Review of Scholarly, Creative and Artistic Achievements and Professional Activities Sample Clauses

Review of Scholarly, Creative and Artistic Achievements and Professional Activities. The parties acknowledge that a 12-credit hour teaching load per semester is a teaching- intensive assignment, which often leaves faculty members with relatively little time for scholarly activities. The University acknowledges its responsibility to provide tenure-track faculty members with support for professional development and release time commensurate with expectations for scholarship. Standards for scholarship and publication by tenure-track faculty will be developed by each School or College in a collaborative process between the Academic Supervisors, Unit Managers, and faculty in the School or College, and will be made clear to prospective faculty during the interview process. Faculty Development Plans and Records of Activities (ROAs) should explicitly address how faculty propose to meet these standards, including any requests for necessary support for these plans, and any failure to meet established standards should be addressed in Academic Supervisors’ and Unit Managers’ responses to ROAs and Faculty Development Plans. If faculty members wish publications to be considered in their annual evaluations, copies should be submitted to their Unit Managers as soon as they are available, but no later than August 31st for annual review, and no later than April 15th of the year preceding tenure or promotion review. Late submissions may be considered at the discretion of the Unit Managers. Unit Managers will, in turn, submit them to the Xxxxxxx. A central publication file will be maintained by the Office of the Xxxxxxx. For tenure and promotion consideration, there will be a process for external review of scholarly activities. External review of scholarly, creative, and artistic achievements or professional activities is required to determine the impact or relevance of the candidate’s scholarship to the discipline. In order to receive adequate feedback, approximately five reviewers can be chosen, but no fewer than two. Journals in which faculty members have published must be evaluated for quality. This may be done through a journal service such as Cabell’s (xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx) or SCImago Journal Rank (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xx/index.php) or similar journal service agreed upon by Management and UVI-AAUP. Faculty may present the reviews of their work generated in the publication process. Faculty members with such reviews may tend to choose fewer external reviewers than usual but must still participate in the external review process.