Outside reviews will be solicited by the Department Chair. At least three external reviews must be obtained for each candidate. The faculty member is entitled to know how, and by whom, the panel of potential reviewers is to be identified and selected. Every reasonable effort must be made to assure that the external reviewers represent an appropriate subset of peers. A candidate shall have the opportunity to propose names of possible external reviewers and object to the inclusion of other external reviewers, but the final identification of the reviewers remains the responsibility of the Department Chair, who will seek input from the candidate, the candidate’s peers in the department, and members of the Promotion and Tenure committee. The list of reviewers will be supplemented by the Department Chair, the candidate’s peers, and members of the Promotion and Tenure committee so that approximately half of the potential reviewers are nominated by the candidate and approximately half are nominated by others. Criteria for determining appropriateness of reviewers may include, for example, the presence of personal or professional conflict in the relationship between the candidate and a potential reviewer, or if the reviewer does not have the necessary expertise in the candidate’s field. The faculty member also has the right, unless waived, to have a copy of any review received and to append a written response to each copy of the review that is to be used for evaluation purposes.
The candidate shall commence the process of selecting external reviewers by submitting a list of possible reviewers to the Department Chair by March 1st the year prior to submission of the documentation file. The list of possible reviewers should be comprised of peers who reflect the candidate’s appointed responsibilities and discipline. Potential reviewers must hold a rank at or above that to which the candidate aspires, and should hold appointments at institutions that are comparable to the University of Nebraska and appropriate for the faculty member’s appointment. Potential reviewers must not include people with whom there may be a conflict of interest, such as faculty advisors or advisees, or persons with whom the faculty member has worked closely. Potential reviewers may be individuals with whom the candidate has had no relationship, or with whom the candidate is an acquaintance or has served in a professional relationship with the candidate (for example, on a committee of a national or regional organization). It is highly recommended that candidates begin to think about potential appropriate reviewers prior to the year of their promotion and/or tenure review.
A candidate may waive the right to access external reviews and/or the right to know the identity of external reviewers. Such waivers shall not be assumed, implied, or coerced, and must be executed in writing prior to solicitation of outside reviews. The waiver form is available from the Department Chair and is found at http://www.unl.edu/svcaa/documents/waiver_statement.pdf. The scope of the waiver shall be clearly indicated in writing prior to solicitation of external reviews. A copy of any waiver executed by a faculty member shall become a part of the file. Any letter soliciting an external review shall inform the potential reviewer of the extent to which the contents of the review or the identity of the reviewer will be known to the candidate. In soliciting external reviews, the Department expresses its confidence in the professionalism of those whose judgment is sought. External reviewers should be provided with copies of appropriate Promotion and Tenure guidelines when the recommendation letter is requested. Peers and administrators must assess and weigh the content of external reviews within the context in which they were provided, a context that includes the extent to which those reviews are confidential. A review may not, however, be routinely or automatically discounted simply because a candidate chooses not to waive either the right to access the reviews or the right to know the identity of the reviewers.