1. Professor Salary Incentive Program
Office of the Provost

2. 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

3. Components of Application

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. Scholarly Artifact
Published article
Picture of art
What else??

9. 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

10. Evaluation Process

11. 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.

12. College-Level Review

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. Provost Advisory Committee on Tenure and Promotion Review

16. 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.

17. 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

18. Process/Timeline

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