 1 Updated CV; Original publications; Electronic copy of the publications, if available. If not available, submit three copies of the publications; Completed form for contributions in collaborative research for each co-authored publication. If the applicant is not the senior author, the form should be signed by the senior or coordinating author. and,contributions in collaborative research Dossier that includes evidence of effective teaching (course portfolios), service contributions, and intellectual contributions (scholarship).

5. Promotion Forms and Guidelines Available at Qatar University website:Qatar University website: http://my.qu.edu.qa/

6. Requirements for promotion (Baseline) Promotion to “Associate Professor”: – A minimum of five years at assistant professor rank; – Publication of at least four original papers in refereed journals; Two of which the applicant must be the sole or senior author; Published books or chapter (s) in books that have been refereed; and, A minimum of three published articles and a maximum of one article accepted for publication in a refereed journal.

7. Requirements for promotion (Baseline) Promotion to “Professor”: – A minimum of five years at the associate professor rank; – Publication of at least six original papers in refereed journals since last promotion; Four of which the applicant must be the sole or senior author; and, A minimum of four published articles, and a maximum of two articles accepted for publication in refereed journals.

8. DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES Departmental Promotion Committee Meetings and Votes – Each academic department shall form a promotion committee that will be responsible for evaluating promotion cases in their respective departments in accordance with the university promotion policies and guidelines for submission of applications for academic promotion.evaluating promotion cases The Department Promotion Committee (DPC) shall consist of three to five members appointed by the Department Head at or above the rank to which the candidate seeks promotion. Committee members shall discuss each promotion case on its own merit and render a blind vote to promote or deny. The committee Chair shall not vote except to break a tie. The Department Head shall not be a member of the Department Promotion Committee. In cases where the department promotion committee does not have unanimous vote and a minority member (s) wish to render a written rationale, this document will be attached to the department promotion committee report.

9. DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES Departmental Head Responsibility to Departmental Members – Department Heads are expected to provide guidance to each member of their departments regarding the promotional requirements of the university and college. – Department Heads should encourage their faculty to conduct high quality research and publish their findings in recognized high quality peer-reviewed journals and international conferences. – Department Heads are expected to prepare a list of all potential candidates for promotion at the onset of the academic year and inform candidates of their eligibility. Additionally, Department Head concerned shall submit to his/her college dean cases of the faculty members who have not been promoted to the rank of Associate Professor after ten years of appointment to the post of Assistant Professor. The college shall forward a report to the VP&CAO.

10. DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES Department Head's Recommendation – The Department Head is expected to forward a written recommendation (for or against promotion) to the college Dean. – The letter should provide: information on department norms at the rank being considered with regard to teaching load, graduate supervision, administrative responsibilities, dissemination of research or other scholarly work and external funding; the extent to which the case rests on creative or professional (as opposed to traditional scholarly) contributions; an indication of the stature of journals (such as its acceptance rate) in which a candidate has published; details on the evaluation of the candidate's teaching by students and peers (if this information is provided elsewhere in the dossier, then it should be referenced to in the Head's recommendation); information on department norms with regard to student and peer evaluations of teaching; and, the basis of the recommendation.

11. COLLEGE RESPONSIBILITIES College Promotion Committee – Each college shall form a promotion committee that will be responsible for evaluating promotion cases in their respective colleges in accordance with the university promotion policies and guidelines for submission of applications for academic promotion. – The College Promotion Committee shall consist of three to five members appointed by the College Dean at or above the rank to which the candidate seeks promotion. – Committee members shall discuss each promotion case on its own merit and render a blind vote to promote or deny. Committee members shall discuss each promotion case on its own merit and render a blind vote to promote or deny – In cases where the college promotion committee does not have unanimous vote and a minority member (s) wish to render a written rationale, this document will be attached to the college promotion committee report. – The Committee Chair shall not vote except to break a tie. The College Dean shall not be a member of the College Promotion Committee.

12. COLLEGE DEAN RESPONSIBILITIES The College Dean is expected to forward a written letter or recommendation (for or against promotion) to the APC. The recommendation shall include: letter or recommendation – a summary of the reasons for the recommendation; and, – an outline of any special circumstances about the individual’s academic appointment. For example, were there agreed upon expectations that the candidate's teaching load would be less to enable a greater concentration on research activities.

13. External Referees The Department Head should provide brief biographical information for each external referee recommended. External referees are expected to be at arm's length, and should only include persons whose impartiality cannot be doubted. They should not include relatives, close personal friends, clients, current or former colleagues, former thesis advisers, research supervisors, grant co-holders and co-authors. There shall be no communication with referees about the matter in question. The list should reflect the names of impartial experts with a full professor rank and diverse geographical locations.

14. External Referees The candidate should not be informed of the names of the referees selected for the external review process. Evidence of the candidate’s published research will be provided to three external referees for peer review purposes.

15. External Referees The APC shall review the referees' comments and recommendations for promotion and make its own appropriate recommendation. The APC may, for reasons it deems justifiable after review of the three referees' reports on the applicant's research level and / or quality, accept it or part of it and thereupon make its own recommendation which it deems appropriate to the applicant's promotion.

16. Research and Scholarship A peer-reviewed (aka refereed) publication is defined as a publication that has undergone an assessment or review in its entirety by independent experts in the same field who are willing to provide an objective opinion of the quality and pertinence of the research.

17. Research and Scholarship Judgment of scholarly activity is based mainly on the quality and significance of an individual's contributions. Quality is measured by various means such as acceptance rate of outlet, impact factor, and ranking by professional specialized organizations.

18. Research and Scholarship Textbooks that changed academic understanding or made a significant contribution to the way in which a discipline or field is taught might constitute useful evidence of the scholarship whereas publishing textbooks for your own course would not. Scholarly books that have undergone a rigorous referee process may count toward promotion to associate professor only. Only one book (or at least one chapter in a book) can be submitted for consideration. The senior author is generally defined as the person who leads a study and makes a major contribution to the work. The Senior Author is typically responsible for all communication with the journal in which it is published, and takes overall responsibility for its content. The Senior Author is often the first or last author on the publication. Should there be any confusion regarding the identity of the Senior Author for a submitted publication, the APC will seek clarification as needed to better understand the role of the candidate in this scholarly activity. Material culled from the candidate’s MA or Ph.D. thesis/dissertation shall not count as Research.

19. Publications prior to completing doctorate degree Scholarly work to be considered for promotion to Associate Professor must be based on work done during the time period following completion of the Ph.D. degree.

20. Affiliation in publications Publications that appear in print while a faculty member at Qatar University must identify that the faculty member is affiliated with Qatar University.

21. Confidentiality All promotion files and related proceedings are considered strictly confidential. The promotion recommendation will be conveyed to applicant according to established processes. Members of promotion committees should refrain from engaging in any communication regarding the deliberations and decisions of their committee.

22. Appeal Process Three levels of appeal: – Appeal the department decision – Appeal the college decision – Appeal the university decision

24. Questions/Comments?