Guidelines for Promotion (Departmentally-Sponsored)

Introduction

This procedure has been established in the context of the devolution of powers from the University of London to its constituent institutions and takes account of the minimum set of provisions required under Ordinance 16 as approved by the Council of the University of London in June 1995. The procedure covers both promotion to Senior Lecturer and conferment of the Titles of Professor and Reader through internal promotion.

The Promotions Committee is the formal School decision-making body which reaches decisions about departmentally-sponsored and self-sponsored promotion proposals. The Promotions Committee's Terms of Reference are available on the Human Resources website:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/promotionAndReviewOfAcademicStaff/PromotionsCommittee.htm

Timing of Promotions

Promotions are considered in the Lent term of each session at an all-day meeting of the Promotions Committee.

Promotions Criteria

Individual claims for promotion will be considered in terms of the School's promotions criteria.

Senior Lecturer

Promotion to Senior Lecturer will normally require evidence of sustained high quality work in scholarly research and publication, recognition of excellence in teaching, and important contributions to departmental administrative and collegial activities.

In assessing this, the relevant criteria for promotion will include:

A national reputation for research and scholarship
Significant contributions in scholarly research, teaching and departmental leadership and administration
A growing body of publications, books and/or peer reviewed articles of good standard
Well-articulated plans for the continuation and development of their research programme
A record of successful applications for peer reviewed external funds to support research and where appropriate, contributions to School Research Centres
Evidence of effective teaching at graduate and undergraduate levels
Successful supervision of PhD students
Contributions to innovations in teaching and learning
Evidence of contributions to major departmental functions - e.g. chairing examination committees, programme directors, coordinating materials for internal and external reviews
Evidence of contributions to School administration - e.g. through membership of School committees.

While published research will be a necessary part of any case for promotion to Senior Lecturer, the Promotions Committee may, exceptionally, consider favourably cases based primarily on teaching and administration where these are particularly strong. The advice of the VCAC should be sought on individual cases.

Reader

A Reader will have established an international reputation through significant contributions to their discipline, and a strong record in teaching, administration, managerial responsibilities in their department and School-wide service.

In assessing this, the relevant criteria for promotion will include:

An international reputation for research and scholarship
A substantial body of high quality publications, books and/or peer reviewed articles
A coherent research programme for the next three to five years
A successful record of securing significant peer-reviewed research funds and where appropriate, contributions to School Research Centres
A record of good teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate level, including, where appropriate, successful supervision of PhD students.
Contributions to innovations in teaching and learning
Contributions to departmental teaching strategy
Mentoring junior staff
Evidence of meaningful contributions to departmental and School administration.

Professor

Candidates for promotion to Professor will have shown internationally recognised academic leadership in research, pedagogical, and entrepreneurial activities, and outstanding contributions to their discipline through publications and other appropriate forms of scholarship. Evidence will also show significant contributions to departmental and School-wide strategic management; considerable engagement in all aspects and at all levels of teaching, and in the mentoring and career development of junior members of staff.

In assessing this, the relevant criteria for promotion will include:

An international reputation and standing in the relevant discipline
Outstanding contributions to the discipline and a substantial body of world class publications
A substantial programme of research for the coming three to five years
Leading scholarly initiatives in the discipline - e.g. editorship of journals, membership of committees of significant research bodies, and government/international advisory committees
A record of successful and innovative teaching at all levels
Contribution to the development and performance of colleagues through coaching, mentoring and peer support
A sustained record of securing substantial peer reviewed research funds to support research activities and where appropriate, contributions to School Research Centres
Other than in exceptional cases, evidence of strategic management capabilities.

In all cases, the Promotions Committee bases its decision on its view of the evidence presented in the following documentation:

A report from the candidate's Head of Department on the candidate's progress in research, teaching and contributions to the Department
A CV presented on the standard template including a statement of planned research
A statement from the candidate on their teaching contribution and related activities
School student survey results
A report from an Internal Reader (a member of the Promotions Committee) on four pieces of work nominated by the candidate.

The promotions process involves external peer review. The Promotions Committee will seek the expert opinion of four external referees (two nominated by the candidate and two nominated by the Department) and three External Experts (nominated by the Department). The Committee may also seek such other evidence as it deems appropriate.

Academic Career Development Scheme

The Promotions Committee expects that all academics and particularly those coming up for promotion will receive constructive advice on career development from senior academic colleagues.

A new Academic Career Development Scheme (formerly known as appraisal) was implemented in the Summer term of the 2006-2007 session. The Academic Career Development Scheme is designed to serve the needs of individual academics and enable Heads of Department to manage staff promotions. The shift in nomenclature from appraisal to career development was deliberate, tipping the balance towards proactive support, mentoring and career guidance for staff throughout their academic careers.

Through the first five years post Major Review, members of staff will have an annual Career Development Meeting (CDM). From five years post Major Review, up to and including the level of Reader, CDMs should take place on a biennial basis (departments are free to continue to hold CDMs on an annual basis if they so wish). For Professors, a CDM will be held every third year.

The VCAC, in conjunction with Human Resources, will keep the Academic Career Development Scheme under review and report annually on its implementation and effectiveness to the Appointments Committee. The Academic Career Development Scheme is available on the Human Resources website:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/promotionAndReviewOfAcademicStaff/
AcademicCareerDevelopmentScheme.htm

New lecturers are also offered a programme of induction activities run by the Teaching and Learning Centre. Further information is available from Dr Liz Barnett, Director, TLC.

Promotion and Part-Time Staff

The Promotions Committee expects that part-time staff will have an academic profile of equivalent quality to that of full-time staff. However, the Committee accepts that the quantity across the range of academic activities will be commensurate with the part-time appointment. The VCAC may be contacted for advice on individual cases.

Non-Professorial Heads of Department: Candidature for Promotion

Where a non-Professorial Head of Department wishes to apply for promotion, he/she should seek the advice of the VCAC. Wherever possible, responsibility for the application should be passed to a Professor within the Department and the application should not be self-sponsored.

Routes to Promotion

The Promotions Committee regards the Senior Lecturer and Reader grades as steps in progress to a Chair, one of which may be, but will not normally be omitted. Heads of Department are asked to emphasise to colleagues that promotion to Senior Lecturer does not imply that proposals for further promotion cannot be considered in future years.

Implementing the Recommendations of the Teaching Task Force

The Teaching Task Force recommended the development of complementary and additional forms of evaluation to improve the evaluation of individual teaching performance. Section 5.2 of the Teaching Task Force report states that '....student responses cannot be the sole means to evaluate teaching, but should be combined with the following: more detailed reports on teaching at Major Review and other stages of the promotion procedure by the relevant Head of Department; more extensive use of teaching observations of staff by TLC (for its own sake and to feed into evaluations), which, in the case of staff applying for promotion, should be done by the relevant Head of Department or by a senior member of the department on his/her behalf...'.

Promotions: Teaching Observations implemented from 2009-2010

From 2009-2010, the Promotions Committee will expect teaching observations to be carried out for all promotion candidates The report on the teaching observation will form part of the documentation for promotion proposals which should be submitted to Human Resources by the deadline published in the promotion and review Timetable.

In all cases, the Promotions Committee reserves the right to approach the candidate's Head of Department to request that any evidence of poor teaching should be addressed.

Head of Department's Role in Promotions Process

Heads of Department are invited to submit any proposals they wish to make for the promotion of members of their Department, to take effect from 1 August in the following academic session. Heads of Department should not feel constrained by financial or other considerations in deciding what proposals to put forward, provided they are satisfied on merit. However, Heads of Department are asked to bear in mind the disappointment which is caused to members of staff for whom promotion proposals are unsuccessful, and are reminded of the convention that there will normally be a two-year gap between the submission of promotion proposals following an unsuccessful promotion attempt. In considering promotion proposals, Heads of Department are asked to pay particular attention to the School's promotions criteria as set out above.

Responsibility for Submission of the Case to the Promotions Committee

Heads of Department are responsible for the submission of all documentation (Head of Department's report, CV including research trajectory, Teaching Contribution Form) concerning departmentally-sponsored promotion proposals to the Promotions Committee via Human Resources. It follows that Heads of Department are expected to take an active role in advising candidates on presentation of their CVs, ensuring that information is set out clearly - particularly in relation to the publication profile, and that there are no omissions.

Submissions should be checked against department held information before being submitted to Human Resources to ensure consistency in the submission as considered by the Department and the submission to the Promotions Committee. In the event that the submission to the Promotions Committee differs from that considered by the Department, the Committee will be able to seek clarification from the Head of Department.

Documentation submitted directly to Human Resources by departmentally-sponsored promotion candidates will not be accepted.

Procedure for Promotions

Departmental responsibility for deciding whether to put an individual forward for promotion lies with the Head of Department and Professors within a department. Individuals are free to propose their own promotion if their Departments do not intend to recommend them (see also the Self-Sponsored Promotion Procedures). Heads of Department should ensure that the decision not to support is conveyed to the member of staff sufficiently in advance of the published deadline for submission of promotion proposals to Human Resources. This is in case the member of staff should elect to proceed under the self-sponsored route.

The documentation for promotion consists of the following elements:
1. Departmental Promotion Proposal Form: completed by the Head of Department indicating the candidate's research and teaching activities and administrative contribution.
2. The CV Template for Promotion (including research trajectory statement): completed by the candidate.
3. The Teaching Contribution Form: completed by the candidate.
4. The Referees for Departmental Promotion Form: completed by the Head of Department giving names and full contact information (including email, telephone and fax) of six outside referees (including two reserves) to be consulted by the Promotions Committee.
5. Three properly-ordered sets of up to four writings which the candidate believes best represent his/her qualities.
6. Three copies of any reviews which have appeared on the candidate's books whether they are favourable or unfavourable.

If, in the period between the Head of Department submitting the departmentally-sponsored promotion proposal and the Promotions Committee considering the case, any new information arises which the Head of Department/candidate wishes to be taken into account by the Promotions Committee the Head of Department/candidate should submit the information to Human Resources.

Head of Department's Report for Promotion

The Promotions Committee expects Heads of Department to frame their reports with the criteria for promotion to Senior Lecturer, Reader and Professor (as relevant) in mind.

Views of the Departmental Professoriate

The Head of Department should have consulted professorial colleagues regarding the candidate and the Head of Department's report should be based on the information submitted to and considered by, the departmental Professoriate. The Head of Department's report should make clear which members of the departmental Professoriate were involved in reaching the decision to recommend the promotion (e.g.Professors on leave, Emeritus Professors). The Promotions Committee does not regard unanimity of the departmental Professoriate as a sine qua non of a successful case but does expect that if there are differing opinions these will be explained in full in the Head of Department's report.

Content of the Head of Department's Report

The Promotions Committee expects Heads of Department to address the following areas in their reports on candidates:

1. An evaluative commentary on the candidate's academic profile, across the range of research, teaching, administration and other professional activities, as evidenced by the curriculum vitae.

2. Research and Publication:
The Head of Department should indicate his/her opinion of the quality of the candidate's research, published outputs, and future trajectory - including, where appropriate, the candidate's success in publishing in the top journals in the field. Heads of Department should indicate any issues where journal lead-times may be a factor affecting the quantity of published output.

The Head of Department should outline the departmental view on the assessment of research quality including, where appropriate:

Prestige publishing outlets which may include the titles of the top journals in the field
The relative weighting, if any, given to articles over books or vice-versa
Whether co-authorship is the norm within the field
Whether a PhD is a sine qua non
A definition of what is regarded as international standing in the candidate's discipline.

The Promotions Committee recognises that variations exist and it will not be seeking to compare approaches across disciplines.

Citation Evidence: the Promotions Committee will accept citation evidence from subject areas where this is an accepted measure of research quality. The availability of such evidence will be taken into account by the Promotions Committee in the promotions process but it will not be a determining factor in promotion.

3. Teaching Quality:
The Head of Department should provide his/her opinion of the candidate's overall teaching profile including:

Volume of teaching: including an indication of the candidate's role on each course and the student numbers, and including personal tutoring, MSc dissertation supervision and PhD supervision.
Breadth of teaching: whether the candidate's teaching is all related to their area of research or whether they are required to teach a broader range of subject matter.
Evidence of teaching performance: feedback from students including responses to the School survey and feedback from colleagues in the Department, the Teaching and Learning Centre.
Involvement in innovation: to include innovation in terms of both curriculum content (e.g. development of new courses or key role in course revision) and delivery methods (e.g. based on evidence of WebCT and other on-line development, as evaluated by the Director of the Centre for Learning Technology, other teaching innovations (e.g. supported by TLC).
Involvement in personal development as a teacher, and/or in the support and development of others: evidence of involvement in training, beyond the "minimum expectations" and/or mentoring, GTA support, involvement in central or departmental staff development as provider rather than participant.

4. Service to the School:
The Head of Department should provide his/her opinion of the candidate's contribution to the work of the School, whether at Departmental level, or in the wider School context, for example, evidence of good "citizenship" through service on departmental/School committees.

5. Career Development:
The Head of Department should confirm that Career Development Meetings (CDMs) have taken place and outline the career development advice provided to the candidate and the Department's expectations for future career progression. Under the School's Academic Career Development Scheme, an annual CDM should take place through the first five years post Major Review.

Writings

The Promotions Committee will consider the quality of writings of promotion candidates. Promotion proposals should be accompanied by three sets of up to four writings which the candidate believes best represent his/her qualities. Three copies of any reviews which have appeared on the candidate's books whether favourable or unfavourable should also be submitted.

Careful consideration should be given to the selection of writings in support of the case. Candidates are asked to explain the rationale for selecting the four writings submitted in support of promotion and how the selected items relate to one another.

Additionality

Where appropriate, the Promotions Committee will expect evidence of 'significant further scholarship' since the last promotion. The following should be noted:

Publications submitted in support of Major Review can be resubmitted for promotion.
Unsuccessful promotion candidates may resubmit any/all publications for the next promotion attempt.
Candidates who have sought promotion successfully will be expected to submit a substantial amount of new work for any further promotion attempt.
Resubmission of publications will not be prohibited but candidates resubmitting material will be required to explain in full what is being resubmitted and why. Resubmission of work without explanation may be a ground for rejection of the case.

The advice of the VCAC may be sought on individual cases.

Further Guidance on Selection of Writings

The Promotions Committee expects to be able to assess a range of candidates' work. Wherever possible, the submission of multiple chapters of the same book as separate works should be avoided.
The expectation is that normally, writings submitted in support of promotion will be published. In exceptional cases candidates may submit unpublished work provided the work is in a finished form and is accompanied by a note of status in regard to publication.
The Promotions Committee recognises that co-authorship is the norm for some disciplines and where this is the case, jointly authored work will be considered of equal standing. However, the Committee has found statements concerning joint authored work to be somewhat ambiguous. In some disciplines it is now commonplace to record contributions to joint work in percentage terms. Candidates are required to provide a numerical indication in percentage terms of their contribution(s) to joint work on the CV, alongside the requirement to state the respective contribution(s) of co-authors in regard to the initiation, conduct and direction of the work. Where a co-author was the doctoral supervisor or is nominated as an external referee, this should be indicated. Contact details for all co-authors should be listed in case the Promotions Committee should wish to verify any aspect.
The expectation is that normally, publications submitted in support of promotion will be written in English. In cases where a publication(s) submitted for promotion is not written in English, the Department is responsible for providing a summary in English, summarising the output and outlining the research methodologies used. The Department should also suggest the name(s) of external experts able to read the work in the original language. Departments are asked to give the Promotions Committee early notification of this situation.

Status of Work Cited on the CV

Candidates are asked to state clearly on the CV the stage work has reached - e.g. whether work submitted for publication has finally been accepted, conditionally accepted, or submitted. Evidence of acceptance (whether final or conditional) will be required in all cases - i.e. for all work on the CV not just the four submitted pieces.

The Promotions Committee may call for additional writings and reserves the right to ask candidates to provide copies of any work on the CV. All work cited on the CV - e.g. working papers - should be available in physical form should the Committee request to see additional pieces.

The (ink) signatures of the candidate and Head of Department on the CV are required as confirmation that the information provided is accurate. A hard copy of the CV should be submitted to Human Resources.

Presentation of Writings

Particular attention should be paid to ensuring that,

Writings are properly-ordered and clearly identified for the ease of readers.
Wherever possible, submitted writings should be photocopies of originals.
Large manuscripts should be drilled and treasury-tagged and not submitted loose-leaf.
Where available, writings should be submitted in electronic form as well as in hard copy.

All submitted writings will be read by a member of the Promotions Committee from a related department or discipline (or a member of the Appointments Committee) known as the Internal Reader and one of the two External Experts appointed to report on the promotion case. All readers are required to submit a short written review of the writings to the Promotions Committee. Their views serve as a basis for discussion by the Promotions Committee and their identity will not be revealed to the candidates. In some cases, other members of the Promotions Committee may read some or all of the writings (see also the role of Promotions Committee Monitors).

Referees for Promotion

Heads of Department are required to provide the names of six external referees (including two reserves) for each promotion proposal: three referees (including one reserve) should be nominated by the Department; three referees (including one reserve) should be nominated by the candidate. In all cases, the Promotions Committee takes the final decision about which referees to consult and is not bound to accept referee nominations proposed by Departments.

Criteria for selection of referees:

At least one referee should be employed at a good quality university in the UK.
At least one referee should be employed at a good quality university overseas.
Referees will normally be expected to have full Professorial status. Heads of Department should provide written justification in any case where a referee does not hold the title of Professor.
The nomination of more than one referee from the same department within the same institution will not, normally, be permitted.
Wherever appropriate referees should be of international standing.
Referees should not normally have been on the staff of the School in the two previous years, held a visiting appointment at the School in the two previous years or hold a visiting appointment currently.
The naming of referees should not, normally, include people who have collaborated with the candidate on joint work. Heads of Department should seek the advice of the VCAC for disciplines where joint authorship is the norm and where collaborators may be best placed to act as referees.
The naming of eminent scholars as referees, who are unlikely to be familiar with a candidate's work, or who may not be able to provide anything other than very general comments, should be avoided. The Promotions Committee expects that referees will have a detailed professional acquaintance with candidates' academic work and be able to comment upon it in some detail.
There may be different aspects of a candidate's work to be assessed and referees should be nominated with this in mind and with an indication where appropriate of which aspect(s) a referee is being asked to comment on.

Heads of Department will be expected to provide written justification in any case where it is felt the above requirements cannot be met. The VCAC should be approached for advice on individual cases.

Grading Criteria

Referees are asked to apply the grading criteria agreed by the Promotions Committee using the grading scale A-D where,

A - Excellent case
B - Good case
C - Borderline case - merits full discussion in Committee
D - Case looks inadequate - merits full discussion in Committee.

Confidentiality: Referees are advised that an integral part of the School's procedures is peer review of promotion proposals by independent outside experts appointed by the Promotions Committee on the basis of specialism within the discipline and involved in the promotions procedure from the outset. As part of its usual procedure the School sends copies of references to External Experts. Otherwise, references are confidential to the Promotions Committee and are used solely for the purposes of the promotions process. However, in circumstances such as a grievance, legal proceedings or a valid subject access request under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 references may have to be disclosed to a third party. The views of referees are not disclosed to promotion candidates or to Heads of Department. In the interests of fairness, the Promotions Committee will not accept comments, either written or verbal from third parties: third parties being those from whom comments had not been formally solicited.

Role of Departmental Assessors and External Experts in the Promotions Process

The views of three outside experts are sought on each promotion proposal. Nominations of Departmental Assessors and External Experts will normally be drawn from departmental lists of External Experts.

The respective roles of the Departmental Assessor and External Experts are outlined below:

Departmental Assessor: is a person of high seniority and eminence within the particular discipline with an overview of the subject sufficient to enable him/her to assess all candidates for promotion from the department irrespective of specialism. The Departmental Assessor receives the promotion papers for all promotion candidates put forward by the department. It is not a requirement that the Departmental Assessor reviews candidates' writings although writings are available to Assessors on request.
External Experts: the Promotions Committee allocates two External Experts to each promotion proposal. Names are drawn from departmental lists of External Experts and are allocated on the basis of specialism within the discipline:
o External Expert 1 will be asked to assess the case for promotion on the basis of the candidate's promotion papers (promotion proposal form, CV, and references) and will also be asked to review the four writings submitted by the candidate in support of promotion.
o External Expert 2 will be asked to assess the case for promotion on the basis of the candidate's promotion papers (promotion proposal form, CV and references). It is not a requirement that External Expert 2 reviews the candidate's writings although writings are available to the Expert on request.

The role of the External Expert is distinct from that of a referee. Whereas a referee may be expected to concentrate on the candidate's major achievements, External Experts are asked to provide an independent and objective evaluation of the candidate's work as a whole, indicate his/her national and international standing in the specialist field of the discipline and comment on whether or not it would be regarded by other distinguished specialists in the field as anomalous if the candidate was promoted to the level proposed. Departmental Assessors and External Experts are asked to comment specifically on the candidate's planned research as set out in the research trajectory statement.

Criteria

External Experts should normally be confined to those of professorial status including, where appropriate, scholars from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, who may not hold the title of Professor.
External Experts should not have been on the staff of the School in the previous two years, or currently be a Centennial Professor, or currently hold any Visiting Appointments with the School.
The Promotions Committee encourages nomination of External Experts from distinguished overseas institutions for disciplines where international peer review procedures are an important aspect.

The Promotions Committee invites Heads of Department to review External Experts' lists on an annual basis, prior to the commencement of the next promotion round. External Expert lists are approved at Promotions Committee's first meeting of each session.

Duration of Appointment

Departmental Assessors: The Promotions Committee has agreed that, on the ground of continuity, the maximum period of appointment for Departmental Assessors shall normally be ten years - i.e. two, five-year terms.
External Experts: are appointed without term, on the basis that they may be asked to act in the capacity of External Expert by the Promotions Committee should a proposal fall within their area of expertise.

Nomination of External Experts for Promotion Cases

Heads of Department are asked to provide External Expert nominations on the departmental promotion proposal form. Four names are required in total (including two reserves).

In the selection of External Experts for individual promotion cases, Heads of Department should note in particular:

That an External Expert may not also be nominated as a referee for the same promotion proposal.
That, normally, a candidate's PhD supervisor may not be nominated to act as an External Expert (but may be nominated as a referee if appropriate). Heads of Department should seek the advice of the VCAC in exceptional cases.

The Promotions Committee takes the final decision about which External Experts to consult.

Grading Criteria

Departmental Assessors/External Experts are asked to apply the grading criteria agreed by the Promotions Committee using the grading scale A-D where,

A - Excellent case
B - Good case
C - Borderline case - merits full discussion in Committee
D - Case looks inadequate - merits full discussion in Committee.

Confidentiality: Departmental Assessors and External Experts are advised that any report(s) provided in connection with the promotions process will be confidential to the Promotions Committee and will be used solely for the purposes of the promotions process. However, in circumstances such as a grievance, legal proceedings or a valid subject access request under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 reports may have to be disclosed to a third party. The views of External Experts are not disclosed to promotion candidates or to Heads of Department. In the interests of fairness, the Promotions Committee will not accept comments, either written or verbal from third parties: third parties being those from whom comments had not been formally solicited.

Consideration of Promotion Proposals

Promotion proposals are considered solely on merit by the Promotions Committee. The Promotions Committee gives pre-eminent consideration to academic merit as shown by the candidate's research, scholarship and teaching. The part played by the candidate in the general life of the Department and the School is also taken into account. Promotions will take account of the School's Policy Statement on Equality and Diversity and will recognise the existence of non-standard and interrupted careers.

There is no limit on the number of occasions on which a candidate may be put forward for promotion. The Promotions Committee does not have before it information about any previous unsuccessful promotion proposals.

Consideration of promotion proposals is essentially a documentary process based on evaluation of written reports and materials. There is no entitlement to interview although in exceptional circumstances the Promotions Committee may invite a Head of Department to attend- if, for example, there is a need for factual clarification in regard to a particular case.

Promotions Committee members will have before them a full set of papers relating to each candidate, comprising:

Promotion Proposal Form.
Candidate's CV (including the research trajectory statement of planned research through the five years post promotion).
Teaching Contribution Form.
School student survey results.
Reports of four external Referees.
Reports of the Departmental Assessor and two External Experts.
Report of the Internal Reader and comment from the Monitor (Promotions Committee members).

Before reaching a decision in each case the Promotions Committee will take account of the external opinions as expressed by the Departmental Assessor, External Experts and referees, of the internal opinions as expressed in the promotion proposal, and the opinions of the readers assigned to assess the candidate's publications.

Grading Criteria

Internal Readers apply the grading criteria agreed by the Promotions Committee as part of their summative evaluation of cases using the grading scale A-D where,

A - Excellent case
B - Good case
C - Borderline case - merits full discussion in Committee
D - Case looks inadequate - merits full discussion in Committee.

Role of Promotions Committee Monitors

All promotion cases will have one principal Internal Reader with a second member of the Committee appointed to each case in the role of 'Monitor'.

The purpose of the monitoring role will be to ensure equity of treatment in the consideration of cases. The Monitor will be provided with a copy of the candidate's promotion papers (Head of Department's report, CV (including research trajectory statement), Teaching Contribution Form and School survey results, reports of external referees, Departmental Assessor and External Experts, and the report of the Internal Reader). The Monitor will not read the candidate's four submitted pieces as a matter of routine although copies of writings will be provided on request.

The Monitor will provide a brief comment on the case either reinforcing the view of the Internal Reader or in the case of a promotion proposal deemed to be borderline, clarifying and summarising the key issues for discussion in Committee. Close reading of all cases by the appointed Internal Reader will continue as now.

Notification of Decisions

Decisions of the Promotions Committee remain confidential until staff have been notified in writing of the outcome. Letters under the Director's signature formally offering the successful candidates appointment to their new grade from the following 1 August, will issue as soon as possible following the conclusion of the meeting, copied to Heads of Department.

The names of successful promotion candidates are reported to the Appointments Committee and to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of London.

Promoted staff are free to seek further promotion in the next promotions round.

Promoted Staff: Review of Salary Position

Promotion to Senior Lecturer and Reader
Members of academic staff promoted to Senior Lecturer and Reader are rewarded with two additional increments from the following 1 August.

Promotion to Reader: Enhanced Sabbatical Entitlement
An individual who was in post before 1 October 1988 and is promoted to a Readership receives an enhanced entitlement to sabbatical leave of one term's leave on promotion. The timing of the sabbatical will be determined in discussion with the Head of Department.

Promotion to Professor
The Professorial and Senior Managers Committee (a Sub-Committee of the Remuneration Committee) will be responsible for considering and determining the salaries of new Professors. Newly promoted Professors will normally start at Step 51 of the Professorial salary scale, Band 10. The salaries of all Professors are considered every year. The first opportunity for a full salary review will therefore take place at the end of the first year following promotion. Further information on procedures is available from the HR Director.

Unsuccessful Promotion Claims

Unsuccessful candidates will be sent a personal letter setting out the reasons for the Promotions Committee's decision. Unsuccessful candidates may seek a meeting with the Director in his capacity as Chair of the Promotions Committee for the consideration of Promotion proposals and the VCAC, to discuss the accuracy of the information, or the next steps the Committee has agreed are necessary. There is no right of appeal against the decision of the Promotions Committee.

The candidate's Head of Department will also be informed of the reasons for the Committee's decision.

The convention is that normally, there should be a two-year gap between submission of promotion proposals following an unsuccessful promotion attempt. In exceptional cases, the Promotions Committee may agree that a case may come before it again in the next promotion round without waiting for two years to elapse.

Joint Appointments

One of procedures A and B below will be adopted in cases of staff attached jointly to departments, or department/institute, or department/centre.

Procedure A
In the case of a 50/50 appointment, the candidate may choose in which department to proceed for promotion. If he/she does not have the support of the chosen department, the candidate may choose whether to proceed in the second department, or to proceed under the self-sponsored promotion route. The Departmental Assessor and External Experts will, in all cases, be those of the candidate's chosen department. In all cases, a statement will be taken from the Head of Department/Director of both the departments/institute/centre in which the candidate works.

Candidates choosing to submit an application under procedure A are advised to seek the advice of the VCAC.

Procedure B
In the case of an appointment shared unequally between departments/institute/centre, e.g. on a 70/30 basis, the promotion proposal should be submitted through the "lead department", with, either an agreed statement from the Head of Department/Director of both departments/institute/centre as to where the candidate is to be sited, or with separate statements taken from the Head of Department/Director of both departments/institute/centre.

In all cases, the Promotions Committee will retain the ultimate discretion as to where the candidate is to be placed. If their choice differs from the choice as submitted, the papers must be sent to the Departmental Assessor and External Experts from the department chosen by the Promotions Committee. Normally this will be done in time for the last meeting of the Promotions Committee in that academic year. If this proves impossible, a special meeting of the Promotions Committee can be convened.

Alternatively, the Promotions Committee can advise that the case should be re-submitted in the next annual promotion round by the second department.

General

These Guidelines are subject to periodic review and may be amended or updated as the School considers necessary.