FAQs - frequently asked questions
topics addressed:
- Criteria document
- The dossier
- Evaluator confidentiality
- Full librarian
- Law evaluators
- Law reviews
- Non-print media
- Non-support for reappointment
- Outside evaluators
- Research statement (refer to V.B.3 of the APT Standing Rules)
- Service statement
- Supplemental materials
- Tenure denial/withdrawal
- Timetable
- Vitae
- Web publications
- Part-time faculty
1. CRITERIA DOCUMENT
Q:What happens to those who come up for tenure after the current Criteria expires in January 2008?
A: FEC and APT will be reviewing and revising the Criteria for Faculty Personnel Actions well in advance of that date. Library faculty will have a chance to review and comment on drafts before taking a final vote to adopt.
2. THE DOSSIER
Q: What is the path of a tenure dossier within a unit?
A: After the candidate has provided all necessary documents, the unit head/director solicits letters of evaluation, the faculty within the unit meet and vote, the candidate’s supervisor writes a letter (if applicable), the unit head/director writes a letter, then finally the entire package goes on to the University Libraries Director’s Office.
Q: Should the dossier preparer/presenter give feedback to the candidate after the APT meeting?
A: Yes, the dossier preparer/presenter should always meet with the candidate and convey APT’s comments to him/her. In the case of ASL, the comments are also transmitted to the unit heads that supervise the candidate but do not prepare the dossier.
Q: Which criteria are more important to focus on for a good dossier?
A: The introduction to the "Criteria for Library Faculty Personnel Actions" states, "Steady progress in all five criteria cited below is expected as a librarian's career develops." The Criteria are:
- Competence in Librarianship
- Contributions to the Libraries and Their Services
- Professional Contributions
- Scholarly Accomplishment
- Effectiveness of University and Community Service
The Criteria recognizes that people will excel differently. A well-balanced dossier includes evidence of accomplishments in each area. Assuming dossiers illustrate comparable accomplishments in the other four areas, APT recommends that candidates spend a bit more effort towards scholarly accomplishment. The Presidential Review Board generally looks upon this as the second most significant factor. Overall, however, balance is the key.
Tenured librarian Ben Wagner recommends several valuable time management tips:
- Pursue release time
- Think strategically about professional organizational involvement. Choose committee appointments, presentations, etc. that contribute toward national recognition
- Track how you spend your time and how it contributes toward each of the five Criteria. Reviewing it every few months helps you develop a balanced dossier
- Block out large chunks of time to work on difficult and/or time-consuming projects
Associate Librarian Dorothy Tao recommends:
- Working on projects that interest you
- Finding a mentor
- Seeking feedback on your writing
- Staying focused
Q:Will I be able to view my tenure dossier?
A: The Libraries Human Resources Office makes the “accessible” dossier available to the candidate. The accessible dossier would exclude any letters which the candidate has not been given permission to see, and the identities of evaluators who want their names withheld. The candidate can also view the accessible dossier in the Provost’s Office after PRB has voted on it. The candidate will be notified directly by the Provost’s Office when that time arrives.
top of page
3. EVALUATOR CONFIDENTIALITY
Q:What if the evaluator has not given permission for the candidate to see his/her letter?
A: The evaluator can choose whether the candidate has full access to their letter, partial access where all reference to his or her identity is purged, or no access. Quotes in the cover letter must be blacked out if the evaluator has not given permission to see them. As an aside, some evaluators will deliberately not give permission, even when their comments are positive, under the assumption that the letter may be given more weight. The dossier preparer should tell the candidate about any negative evaluator letters, though this is not required.
4. FULL LIBRARIAN
Q: What is the process for becoming a Full Librarian?
A: The process is similar to that of tenure review. The candidate must submit a vitae and supplemental materials, there are unit and APT reviews before going forward to the Director’s Office and PRB. A description of the criteria is available in the UB Faculty/Staff Handbook, Section III.A. Policies, Procedures, and Criteria for Faculty Personnel Actions. An excerpt from subsection I.A.4. Professor/Librarian: “As in the case of appointments at all other ranks, the recommendation for an appointment at the rank of Professor/Librarian should present clear and strong evidence that first-rank performance as a teacher/librarian and researcher or creator has been shown, and can be expected to continue. Appointment or promotion to the rank of Professor/Librarian is never to be simply a reward for services already performed. Those faculty holding this rank have primary responsibility for the scholarship of the university, and their attainments as scholars in their disciplines must be of the first rank. Nothing less than excellence is acceptable here. Clear and convincing evidence must be submitted to show that each candidate has the credentials to achieve the rank of Professor/Librarian in his or her discipline at the leading public research universities.”
Q: Who are the Full Librarians?
A: Currently, the Full Librarians are Judy Adams-Volpe, Mike Lavin and Nancy Schiller.
5. LAW EVALUATORS
Q:In Law Librarianship, the community is small enough that a candidate may have worked fairly closely with the appropriate evaluators. Should evaluators be chosen from outside of the small community instead?
A: Only if that is appropriate. The test should be that the evaluator cannot be asked to evaluate his/her own work. It is most important that the evaluator have enough familiarity with the topics of research to give informed feedback about it.
6. LAW REVIEWS
Q:Many law reviews do not adhere strictly to the definition of “refereed.” How is that dealt with?
A: PRB is aware of the Law Review culture because they review Law School faculty dossiers. The prestige of the journal can be discussed in the cover letter if there are any questions. This might be the safest route, since the makeup of PRB changes over time. It is always wise to explain things clearly in the dossier, without seeming to pad it in any way.
7. NON-PRINT MEDIA
Q: How do we ensure that the various groups (APT and PRB) will actually view non-print media submitted as part of the dossier?
A: There is no way to control or guarantee that the media will be seen or listened to. PRB designates one person to review your dossier closely and present your case to the other members of PRB. One would hope that the designated presenter would view these materials. PRB is used to getting other media from other disciplines such as, for example, the theater and dance faculties. And, if the letters are focused enough on the work available in these other media, PRB will be intrigued enough to look at them. In terms of the evaluators, all materials are sent to them, whatever the media. In cases where non-print work is predominant, a portfolio approach may be most appropriate.
Q: Can I consider multimedia exhibits that include audio, video, slides, etc. as a publication?
A: No, these would be placed in the category of Exhibits or Presentations depending on the method of dissemination. To be considered a Publication, AV productions would have to be accepted by a publisher for editing, reproduction and distribution.
Q: How do I document that others used my artwork in a published piece when the authors fail to acknowledge credit?
A: Secure a letter from the author that outlines the contribution or details the content of any derivative work that was produced separately. In the unusual event the primary author or artist is unavailable or unwilling to write a letter of acknowledgement, documentation should be collected that offers evidence of or corroborates the artistic contribution. For example, e-mail or paper communications discussing the work, notes documenting phases of production, rough drafts, receipts or letters from third parties that confirm a person’s claim to a work.
8. NON-SUPPORT FOR REAPPOINTMENT
Q: How and when am I notified of non-support?
A: The Unit Head is required to notify you in writing that he/she will not support your reappointment. Notification of non-support depends upon your appointment review calendar and is usually approximately six months in advance of the expiration of your term appointment. You will be advised of your right to appoint an advocate for the peer review process. Individuals have seven working days to appoint an advocate. If, within seven working days, the faculty member fails to notify the Associate Vice President for University Libraries in writing whom he/she has designated as advocate, the peer review process automatically ceases.
Q: Who can serve as my advocate?
A: The advocate must be a member of the Libraries Faculty or the Libraries Professional Staff and have direct, personal knowledge of the candidate’s performance.
Q: If I select an advocate, does that mean my dossier is prepared for review?
A: Yes, your dossier goes forward with a written statement from your advocate addressing the quality and impact of the candidate’s work, service, and scholarly accomplishments. The advocate may suggest expert evaluators to review the candidate’s work. The advocate may additionally choose to make an oral statement to APT and/or the Associate Vice President for University Libraries. Advocates must adhere to the rules of confidentiality and avoid disclosure of confidential material to the candidate.
Q: What if I don’t choose to have an advocate?
A: If within seven working days the faculty member fails to notify the Associate vice President for University Libraries in writing that he/she has designated an advocate, and who that advocate is, the peer review process automatically ceases. The faculty member has the right to serve out the remainder of his/her appointment.
Q: Do I have to leave my position immediately once I am informed of non-support?
A: No, you have the right to serve out the remainder of your term appointment. Your appointment letter should indicate the duration of your term. You may consult with the Human Resources Officer to confirm the ending date of your term appointment.
9. OUTSIDE EVALUATORS
Q: What if the most appropriate person to write an evaluator’s letter is not at a research institution?
A: The person should be asked for a letter, but not as one of the four disinterested. This would be an extra letter from an outside expert and the expert’s qualifications are discussed in the statement of procedures for selecting evaluators.
Q: How does the dossier preparer deal with the situation where the evaluator does not have faculty status at his/her institution?
A: It’s best to try to get at least two of the letters from evaluators with faculty status comparable to ours (see list of Peer Institutions). Most places have some sort of continuing appointment process and some are so prestigious they carry enough weight even if their status is not comparable to ours here at UB. The dossier preparer should ask in the initial e-mail if the institution has faculty status for librarians, if not known already.
Q: Should the “disinterested” letter writers “know” the candidate?
A: The evaluator can know the candidate and in the best case, should know him/her by reputation. But the evaluator cannot have anything to gain by the outcome of the case. So, for example, a co-author could not be a disinterested evaluator. There would most likely be a letter from the co-author, but not as one of the four. A person who has served on a committee with the candidate would be a disinterested evaluator. It’s a good idea to have the candidate suggest names of evaluators to the dossier preparer, but it is ultimately up to the preparer to decide which evaluators are chosen.
Q: When Unit Heads forward internal reports to outside evaluators for review, what are the criteria under which the reviewers consider the reports?
A: APT recognizes that preparing internal reports often entails a great deal of effort and scholarly research. Outside reviewers consider if the issues discussed and the recommended solutions have applicability at their institutions. The outside reviewers attempt to determine how the reports would be considered if created at their respective institutions. Note: significant internal reports strengthen dossiers, but they do not in any way substitute for peer-reviewed work.
10. RESEARCH STATEMENT (refer to V.B.3 of the APT Standing Rules)
Q: What types of information about collaborative efforts does the research statement include?
A: This statement is personal and should reflect the candidate’s own style. They represent your opportunity to explain and put your work in context. Succinctly explain your role in collaborative projects. The research statement is not the place for a detailed accounting of division of labor. You should focus on the nature and significance of the overall project and your contribution to it. Is the candidate writing the introduction (only), compiling an index, serving as the principal investigator, consulting, editing the work of others, creating graphics, providing technical and/or subject expertise, doing a statistical analysis or serving as the lead author? As your dossier is being prepared, you should speak to your Unit Head about soliciting letters from co-authors or co-contributors. Such letters are the most appropriate source for documenting the extent of your shared contributions.
Q: How much leeway does one have when changing the focus of research interests?
A: Significant changes in research interests made early in a candidate’s career will most likely raise concerns by APT and PRB. Where they occur, the Research statement should provide explanation (e.g. a radical shift in job duties). Such changes are less problematic later in a candidate’s career, after he/she has exhibited ample proof of focused research. However, it is not unusual for a candidate to pursue several related areas of research simultaneously. The Research Statement should stress how those areas relate to one another.
11. SERVICE STATEMENT
Q: What should be included in the Service Statement?
A: In the Service Statement, show how your activities are relevant to librarianship and the university. It is not laundry lists of everything you do, but representative examples that demonstrate application of your philosophy, and this is your opportunity to put yourself in the best light possible. Candidates should continuously revise their Service Statements.
Q: Can APT provide a sample Service Statement?
A: It would not be appropriate for APT to provide sample statements. The Service Statement is a highly personal document and its content, tone, and form will vary significantly from one individual to another.
Q: Should service statements be flowing essays or should they have headings and subheadings?
A: This is entirely a matter of personal style. If you think that headings will convey the message more clearly, feel free to use them. Remember, most PRB members are unfamiliar with the details of our profession, so headings can be helpful. Since you are addressing a non-library audience, avoid jargon and other “technical” language.
12. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
Q: What are supplemental materials to the dossier?
A: Supplemental Materials could include:
— Copies of the candidate’s publications
- Refereed
- Non-refereed
- Internal
- Accepted for publication
- Works in progress (when appropriate)
- Printouts of selected web work
— Pictures of the candidate’s exhibits
— Unsolicited letters
— Syllabi, PowerPoint slides,
or other significant materials prepared for courses/workshops
— Book contracts
— Acceptance for publication letters
13. TENURE DENIAL/WITHDRAWAL
Q: What happens if PRB recommends against appointing tenure?
A: You may accept the PRB decision, and finish the remainder of your contract with the University, you may withdraw from your current position, or you may choose to appeal.
Q: How do I appeal a negative PRB vote?
A: You have the right to appoint an advocate as outlined in the Faculty/Staff Handbook, Section II.C.4.
Q: What do I do if I decide to withdraw from the peer review process once it is underway?
A: According to FEC Bylaws, Section III. G., "a candidate who wishes to withdraw from the peer review process must send a written request for withdrawal to the Associate Vice President for University Libraries (copied to the unit head) or to the administrative officer before whom the case is pending if the case has been transmitted beyond the libraries (cf. PPC,II.C5).
14. TIMETABLE
Q: What happens if a candidate’s timetable with PRB comes up during the summer?
A: If a candidate has a summer appointment date (June, July, August, September), when PRB does not meet, the Libraries’ Director’s Office moves their dates up to the spring, so that PRB can consider their case early rather than having to wait.
See also Timetable for Dossier Preparation for Candidates for Tenure. [PDF]
Q: What do I do if my unit head doesn't provide me with a reappointment calendar or timetable?
A: If your unit head is non-responsive to your request for a reappointment calendar, you should contact the University Libraries Assistant to the Director for Faculty Affairs, Gemma DeVinney, at 645-2972, or through e-mail at gdevin@buffalo.edu and request a copy.
15. VITAE
General
Q: Where can I find a sample vitae format to assist me in preparing mine?
A: Please see the Curriculum Vitae template and sample Vitae on APT's dossier preparation webpage.
Q: Where do I get feedback on my Vitae before coming up for review?
A: From your unit head, members of APT, or senior faculty colleagues.
Q: Do I cite the information on the Vitae twice if a project results in a publication?
A: Generally, no, list the project in only one place. However, do include an explanatory note if the publication is the result of a collaborative project. (However, if you received a grant and then published an article, list both.)
Education
Q: Which do I list first, the MLS or the second master’s degree?
A: List highest degree first. For multiple degrees of the same level, use reverse chronological order, i.e., most recent first.
Q: Where does one put advanced certificates? Under Education or Certification?
A: Advanced certificates from academic institutions should go under Education. All other types of advanced certificates should go under Certification.
Employment History
Q: How far back should one list previous employment?
A: List all relevant working experience, e.g. customer service, records management, inventory control. Summarize briefly experience in other areas if needed to explain a time gap.
Teaching
Q: How do librarians consider teaching in the Vitae when the classes go beyond guest lectures? Examples include creating and grading assignments, or preparation of webpages for the classes.
A: If teaching is part of your job description, it is necessary to elaborate as much as needed. If teaching is NOT part of your job duties, place under Teaching in the Vitae. Materials prepared for teaching activities, such as examples cited above, should be included in the Supplemental Materials.
Q: Where on the Vitae does one document former teaching experience when hired as a teacher, under Employment History or Teaching?
A: If the employment was full-time, place it under Employment History. If part-time, place it under Teaching.
Q: Where on the Vitae does one cite projects where the librarian collaborated with teaching faculty?
A: It depends on the nature of the activity. Co-teaching a credit-bearing course would be noted in the Teaching section. Co-authoring and co-administering a grant would be noted in either Publications or Grants, respectively. The Research Statement should explain the candidate’s role as well as describe an “in progress” projects.
Publications
Q: How do joint authors document levels of collaboration?
A: Indicate the amount of collaborative contribution in your Research Statement (and not in your Vitae as previously stated in the Vitae Template and Sample).
Q: What are the differences between book reviews considered as professional participation and those considered as scholarly?
A: To be considered scholarly, a book or media review should be a review essay that not only critically evaluates the materials but also places it in the context of the relevant literature. Shorter reviews (i.e. Library Journal type book reviews) that do not meet this standard are appropriately considered under professional contributions.
Q: What are some tips for getting published in peer-reviewed publications?
A: Locate appropriate journals for your subject specialty, and carefully examine the articles they publish for structure and formatting. The Libraries subscribe to InPrint from ACRL, an online tool that provides information about journals for potential authors (use the catalog for access as this product requires a password). Users can group by sub-topic, acceptance rate, and other useful attributes. Contact editors ahead of time to find out what type of articles they are interested in publishing – pitch your topic. It is often necessary to rework submissions in order to fit a particular style or format. Talk to colleagues about your idea and get as much feedback as possible through all phases of the writing process.
Presentations
Q: Can I consider a presentation at a national, regional, or local conference a scholarly accomplishment comparable to a refereed journal article?
A: No, but they are important to show activity in the profession and for networking for those outside letters. A presentation becomes scholarly accomplishment only after the paper is accepted in a refereed source or becomes part of published proceedings.
Presentations are one way of garnering attention to your work at the local, state and national levels, and it is important to focus on developing a reputation to gain opportunities for committee appointments, offices, and other professional roles.
Q: How does one document the effectiveness of local presentations given outside the University?
A: The unit head or supervisor preparing the dossier should mention the relevance of a local presentation, particularly if they have attended the presentation and can summarize comments from participants. Letters from conveners or participants can be used as supplemental materials.
Professional Contributions
Q: How do you list a conference presentation that is also published in the proceedings (that are refereed)?
A: The presentation is listed under Professional Contributions, and the published paper is listed with the refereed publications.
Grants
Q: How does one cite a section of a grant that he/she prepared when project administrators exclude names?
A: A brief, general description of your portion of the work on a number of grant applications on the Vitae is acceptable. Further explanation could be given in the research statement if necessary.
16. WEB PUBLICATIONS
Q: How should you reflect substantial website creation in the dossier, as opposed to just portions of a larger website?
A: See APT’s document Evaluating Electronic Documents for Dossiers: Guidelines for Unit Heads, Directors, and Candidates. Letters documenting the impact of the website may be necessary. At present, PRB is responding well to the impact of web publications, but rely heavily on letters of evaluation. Of course, a shift in PRB membership could change that at any time.
Q: If a web publication is submitted to a clearinghouse where it is peer-reviewed before being accepted for posting, does the web publication count as scholarly?
A: Yes, and it would be helpful to document the peer review process for the site.
17. PART-TIME FACULTY
Q: Are part-time University Libraries faculty subject to the same review process as full-time faculty?
A: Yes, generally the process is the same, but modified to reflect the non-tenure track status. Part-time faculty follow the same Criteria for Library Faculty Personnel Actions, with Section Two, Contributions to the Libraries and Their Services being the primary basis for evaluation. Part-time faculty are not expected to participate at the same level as full-time faculty with regard to Section Three, Professional Contributions, and Section Four, Scholarly Accomplishment. Service activities as outlined in Section Five, Effectiveness of University and Community Service, may be appropriate since a Service Statement is required for the dossier. In addition to the Service Statement, part-time faculty dossiers should include a vitae, and the dossier preparer must obtain one internal letter of support from a library faculty or professional staff member, a supervisor's letter where appropriate, and a unit head letter. (See APT Standing Rules) The unit faculty meets and votes on the part-time faculty member and the dossier goes to APT for review and vote.
Q: What does a vitae for a part-time faculty member look like? The sample has so many items, most of which would be impossible for a part-timer to achieve.
A: The vitae should follow the format prescribed by APT and reflect the emphasis on Section Two of the Criteria document, Contributions to the Libraries and Their Services. The sample is an exhaustive list of possible items to be included in the vitae and is not intended to be an actual example. Since the peer review is primarily based on job performance, APT would not expect activities in every single category noted.
Q: Do part-time faculty vote on library faculty matters?
A: Part-time faculty vote on policy issues but not personnel issues.
Content provider: Lori Widzinski
Comments: lib-staffweb@buffalo.edu
Last update:
29 June, 2009