Professor Salary Incentive Program Office of the Provost 2017-2018

Evaluation: Since promotion to professor…. Yes/No Items Demonstrated sustained, successful teaching Demonstrated sustained, successful service Research Rated on 5-Point Scale Quantity of research Dissemination of research Impact of research Extent of mentoring students

Components of Application

Cover Letter Maximum of 3 pages (12-pt. font) Address components in evaluation Demonstrated sustained, successful teaching Demonstrated sustained, successful service Exceeded departmental criteria in research Quantity of research Dissemination of research Impact of research Extent of mentoring students If necessary, some of these can be addressed in statements included in the supplementary materials section

Research Vita Maximum of 10 pages Categorized by department criteria (to the extent possible) Complete references for period since promotion to full Or choose a window for detailed information (e.g., 8 years) May summarize or highlight important accomplishments prior to that time period. Be sure to use appropriate formatting, delineation of types (e.g., peer-reviewed, other) Highlight items co-authored with students

Matrix/Visual Workload Description Teaching Matrix Service Matrix Document sustained, successful Put within context of departmental criteria Service Matrix Research Matrix List departmental criteria in left-hand column and quantity of accomplishments by year in other columns Numbers should align with the complete references in the vita

Supporting Materials Maximum of 20 pages You don’t have to have any! Just use what you need. Less can be more… Can elaborate on how you’ve met criteria regarding teaching, service, impact, student, mentoring, etc. Can put your productivity within the context of your workload, which may also have included significant teaching, service, etc. Can include extra artifacts of your work (e.g., pictures of art)

Scholarly Artifact Published article Picture of art What else??

Examples Past Recipients on PSIP website Example Research Vita by Criteria (8 Years) Example Workload Description First part of Supporting Materials Example Teaching Matrix Enough detail to indicate that I’ve met departmental expectations for sustained successful Example Service Matrix Example Research Matrix Corresponds to categories on vita

Evaluation Process

Preliminary Steps All materials are submitted digitally to the Office of the Dean on the day of fall commencement (this year December 15).  If necessary, the research artifact can be submitted separately (e.g., a book, a piece of art, an audio CD). Colleges will make electronic materials available to the college committee. The following Monday (this year December 18), Deans will forward to Chris Craig the names of those who have applied, along with the names of the college level personnel committees. The Provost Office ensure names of applicants and reviewers are in electronic evaluation system. During first weeks of spring classes, Provost Office will provide orientation on process to representatives on college and university level committees and administrators.

College-Level Review

Round 1: Forward or Not? Prior to convening the college level meeting, the Dean, in conjunction with the Department Head will answer the yes/no questions (on paper) and be prepared to share this information with the committee. At the first meeting convened by the Dean, the college committee will hear from the Dean the results of his or her eligibility review completed with the department head. In the case of a potential negative decision, evidence is discussed with college committee and a consensus is reached. Anyone who was judged not to meet eligibility criteria after committee review will be notified by Chris Craig who will provide rationale for the decision based on documented annual reports.

Round 2: College Committee Evaluates Research Only completed on applicants judged to have met minimal requirements Quantity, dissemination, impact, student mentoring Each reviewer assigns a rating on scale of 1-5, specifying evidence warranting that rating, and providing comments. Committee members meet to discuss individual ratings. The goal is to ensure variability is appropriate, if there need to be adjustments after group discussion, etc. Committee members enter final ratings for each candidate, along with comments. Committee will report results of deliberations back to Dean in sufficient time for him or her to review ratings and committee comments and add comments if desired. Dean provides an UNRANKED list of the college applicants.

Provost Advisory Committee on Tenure and Promotion Review

Round 3: PACTP Review of Research Productivity Quantity, dissemination, impact, student mentoring (these may vary somewhat across discipline) Each reviewer assigns one of three ratings: (a) award, (b) consider awarding, (c) do not award this year. Committee meets to discuss individual ratings. The goal is to determine whether the level of variability is appropriate, if there need to be adjustments after group discussion, etc. Committee members enter final ratings for each candidate. Committee provides a final list of the applicants, which may be in tiers depending on the number of submissions received at the university level.

Provost and President Make Final Decisions Based on recommendations from PACTP and College Committee’s comments Based on budget allowances Applicants notified of outcome in May and presented to BOG at June meeting Successful applicants’ materials are posted on website by September 1

Process/Timeline

For more information see http://www. missouristate. edu/provost/psip For more information see http://www.missouristate.edu/provost/psip.htm Questions? Comments?