External Reviewers Notes
External reviewers need to be:
- From comparable or higher-prestige academic institutions.
- Comparability can be at the institutional level (e.g. R1 or R2 universities), or within the discipline or area of excellence. The chair should explain specifics.
- Especially for NTT ranks, comparability should be relevant to the person’s area of excellence. For example, a community college professor may have a national reputation in an area of pedagogy.
- For clinical and lecturer ranks, up to 2 external reviewers may be from the IU or Purdue systems.
- Reviewers should be from a variety of institutions: if two are from the same institution, they should be from distinctly different units.
- A reviewer may be from outside academia. This should be rare. The chair must make the case for that person being a suitable reviewer, and their expertise relevant to reviewing the
scholarly quality of the candidate’s materials.
- Consider securing letters from non-academic sources and placing them in the Solicited Letters section.
- Persons who are temporarily working outside of academia (e.g. in a governmental institution) but who maintain an adjunct appointment in academic institution may be used.
- At or above the rank being sought:
- For NTT faculty, NTT faculty at comparable ranks may not have the same titles as in the IU system. For example “Teaching Professor” may be used, or “Professor of Practice.” Confirm with the reviewer that they are considered to be at least middle-rank (for senior lecturer or clinical associate) or senior rank (for teaching professor or clinical full) within their own institution. Include a description of this in the chair’s report on reviewers. (For 2021-2024 only, reviewers for teaching professor may be at the associate rank if tenure-track).
- For TT faculty, generally only tenured faculty should be used. If a reviewer is an expert in the candidate's area but is in an NTT position or is at an institution that does not have tenure, the chair should specify why he or she is suitable.
- At arm's length from the candidate.
- Co-authors of articles, books, and similar projects
- Co-PI
- Close editorial relations:
- Candidate editing a book or journal issue and inviting contributions from senior scholars
- Senior scholars editing a book or journal and inviting contributions from candidates
- Mentoring (anything more than very informal)
- Being one’s dissertation director or on one’s dissertation committee
- Examples of relationships that do not (generally) disqualify someone:
- Co-I status on large team projects where there is little interaction and it is at a peer level (not supervisor-supervisee)
- Participating in panels together (conferences etc.); being on organizing committees; being on editorial boards
- Relationships from more than 5 years ago (except dissertation chairs).
Key points for the review process:
- The candidate should not be told who the external reviewers are; they may list people who should not be contacted (they need not provide a reason), and may provide some names. Candidates are NOT responsible for compiling the final list.
- The candidate should not contact external reviewers—but won’t know who they are, so advise candidates simply not to talk about their review with anyone in their field while it is underway.
- If at all possible, secure assurance that the reviewer is at arms length at the time they agree to serve as a reviewer.
- Send the exact same materials to all reviewers; secure confirmation they have received them—right away.
- All letters need to be on letterhead and signed; all have to have the reviewer conflict of interest form.
- Briefly but explicitly explain why each reviewer is suitable to review this candidate and area of excellence; provide brief biographies but do not include CVs.
For questions, contact Willie Miller or Margie Ferguson at ude[dot]ui[at]rhdaca.
Reviewed and revised: 8/2024.