Scholarship
Typical characterizations of four levels of performance in scholarship are provided in Table 5. Such evaluation levels will attract consideration for an excellence award, but do not guarantee an actual award. It is also not guaranteed that the performance evaluations of all Faculty will meet or exceed the lowest level displayed. For each level, the listed characterizations are meant to convey a clear sense of standards; they not meant to be an exhaustive list or a mandatory check-list. It is recognized that individual cases can bring accomplishments in areas that can’t be listed ahead of time. Likewise, individual cases can sometimes display exceptionally high levels of accomplishment in some matters that outweigh lesser accomplishments in other matters. As footnotes to Table 5 (see next page), characterizations are given for the key terms: publications, grants, proposals, and recognition to indicate in more depth the standards that are intended.
The Department particularly values a publishing record, of both quality and quantity, in refereed journals, as well as significant extramural funding of a Faculty’s scholarly program. All Faculty members in the Department are expected to produce records of scholarship that reflect their disciplinary focus and the attributes of an individual Faculty member’s scholarly activity will vary across sub-areas. Accomplishments of new Faculty toward their research goals will be considered.
Table 5. Characterizations of Performance Levels for Evaluations of Scholarship for Faculty Excellence
|
Performance Level |
Typical Indicators |
|
Excellent |
Strong record of publications1 and grant2 support, invited Natn/Intn conference presentations, significant external academic recognition3. |
|
Very Good |
Good record of publications and grant support, external grant proposals4, some Natn/Intn conference presentations, some external recognition. |
|
Good |
Adequate publication record, no grant support but adequate external proposals, some external presentations. |
|
Fair |
Limited publication record or meeting presentations, no grant support, inadequate or no external proposals. |
Note: definitions in footnotes below refer to the meaning of “publications,” “grants,” and “recognition”, and “proposals” throughout Table 5.
[1] Publications include: papers published in peer-reviewed journals, books and book chapters published with editorial standards that include peer-review, and patents granted. Quality of the journal or publishing house will weigh into the evaluation. Papers of exceptional impact, quality, and those appearing in a major review journal are given particular consideration.
2 Grants refers to extramural funding of a physics project that significantly reflects the Faculty’s role, typically at a co-principal investigator level, with the funds providing comprehensive support for the Faculty’s role in the project. Ingredients that will be weighed include graduate student support, postdoctoral support, travel, Faculty summer salary, research instrumentation, and potential for renewal.
3 Recognitions include citations of peer-reviewed publications; invited or keynote presentations at international/national conferences; awards, prizes and honors; election to office in academic/professional societies; membership of editorial boards; membership on advisory or program committees of national/international conferences or review panels of federal funding agencies, etc.
4Proposals refer to principal investigator (or co-principal investigator) of one or more proposals submitted for grants to support a Faculty’s research and scholarship. Weighting will depend on the number and potential of the grant proposals. Higher weight is given to external proposals that request stipend support for dissertation students carrying out part of the program.