Guidelines for Major Review

Introduction

The School believes strongly in developing the potential of those lecturers whom it has recruited. The School recognises that individuals will be appointed who are at different stages of their academic careers and considers that a process of structured review is beneficial to both lecturers and the School.

A review process operates for lecturers new to the School which divides into two stages described as Interim Review and Major Review. These are designed to reflect key stages in career development. The purpose of Interim Review and Major Review is to provide the opportunity for detailed and careful consideration of progress.

A lecturer without a proven track record regarding either teaching or research can expect to be appointed subject to Interim Review and Major Review. For lecturers who pass Interim Review and proceed to Major Review the Promotions Committee will consider the lecturer's contribution in its entirety, taking into account progress made since he/she passed Interim Review. Interim Review may be waived and a lecturer appointed subject to Major Review only where there is an established record of teaching and research but the period is less than five years. For lecturers appointed subject to Major Review only, the Promotions Committee will consider the lecturer's progress since his/her appointment at the School.

The Promotions Committee is the formal School decision-making body which reaches decisions about success at Major Review. The Promotions Committee's Terms of Reference are available on the Human Resources website:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/promotionAndReviewOfAcademicStaff/PromotionsCommittee.htm

Aim of Major Review

The Promotions Committee conducts a Major Review when the lecturer is to be considered for appointment in principle to the normal contractual retirement age. The procedure is designed to evaluate the extent of the lecturer's success and promise in research and scholarship, his/her academic merit and professional standing generally, the extent of his/her commitment and success in teaching, and the extent to which he/she has made a contribution to the work of the School. Under Promotions Committee's procedures, there is no self-sponsored procedure for Major Review.

Criteria for Major Review

The Major Review is one of the most significant stages in an individual's career at the School. The Promotions Committee conducts a Major Review when a lecturer is to be considered for appointment in principle to the normal contractual retirement age.

For those who passed the Interim Review of the School in the third year of their appointment, the Promotions Committee will normally expect significant further progress since the time of Interim Review - for example, an upward trajectory in terms of research and publications, continued high quality teaching and pedagogical innovation, and evidence of collegiality and service to the School.

In cases where Interim and Major Review are coterminous or where Interim Review was waived at appointment, the Promotions Committee will focus on performance in research, teaching and departmental administration since appointment.

Criteria for Major Review

Evidence of a sustained research programme and peer-reviewed publications of good quality
Evidence of a coherent and feasible three to five year plan of future research and publications
Evidence of quality teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate levels
Evidence of constructive contributions to departmental administration and School service
A developing reputation in the subject
Where appropriate, securing external funds to support research and contributions to School Research Centres.

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 Major Review involves external peer review. The Promotions Committee will seek the expert opinion of four external referees nominated by the Department. The Committee may also seek such other evidence as it deems appropriate.

Academic Career Development Scheme and Mentoring

The Promotions Committee expects that all academics and particularly those coming up for promotion or review will receive constructive advice on career development from senior academic colleagues. Lecturers who are appointed subject to a Major Review can expect to receive advice and support from senior members of their departments.

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, enable Heads of Department to manage staff promotions and reviews, and in that context, to flag at an early stage, any issues of concern to the Promotions Committee. 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.

Members of academic staff pre-Major Review and through the first five years post-Major Review, will have an annual Career Development Meeting (CDM).

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. Where the VCAC is concerned about a particular academic's progress towards Interim/Major Review, the Career Development Reports (CDRs) may be presented to the Promotions Committee. The Promotions Committee may then advise the VCAC to discuss with the Head of Department the steps that should be taken to ensure successful progress towards Interim/Major Review. It is assumed that this would be infrequent and would only be initiated in the interests of the academic in question. This should be seen in the context of the School's commitment to ensure that all academic staff receive the best possible advice in relation to career development. The Academic Career Development Scheme is available on the Human Resources website:
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/promotionAndReviewOfAcademicStaff/
AcademicCareerDevelopmentScheme.htm

For lecturers pre-Major Review the role of the Mentor as set out in the Mentoring Guidelines for Newly Appointed Academic Staff is considered to be of vital significance in supporting career development. Lecturers will be assigned a departmental Mentor by their Head of Department. The Mentor assumes responsibility for undertaking regular reviews of the lecturer's progress towards a successful Major Review. The lecturer should expect that his/her Mentor will liaise on a regular basis with the lecturer's Head of Department. Between them, the lecturer's Mentor and the Head of Department share responsibility for supporting the lecturer towards his/her Major Review. Lecturers who encounter difficulties in the mentoring relationship are advised to discuss the situation with their Head of Department in the first instance to explore whether a change of Mentor is necessary.

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.

Major Review 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.

Administrative workload pre-Major Review

The Promotions Committee's expectation is that, normally, members of staff pre-Major Review should not be asked to carry heavy administrative workloads.

Timing of Major Review

For lecturers appointed subject to Interim Review and Major Review, Major Review will normally take place in the February of the fifth year of appointment. For lecturers appointed subject to Major Review only, Major Review will normally take place in the early part of the Lent term (end of January/beginning of February) of the third year of appointment. There is scope for the Major Review to be held either earlier or later than this if circumstances warrant the advancement/deferral of Major Review (further information about the procedures to follow for advancement/deferral is provided below).

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...'.

Major Reviews: Teaching Observations implemented from 2008-2009

In accordance with the above, the VCAC has agreed that teaching observations for all Major Review candidates should be implemented from next session, 2008-2009. For reasons of timing, this will mean that a teaching observation should take place before the Promotions Committee meeting to consider Major Reviews (4 February 2009). The deadline for submission of additional information on the teaching observation will be 12 January 2009. The Head of Department will be responsible for submitting this information to Human Resources. Further guidance will be provided on this aspect in early September 2008 (see also Major Review Teaching Prizes below).

From 2009-2010, the report on the teaching observation will form part of the documentation for Major Reviews which should be submitted to Human Resources by the deadline published in the promotion and review Timetable.

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 to be 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 Major Review

Heads of Department are asked to give as much information as possible to Major Review candidates about the timetable and the procedures to be followed, and to emphasise that the Major Review is not a competitive exercise but an assessment of whether an individual meets the standards set by the School for appointment to, in principle, retirement age.

In all but the most exceptional cases, Heads of Department are expected to be sufficiently au fait with the work of their junior colleagues that they are able to defend Major Review candidates if called upon to do so by the Promotions Committee.

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 Major Review 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 candidates will not be accepted.

Procedure for Major Review

The basic format of Major Review is that a recommendation from the lecturer's Head of Department about whether the lecturer should pass Major Review is made to the Promotions Committee, which then makes the decision. The lecturer's Head of Department will also decide on recommendations for advancement/deferral of Major Review. In reaching any recommendation, the lecturer's Head of Department will consult his/her professorial colleagues for their views, and, in addition, at his/her discretion, with non-professorial colleagues.

The detailed procedure for Major Review comprises the following stages:

1. Members of staff who are to be the subject of a Major Review will receive a letter from Human Resources prior to the academic session in which the Major Review is expected to take place reminding them of the forthcoming Major Review and enclosing a copy of these guidelines. Lecturers will also be informed where the documentation for Major Review can be located on the Human Resources website and in Public Folders. Human Resources will also send each lecturer subject to Major Review School student survey results for the preceding two academic sessions. The questionnaire results are also sent to the Head of Department. The teaching data is provided to enable candidates to comment on their scores on the Teaching Contribution Form and Heads of Department to refer to candidates' teaching performance in their recommendations (see also Teaching Prizes at Major Review).

2. The lecturer has the opportunity to submit to his/her Head of Department any information that he/she considers relevant, or to ask for deferral of the Major Review if he/she so desires.

3. The practice for submitting information varies between departments: the Head of Department will offer the opportunity of a discussion meeting with the lecturer and/or the lecturer will be given the opportunity to submit a written statement about his/her work which the Head of Department will use in preparation of his/her report to the Promotions Committee. The Head of Department should give the lecturer a reasonable period of notice in either case.

4. The documentation for Major Review consists of the following elements:

1. Major Review Form: completed by the Head of Department indicating the candidate's research and teaching activities and administrative contribution.
2. The CV Template for Major Review: completed by the candidate.
3. The Teaching Contribution Form: completed by the candidate.
4. The Referees for Major Review Form: completed by the Head of Department giving names and full contact information (including email, telephone and fax) of five outside referees (including one reserve) 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).

5. If, after appropriate consultations with colleagues and consideration of the information provided by the lecturer subject to Major Review, the Head of Department is of the view that the individual should pass Major Review, the Head of Department will submit a full report to the Promotions Committee recommending that the individual should pass Major Review. If, however, after such consultation and consideration the Head of Department is of the view that the lecturer's progress is such that the Head of Department cannot recommend that the lecturer should pass Major Review, the Head of Department will submit a full report to the Promotions Committee setting out the reasons and reporting the lecturer's progress and activities in research and publication, teaching, and service to the School.

6. If, in the period between the Head of Department submitting the Major Review recommendation and the Promotions Committee considering the case, any new information arises which the candidate/Head of Department wishes to be taken into account by the Promotions Committee the candidate/Head of Department should submit the information to Human Resources.

7. In considering Major Reviews, Promotions Committee members will have before them a full set of papers relating to each candidate, comprising:

The Major Review Form
The candidate's CV on the CV template
The Teaching Contribution Form
School student survey results
Reports of four external referees
Report of the Internal Reader and comment from the Monitor (Promotions Committee member).

8. The Promotions Committee will consider each recommendation individually and then reach a decision whether the lecturer should pass his/her Major Review.

It should be noted that the Promotions Committee is in no way bound to follow the recommendation of the Head of Department. It is a basic School principle that Major Review recommendations are subject to assessment and evaluation by Professors from other departments. It is open to the Promotions Committee either to endorse the recommendation, to reject it, or to defer the lecturer's Major Review. This latter step will be taken only where the Promotions Committee considers that either the School or the lecturer, or both, would benefit from the Promotions Committee having the possibility to consider the lecturer's position again after the deferral (and so offering scope, where relevant, for any material coming into being during the period of the deferral to be considered by the Promotions Committee). The Promotions Committee may ask the VCAC to maintain a watching brief on progress.

More detailed information about particular aspects of the Major Review procedure is set out below.

Head of Department's Report for Major Review

The Promotions Committee views the Major Review as one of the most important decisions for the School. The evidence in the Head of Department's report is of particular weight. The Promotions Committee would expect that should the Head of Department have any serious concerns regarding the lecturer's prospects for a successful Major Review, the Head of Department would have sought the advice of the VCAC at a much earlier stage.

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 involving in reaching the decision to recommend that the lecturer should pass Major Review (e.g. Professors on leave, Emeritus Professors). If there are differing opinions these should be explained in full in the Major Review 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.

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.
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 Centre for Learning Technology and Teaching and Learning Centre.
Other matters: any issues relating to variability of teaching scores or any other matters in the School survey data which may need explanation/interpretation.

Heads of Department may wish to refer to evidence provided on candidates' Teaching Contribution Forms. The Promotions Committee will also have before it School student survey results for the two previous sessions. (see also below for information on Teaching Prizes at Major Review).

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 Meeting(s) (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, members of academic staff pre-Major Review and through the first five years post-Major Review, will have an annual Career Development Meeting (CDM).

Teaching Prizes at Major Review

The School operates a scheme for annual award of Teaching Prizes to successful Major Review candidates who have shown exceptional flair and effectiveness as teachers. Eligibility for consideration under the Major Review Teaching Prize Scheme is by recommendation from the candidate's Head of Department. Prizes take the form of one additional recurrent increment.

Individuals wishing to be nominated by their Head of Department for a Major Review Teaching Prize are strongly recommended to seek the advice of Dr Liz Barnett, Director, TLC, on the presentation of their case, alongside discussing their case with their Head of Department. Whilst the Teaching Prize scheme does permit Heads of Department to submit Teaching Prize nominations confidentially, it would normally be expected that nominations would be made with the knowledge of the member of staff.

Major Reviews: Teaching Observations implemented from 2008-2009

The VCAC has agreed that teaching observations for all Major Review candidates should be implemented from next session, 2008-2009, in accordance with the recommendations of the Teaching Task Force. The Teaching Prize Group will take into account additional information from the teaching observation in considering the award of Major Review Teaching Prizes. (see also Implementing the Recommendations of the Teaching Task Force above).

Criteria for Head of Department's Nomination: Heads of Department wishing to put forward a member of staff for a Major Review Teaching Prize are required to address the following in the nomination:

The candidate's visible contribution to teaching matters - including departmental contribution and wider school contribution e.g. course development and review, staff development, key teaching administration duties carried out to high standard, service on relevant committees.
Volume of teaching and teaching related activity in relation to colleagues within the department.
The level of difficulty of subject matter being taught.
Whether feedback on teaching performance is positive.
How the candidate deals with feedback. If problems have been identified how have these been dealt with.
Any other matters that may need explanation/interpretation in the School student survey results. If the Department has more than one Major Review candidate, the Head of Department should indicate those aspects which differentiate performance and rank the selected candidate ahead of others.

Nominations will be considered by the Teaching Prize Group comprising:

Professor Janet Hartley, Pro Director, Teaching and Learning
Dr Liz Barnett, Director, Teaching and Learning Centre
Stephen Ryan - Director, Centre for Learning Technology
Professor George Gaskell, Pro Director, Planning and Resources

In addition to the Head of Department's nomination, the Teaching Prize Group will evaluate the member of staff'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: based on feedback from students including responses to the School survey and feedback from colleagues in the Department and 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" for pre-Major Review staff, and/or mentoring, GTA support, involvement in central or departmental staff development as provider rather than participant.

The Teaching Prize Group proposes award of Teaching Prizes to the Promotions Committee which is formally responsible for their conferment.

Writings

The Promotions Committee will consider the quality of writings of Major Review candidates. Three sets of up to four writings which the candidate believes best represent his/her qualities should be submitted to Human Resources. 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 Major Review and how the selected items relate to one another.

Additionality

Publications submitted in support of Major Review can be resubmitted for promotion.

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 Major Review 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 Major Review will be written in English. In cases where a publication(s) submitted for Major Review 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.

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

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). 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. The identity of the reviewer(s) and the contents of their written reports are not revealed to the candidates. The Promotions Committee may decide that member(s) of the Promotions Committee in addition to the nominated Committee member should read the writings.

Referees for Major Review

Heads of Department are required to provide the names of five external referees (including one reserve) for each candidate for Major Review. The Promotions Committee will seek references from four of the five nominated external referees. 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 regarded as 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.

Referees are asked to comment specifically on the candidate's planned research as set out in the research trajectory statement.

Confidentiality: Referees for Major Review candidates are advised that any reference provided in connection with the Major Review process will be confidential to the Promotions Committee and will be used solely for the purposes of the Major Review process. However, in circumstances such as a grievance, legal proceedings or a valid subject access request under the provisions of the Data Protection Act, references may have to be disclosed to a third party. The views of external referees are not disclosed to Major Review candidates or to Heads of Departments. 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 Major Reviews

At the Major Review stage, the progress of a lecturer will be considered in terms of the elements outlined above (that is, the extent of the individual's success and promise in research and scholarship, his/her academic merit and professional standing generally, the extent of his/her commitment and success in teaching, and the extent to which he/she is making a contribution to the work of the School). Major Review is not a competitive exercise but an assessment of whether an individual should be appointed in principle until retirement age. The Promotions Committee will consider the lecturer's contribution in its entirety, taking into account progress made since he/she passed Interim Review. If the lecturer was appointed subject to Major Review only the Promotions Committee will consider the lecturer's progress since their appointment at the School.

Consideration of Major Reviews is a 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.

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

The Major Review Form
The candidate's CV on the CV template (including the research trajectory statement of planned research through the five years post Major Review)
The Teaching Contribution Form
School student survey results
Reports of four external referees
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 referees, of the internal opinions as expressed in the Head of Department's report and the opinion of the reader 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 Major Review 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 papers for Major Review (Head of Department's report, CV (including research trajectory statement), Teaching Contribution Form and School survey results, reports of external referees, 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 event that the case is 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.

Referral of Major Review Case(s) to a later meeting

Where, in the view of the Internal Reader/Monitor/Committee, a case is deemed to be borderline, (categories 'C' and 'D' under the Promotions Committee grading scale) a decision on the case will be held over from the Major Review meeting to allow for further opinion(s) to be sought/further information to be gathered. Such cases will be marked 'P' - 'provisional decision' - and brought back to a subsequent meeting, normally to the reserve promotions meeting (which this session falls on Friday 27 February 2009). Where this occurs, the candidate and Head of Department will be informed of the adjustment.

The Committee can decide, where appropriate, to seek the opinion of the Departmental Assessor on a Major Review case.

Notification of Decisions

Decisions of the Promotions Committee remain confidential until lecturers have been notified in writing of the outcome. Letters under the Director's signature, copied to Heads of Department, will issue as soon as possible following the conclusion of the meeting.

Successful Major Review
If a majority of the members of the Promotions Committee agree with the Head of Department's recommendation, the lecturer concerned will pass Major Review. The Director and VCAC hold an annual lunch for successful Major Review candidates.

Staff successful at Major Review are free to seek promotion in the next round.

Unsuccessful Major Review
If the Promotions Committee's decision is that the lecturer has not passed Major Review, the lecturer will be informed of this view in writing with an outline summary of reasons by the Chair of the Promotions Committee as soon as possible after the meeting. The lecturer will be advised that he/she has a right, if he/she wishes, to appeal against the decision of the Promotions Committee. Further information about the appeal process is available on request from Human Resources.

Incrementation on Passing Major Review

Staff passing Major Review are rewarded with one additional increment from the following 1 August.

Advancement or Deferral of Major Review

The Promotions Committee is prepared to consider requests for the advancement/deferral of Major Reviews. If a lecturer considers that he/she may wish to have his/her Major Review held earlier or later than the original timescale he/she should discuss the reason(s) with their Head of Department. Requests for advancement/deferral of Major Reviews are considered at the Promotions Committee's first meeting of each session.

Advancement
The Head of Department will consult the lecturer's Mentor and the Professors within the department for their views on whether the lecturer's progress is such that he/she is ready to go forward for Major Review. If, after appropriate consultation(s), the Head of Department is of the opinion that the lecturer's progress is such that he/she may undergo Major Review earlier than originally anticipated, the Head of Department should request that Major Review be advanced. The reasons for the request should be set out by the Head of Department on the Advance Major Review Form and submitted together with the candidate's CV completed on the Major Review CV template for the Promotions Committee's consideration. Requests for advancement of Major Review will normally be submitted in the academic year in which it is proposed that the advanced review should take place.

Deferral
The Promotions Committee is willing to consider deferral of Major Review for either one or two years in appropriate cases. The following are examples of circumstances in which deferral may be agreed:

Family related absence (for example adoption leave, paternity leave etc.)
Extended sickness absence
Personal circumstances which have disrupted the lecturer's duties
Academic leave (for example buyout or secondment)
A change in hours of work (for example a temporary period of part-time working or a permanent reduction in hours).

Maternity leave: will constitute an automatic interruption in progress towards Major Review. Heads of Department are not required to request deferral of Major Review on grounds of maternity leave. The timetable towards Major Review will be extended (pushed back) by one year to take account of time spent on maternity leave unless a member of staff specifically requests that the session date for Major Review should remain as under the original timescale. Following notification that a member of staff will be taking maternity leave, Human Resources will inform the member of staff of the provision for extension and ascertain their wishes regarding the session date for Major Review. Human Resources will inform the candidate's Head of Department of any proposed change to the timing of Major Review. A one-year interruption in progress towards Major Review on grounds of maternity leave will not preclude Heads of Department submitting a request for deferral of Major Review on other grounds in a subsequent year, should that be considered necessary. Any deferral of Major Review on other grounds would require the approval of the Promotions Committee.

The above are merely examples of when deferrals may be agreed should a request be made; there is no presumption that a lecturer will necessarily wish to request deferral in such circumstances. For example, where a lecturer takes up a part-time appointment, the Head of Department's recommendation and decision of the Promotions Committee will have due regard to the lecturer's hours of work. Whether to request deferral is for the lecturer to decide in the first instance, in consultation with his/her Head of Department. The Head of Department will consult the lecturer's mentor and the Professors within the department for their views. A request for deferral and the corresponding decision will not be regarded as reflecting unfavourably on a lecturer's standing.

Deferral of Major Review may also come about in the circumstances set out above where the Promotions Committee considers that either the School or the lecturer, or both, would benefit from the Promotions Committee having the opportunity to consider the lecturer's position again. The Promotions Committee may ask the VCAC to maintain a watching brief on progress.

The reasons for the deferral request should be set out by the Head of Department on the Defer Major Review Form and submitted together with the candidate's CV completed on the Major Review CV template for the Promotions Committee's consideration. Requests for deferral of Major Review will normally be submitted in the academic year in which the review was expected to take place.

Major Review and Promotion in the same session

The Promotions Committee is prepared to consider requests from Heads of Department for a lecturer to undergo Major Review and be proposed for promotion in the same academic session. The two are, in principle, separate processes. If it is necessary for the Head of Department to make a request to advance the Major Review the usual procedures for advancement should be followed.

Candidates must pass Major Review before they can be considered for promotion. Heads of Department are asked to bear this in mind when writing their reports on candidates to ensure that appropriate weight is given to the Major Review recommendation and that discussion of the merits of the case is not restricted solely to the case for promotion (see also the procedures for Major Review and Promotion in the same session).

General

Lecturers will be notified at appropriate times on an individual basis of the position as regards their appointment (for example, on application to defer Major Review; after Major Review).

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