Selecting External Evaluators

 

Evaluator Requirements

Potential evaluators must be "arms-length" from the candidate, which means they must be free of actual or perceived conflicts of interest that would raise questions about the objective nature of their evaluation.

Each potential evaluator must:

• Be established as a major contributor in a field relevant to the candidate’s scholarship and/or creative works with a level of experience and accomplishment that allows for a rigorous review. 
• Hold an academic rank above the candidate (associate or full professor for candidates seeking promotion to associate professor; full professor for candidates seeking promotion to full themselves). 
  • Exceptions will be made only in well-documented cases where there is an insufficient number or lack of range of experts in that field of study at this rank. 
  • Individuals who are not at an academic institution will be considered as long as the chair or committee writes a letter explaining why the individual is appropriate.
• Hold an academic appointment at an institution that is also a member of the AAU and/or is generally considered a peer or aspirational peer of Stony Brook University in that field of study. 
  • Exceptions will be made only based on evidence provided by the Chair/Committee that indicates the referee has established a distinguished career that would place that individual (nationally and internationally) among the top scholars and/or creative artists in their field of study.
• Be at an “arms-length” distance from the candidate. 
  • Arm’s length means the letter writer is sufficiently distanced from the candidate that their evaluation is not, nor is not perceived to be, biased by the nature of the relationship.

Potential evaluators cannot be:

• A family member or past/current romantic partner;
• A direct supervisor or official mentor from any stage of the candidate’s training;
• A direct report or official mentee from any stage of the candidate’s training;
• A co-author or co-editor on any publication, creative work, or grant application at any stage of the candidate’s career. (Exceptions may be considered only if a clear argument can be made that the connection presents no real or perceived conflict of interest.)

Some relationships do not represent a conflict

These kinds of relationships cannot be used to eliminate a potential evaluator from consideration. These include:

• Co-authors on a manuscript with an extremely large number of authors (e.g., position papers from professional organizations and mega-multi-authored research reports) in which there was negligible contact and/or mentoring between the candidate and the potential evaluator;
• Co-presenters at a research symposium, panel, or exhibition;
• Editor/chapter contributor relationship, series editor/volume editor relationship, or authorship on separate chapters in an edited book (co-editorship would be a conflict);
• An editor/board member relationship on a journal editorial board;
• A reviewer/contributor relationship on a creative work.

If an evaluator does not meet these standards

If an evaluator does not meet the standards listed above, the candidate or department may decide to include their letters in the file anyway.

However, these letters do not count as one of the five required letters and should be distinguished from those submissions.

If the candidate is unsure about a conflict, they should consult with their chair or committee. 

If departments/committees struggle to identify appropriate external evaluators, they should request assistance from their dean’s office and the Provost’s Office. 

As a professional courtesy, external referees should be notified about the outcome of the review for which they have provided an evaluation.

 

Selecting Evaluators

Five of the letters must be from evaluators who are sufficiently distanced from the candidate that their evaluation is not, nor is perceived to be, biased by the nature of the relationship. 

The candidate and department/committee each submit a list of 6 potential evaluators.

If the candidate’s list and the department/committee’s list contain the same names, duplicate names should remain on the candidate’s list and the department/committee should select additional names. 

The department/committee may choose how to approach their list of evaluators. They may:

• Solicit letters from everyone on their list at the same time, or
• Solicit letters from their top 3-4 evaluators before sending requests to the rest

The department/committee may request letters before the tenure file is complete to secure the evaluator’s commitment.

Any letter solicited and received must be included in the file. 

Candidates may submit two names of people who should not be contacted. If the candidate would like to include more than two names, they must also provide a written explanation. 

 

Departmental Responsibilities

• If a candidate holds a joint appointment, the primary unit is responsible for the tenure process. The secondary unit(s) should be consulted in selecting evaluators. The units may choose to collaborate in creating the list.
• The unit should develop its list of evaluators without consulting the candidate, beyond respecting their selected evaluators and those on their “do not contact” list. The unit may consult other experts to ensure the unit list is appropriate.
• If a potential evaluator declines participating, the department/committee should be ready to ask the next person on the list. All correspondence with potential external evaluators must be included in the candidate’s file.