| Term | Definition | |
|---|---|---|
| Academic Levels | Academic Levels allow administrators to manage access to cases at individual case review steps based on unit hierarchy instead of by user roles. | |
| Annotation | Personal notes to be taken during the case review. These can only be viewed by the author. | |
| Appointing unit leader | The chair/campus dean/director. | |
| Appointing Unit Leader Report | This is your independent analysis and recommendation to the SCC leader. The report incorporates the Subcommittee Report (if applicable), the candidate’s response, and eligible voting faculty discussion (unless fewer than three eligible faculty required a Subcommittee). For mandatory cases with a ‘Do not Support’ recommendation, indicate whether postponement was considered and the vote outcome. If the candidate’s response does not warrant changes, the report serves as the final recommendation. If revisions are needed, a Revised Appointing Unit Leader Report becomes the final recommendation. | View Guidelines |
| Appointing Unit Leader Summary | This document includes two components: 1) A redacted Faculty Report excluding identifiable references to external reviewers, committee members, and voting faculty; vote counts may be omitted (not required if fewer than three voting-eligible faculty necessitated a Subcommittee); 2) A redacted Appointing Unit Leader Report excluding the same identifiable references. This summary is shared with the candidate, who may provide a written response. If the Appointing Unit Leader Report is revised, the summary must also be revised and shared, though no waiting period is required for the candidate’s response to the revised summary. | |
| AY | An acronym for academic year. For example, AY2025-26 means the academic year running from July 1, 2025-June 30, 2026. | |
| Candidate | Individual under consideration for promotion and/or tenure. | |
| Candidate Data Sheet | This document summarizes key candidate and case data for quick reference by evaluators at remaining stages of the review process. Some of the data is pulled in automatically from Workday. The department administrator will review and correct this data where necessary, and provide additional data about the case where indicated. The Candidate Data Sheet is a web form that is accessed and initiated on APF’s website. Once accurate and complete, the unit administrator will click “Add to Case” and a PDF will be automatically generated and added to the candidate’s RPT case. | |
| Candidate Packet | The collection of materials by which a candidate is being reviewed (documents and other files). The packet is divided into sections which can be worked on and submitted independently of one another. | |
| Committee | ||
| Committee Forms | Committee Forms are forms made up of questions to be completed by members of a committee and can be assigned as a committee-facing requirement to a template or a case. | |
| DEP | Shorthand for departmentalized. | |
| EDM | An acronym for APF’s Enterprise Document Management system. This is where the final candidate promotion/tenure case materials will be retained. | |
| External Reviewer Grid | This grid is intended to provide visibility into the full breadth and status of external review efforts. It documents those who participated as external reviewers as well as all those who were nominated, accepted but never submitted a letter, or declined to participate. | View Grid Tempalte |
| Faculty Report | This is a substantive formal report–prepared by the appointing unit leader or designee–that summarizes the discussion and recommendation of eligible voting faculty in the candidate’s appointing unit. In addition to the recommendation of the faculty, the report should note concerns raised during the discussion and counter arguments raised to those concerns. If a Subcommittee was required because there were fewer than three eligible voting faculty in the unit, then a Faculty Report is not necessary. | View Guidelines |
| Faculty Report Summary | This is a substantive summary of the report prepared by the SCC leader or designee. The summary can be an original synopsis authored by the SCC leader, or it can be a copy of the original Faculty Report that has been redacted to remove identifiable references to specific external reviewers and faculty members. The summary must be shared with the candidate, who has an opportunity to provide a written response. Take care not to mix up the Faculty Report with the Faculty Summary. If the Faculty Report is revised, the Faculty Summary shall also be revised and shared with the candidate. However, there is no required waiting period for a candidate response to the Revised Faculty Summary. | |
| Letter of concurrence | Letter from adjunct units indicating whether or not they agree with the primary unit’s promotion/tenure recommendation for a given candidate. | |
| Report | A substantive written document explaining the author’s review of the promotion/tenure case and reasons for their recommendation. | |
| Reverse chronological order | In order in which they occurred, starting with the most recent and working backwards to the oldest. | |
| Reviewer | Individual who has been given access to RPT to evaluate an individual’s promotion and/or tenure case. | |
| RPT | Interfolio’s Review, Promotion & Tenure module | |
| SCC | An acronym for school, college, campus | |
| SCC Committee Report | This report outlines the SCC Committee’s recommendation to the SCC leader and corresponding rationale. This report is known as the SCC Committee Report and is shared verbatim with subsequent levels of review. The report must list all those who served on the committee (names and ranks). A summary or redacted version of the report (to remove identifiable references to external reviewers or specific committee members) is shared with the candidate. | View Guidelines |
| SCC Committee Summary | This is a substantive summary of the report prepared by the SCC Committee. The summary can be an original synopsis authored by the SCC Committee, or it can be a copy of the original SCC Committee Report that has been redacted to remove identifiable references to specific external reviewers and faculty members. This Summary will not be shared directly with the candidate, but is included as part of the SCC Leader Summary. | |
| SCC leader | The leader of a school, college, or campus. The dean or chancellor. | |
| SCC Leader Report | This report provides your independent analysis and includes your recommendation and rationale to the provost (for mandatory or supported non-mandatory actions) or your decision and rationale (for unsupported non-mandatory actions).
For mandatory or supported non-mandatory actions, this is your final recommendation unless the candidate or appointing unit leader response warrants a revision. If no response or no revision is warranted, the report remains final. If a response warrants changes, a Revised SCC Leader Report becomes the final recommendation. For unsupported non-mandatory actions, this is your final decision unless a candidate response warrants revision, in which case a Revised SCC Leader Report becomes the final recommendation. |
View Guidelines |
| SCC Leader Summary | This document includes two parts: 1) A redacted summary of the SCC Committee Report, excluding references to specific external reviewers, committee members, and voting faculty; and 2) A redacted copy of the SCC Leader Report with similar exclusions. If additional information is needed from the candidate, the request is included in this summary. Both parts must be shared with the candidate and the appointing unit leader.
If the SCC leader’s decision is not to support the action, the candidate and unit leader must be allowed to submit a written response. Any revisions to the SCC Leader Report require updating and sharing the SCC Leader Summary, though no waiting period is required for candidate responses to the revised summary. |
|
| Subcommittee | A subcommittee is a group of at least three eligible voting faculty members formed to produce an initial report and/or recommendation on the qualifications of a candidate for promotion. This subcommittee may include faculty from other departments, schools, colleges, or campuses who have appropriate expertise. The subcommittee is required when there are fewer than three eligible voting members in the candidate’s department (or undepartmentalized college or school). Members of the subcommittee are given the opportunity to review the candidate’s record, including external letters, and they produce a written report on the candidate’s qualifications for promotion. | Faculty Code 24-54 |
| Subcommittee Summary | This is a substantive summary of the report produced by the subcommittee. The summary can be an original synopsis authored by the appointing unit leader, or it can be a copy of the original Subcommittee Report that has been redacted to remove identifiable references to specific external reviewers and individual committee members. Whether an original document or redacted report, the summary must indicate if a Subcommittee was required because there were fewer than three eligible voting faculty. In all cases, the summary must list the members of the subcommittee. The summary must be shared with the candidate, who has an opportunity to provide a written response. Take care not to mix up the Subcommittee Report with the Subcommittee Summary. If the Subcommittee Report is revised, the Subcommittee Summary shall also be revised and shared with the candidate. However, there is no required waiting period for a candidate response to the Revised Subcommittee Summary. | |
| Summary | A report that has been redacted to remove identifiable references or attributions to specific individuals. | |
| UNDEP | Shorthand for undepartmentalized. |