Research Faculty Promotion Guidelines

Purpose

The research faculty promotion guidelines are used for the promotion of research faculty into and within the professorial ranks. These guidelines are intended to encourage professional development of research faculty, recognize excellence in research scholarship, and foster collegiality amongst the faculty of the university. The guidelines outline a predictable administrative process that includes comprehensive peer review similar to the review of promotions for tenured and tenure-track faculty. 

Promotion Process

A. Eligibility for Promotion

Faculty members in the “research professor” series as defined in the faculty handbook (Section 6.1.5) and those in other research ranks seeking promotion in to the research professor series (Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3 and 6.1.4) are eligible for promotion in rank in accordance with these guidelines. 

Non-professorial rank research faculty may be promoted to the research professorial ranks through the research faculty promotion process when the following criteria are met:

1. Credentials must meet the research professorial rank requirement as defined in Section 6.1.5 in the faculty handbook. 
2. Possesses a doctoral degree or terminal degree appropriate to the field and credentials consistent with those for appointment to the rank of research assistant professor; and,
3. Have sources of continued funding and demonstrate outstanding accomplishments in appropriate activities. The curriculum vita together with annual reports, reprints of publications, reference letters, and other similar documents comprise a dossier, which furnishes the principal basis for promotion decisions. Besides consideration of specific professional criteria, evaluation for promotion should consider the candidate’s integrity, professional conduct, and ethics.  Refer to Section III for details of a typical dossier format.

B. Dossier Submission

The supervisor or faculty member may initiate a request for promotion according to departmental procedures. Candidates should submit a dossier to the designated departmental committee by the deadlines established with the unit. Refer to Section III for details of dossier format. Consideration for promotion in rank is separate from the reappointment process.  

C. Promotion Review

Departments should establish a schedule to review all research professorial positions to determine eligibility of promotion.  A review cycle should include a development plan to aid in promotion readiness.  

Academic Department

Research professorial faculty members being considered for promotion will have their dossiers reviewed at as many as three levels: (1) by a departmental committee and the head or chair; (2) by a college committee and the dean; and (3) by the Office Research and Innovation.

Non-Academic Department 

As approved by the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost, a parallel process is used for promotion of a faculty member in the research professor series whose primary appointment is not in an academic department.  Research faculty members being considered for promotion from non-academic units will have their dossiers reviewed at as many as three levels: (1) by a departmental committee and department head/institute director; (2) vice president or senior manager; and (3) by the Office for Research and Innovation.

Requests that are reviewed and approved by the Office of Research and Innovation as a university senior manager level review will be forwarded to the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost for the third level university review. Promotions for regular research faculty appointments will be submitted to the Board of Visitors (BOV). Promotion of research faculty who are in restricted appointments follow the same review as those in regular appointment but do not require BOV approval.

D. Departmental Committee

A departmental committee consisting of peer faculty appointed by the department head or institute director will review dossiers considering the candidate’s demonstrated experience and scholarship record. In cases where there are insufficient peer faculty at the department level, the dean or senior manager, may establish a committee to review nominations on behalf of a department.

The department has the responsibility to establish the composition of the department committee with the recommendation that there should be no less than three (3) faculty members appointed to the committee. The departmental committee may be the same committee serving in the tenure and promotional reviews of tenured/tenure-track faculty. However, the departmental committee serving in the review for promotions in the research professorial ranks should have direct knowledge of the candidate’s research area. The department head or institute director is responsible for the selection and appointment of members of the committee when the department’s personnel committee is not used. When possible, the committee should include departmental/college faculty members, ranked research faculty members from the department or institute, and within the university.  When necessary, the departmental committee may include faculty from outside the university community who has knowledge of the field. 

The departmental committee will elect a committee chair. All departmental committee members are expected to have a rank equal to or more senior than the proposed professorial rank of the candidate(s) under consideration by that committee. The departmental committee will review all candidates for promotional consideration during a particular year. A faculty member may not serve on any committee that is evaluating a spouse, family member, or other individual with whom the faculty member has a close personal relationship.

E. Review Cycle

Each college or vice president should establish a timeline for their respective areas that enables departments and colleges to complete reviews prior to the established deadlines. Specific deadline dates are published each year by the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost. College and vice president areas should submit dossiers and recommendation packets to the the Office of Research and Innovation by Feb. 1 or by the published deadline for that promotion year cycle. Following the approval of the Senior Vice President for Research and Innovation, dossiers and recommendation packets will be submitted to the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost no later than March 1, to coincide with the review of dossiers for promotion of the tenured and tenure-track faculty.

F. Departmental Level Review

The departmental committee should establish and share the dossier review criteria process prior to start of the promotion cycle. The departmental committee has the responsibility to complete a thorough review of dossiers including letters of evaluation from external reviewers and internal supervisors, as appropriate, study of the candidate’s dossier and written submissions, consideration of departmental faculty input on the promotion, as appropriate, and preparation of a written recommendation to the department head or institute director. A recommended outline for the dossier is available from the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost’s website.

The department committee chair will coordinate communications and requests for information from candidates to complete the review process. 

Should the department process include input from eligible faculty, members of the tenured faculty and professorial research faculty in equal or greater ranks within a department or institute should be afforded the opportunity to voice their opinion on each promotion application. Eligible research faculty may provide input only on promotional activities for other research faculty. The departmental committee should develop a consistent and shared method to seek and consider input from departmental faculty. An anonymous balloting process may be conducted in accordance with each department’s or institute’s procedures, and with the summary of results included in the recommendation packet to the department head or institute director. The departmental committee will be responsible for making appropriate dossier documents available to eligible departmental or institute faculty. 

The departmental committee should develop and submit a written recommendation with supporting documentation, including any dissenting committee member opinion(s), to the department head or institute director. The department head or institute director will consider the recommendation packet(s), the input from faculty, as applicable, and may consult with the departmental committee prior to providing a written recommendation to the dean or senior manager. 

For candidates approved for promotion by both or either the departmental committee and/or the department head or institute director, the department head or institute director will prepare a statement to submit to the dean or senior manager which includes:

• The candidate’s dossier
• A summary of the candidate’s professional assignment and current role with the department or institute and Virginia Tech;
• A brief evaluation of the faculty member’s scholarship, and contributions to his or her field;
• A summary of important accomplishments and an interpretation of significant contributions;
• An explanation of the procedures by which the candidate was evaluated; and 
• The department head’s or institute director’s written recommendation for approval or non-approval. 

Review by all parties should include considerations of achievement and impact on the candidate’s area of research. Research is the primary professional role of research faculty members and achievement in this area is expected to receive primary consideration. Evaluation for promotion should consider contributions to the strategic mission and goals of the organization and the university more generally; the record of meeting or exceeding performance expectations including effectiveness in leading, supporting, and interacting with team members and personnel and related departments, and the candidate’s integrity, professional conduct, and ethics. 

The department head or institute director will provide a copy of his or her statement, departmental committee’s recommendation, and the dossier to the dean or senior manager for each candidate recommended for promotion.   Candidate’s not recommended or approved for promotion by the departmental committee and/or the department head or institute director, should have a private meeting with the department head or institute director and receive a written response on the results of the process.

G. College or Senior Management Review

Recommendations that have either or both the support of the department head or institute director and the departmental committee will be advanced to the dean or senior manager for review consideration.  Collegiate research faculty promotion considerations should be reviewed at the college level, if established, in accordance with other faculty promotion review processes before submission to the dean or senior manager.

Candidates who are denied promotion may appeal the decision to the dean or senior manager. The dean or senior manager may ask that a second committee review the case, uphold the decision, or over-ride the decision. The decision of the dean or senior manager will be final. Candidates whose reporting line are directly to the dean or senior manager will be referred to the Senior Vice President for Research and Innovation and Chief Innovation Officer for final review of the case to either uphold or over-ride the decision.

H. University and Board of Visitors Review

The dean or senior manager will submit the candidate’s dossier and supporting documents, the departmental committee recommendation and department head’s or institute director’s statement to the Senior Vice President for Research and Innovation by the published deadline in the spring term (Approximately February 1.) The Senior Vice President for Research and Innovation will review the recommendations of the dean or senior manager and forward the approved dossiers of regular research faculty appointments to the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost for presentation to the BOV. 

Dossiers that are not approved by the Senior Vice President for Research and Innovation will be returned to the dean or senior manager with written explanation. The dean or senior manager may appeal the decision of the Senior Vice President for Research and Innovation to the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost, whose decision is final.

Candidate’s Dossier

Each candidate for promotion will submit a dossier detailing his or her accomplishments and to the departmental committee. The curriculum vita together with annual reports, reprints of publications, reference letters, and other similar documents comprise a dossier, which furnishes the principal basis for promotion decisions.  Typically, the dossier should contain the following elements:

• Candidate’s statement
• Publication listing
• Invited scientific presentations
• Grants submitted/awarded
• Disclosures/Patents/Copyrights
• Professional activities/management certifications
• Graduate students (MS/PhD) supervised and mentored
• Postdocs supervised and mentored
• Education and outreach programs
• Service on university or departmental panels or committees, and for external organizations
• Other scholarly and/or program management activities
• References (Refer to Section IV regarding Peer Reviewers)

The promotion dossier should use the format for research faculty promotion required of all Virginia Tech faculty members. Helpful information on formatting, content, sample templates, and other aspects of the dossier can be found on the Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost website. Research faculty should mark sections as “Not Applicable” or “N/A” that are not relevant to their responsibilities or scholarship since the format is designed for promotion and tenure and includes a number of elements that may not be relevant.

Input of Peer Reviewers

Departmental procedures should clarify the criteria for using external reviewers for promotion consideration into and within the research professorial series.  The procedures should include the minimum number of external reviewers (external to Virginia Tech) required for promotion to each professorial rank, and if such are required for current eligible non-professorial faculty promotion considerations to the rank of Research Assistant Professor.     

When external reviewers are used, the departmental committee chair will request the names and contact information of potential external reviewers from the candidate, which the committee may add to or remove from; however, the committee should confirm a minimum number of external reviewers in accordance with departmental procedures. 

External reviewers are expected to have appropriate expertise to evaluate and comment credibly on the candidate’s work, and should not be co-authors or collaborators on research projects. Reviewers are expected to be senior faculty members in the field from major research institutions or agencies, and, at minimum, should hold the rank of or comparable to the rank proposed rank of the candidate. Information on the reviewers’ backgrounds should be included in the dossier package as it is advanced to subsequent stages. 

The departmental committee chair will submit a final recommendation report ranking the list of reviewers to the department head or institute director for review and approval. The departmental committee chair shall provide external reviewers with the candidate’s vita and representative publications.  External reviewers will be asked to comment on the quality and impact of the candidate’s research, publications, mentoring, patents or other professional accomplishments. The departmental committee chair may provide additional guidance to external reviewers as appropriate. Letters of evaluation from external reviewers shall be held in confidence. External review letters will not be shared with candidates, unless specifically required to do so by law. 

Selection of New Faculty

Prior to the selection of either an internal or external candidate for the position of research assistant, associate, or full professor through either the competitive or non-competitive recruitment process, the departmental committee should review the candidate’s Curriculum Vitae using established criteria and provide a written recommendation to the department head or institute director.  Following approval by the committee and the department head, the dean or senior manager and then the Office of Research and Innovation should approve the offer. 

Promotion Salary Adjustment

If funds are available, promotion in rank in the research professor series may be accompanied by a base salary adjustment. The department head or institute director is responsible for making a salary recommendation that is subject to university approval. Following final promotion approval by the BOV, the Senior Vice President for Research and Innovation and Chief Innovation Officer will notify the candidate in writing, confirming the promotion, the salary adjustment amount, and effective date, with copy to the dean or senior manager, as applicable, and department head or institute director. The department head or institute director should review and, if necessary, update the candidate’s position description in the position management system to reflect the elevated rank and any changes in duties that result. 

Records Management 

The letter confirming the approved promotion and salary adjustment, if requested, should be retained in the candidate’s departmental personnel file. Promotion documentation, such as   the candidate’s dossier, nomination confirmation letter, departmental committee’s recommendation letter, department head or institute director’s statement, external reviewer evaluations, and recommendation of the dean or senior manager should be maintained separate of the candidate’s personnel file and in the applicable departmental faculty promotion, merit and evaluation file maintained by the department or institute’s administrative offices, as assigned. 

Purpose

• Used for the promotion of research faculty into and within the professorial ranks. 
• Intended to encourage professional development of research faculty, recognize excellence in research scholarship, and foster collegiality amongst the faculty of the university. 
• Predictable administrative process that includes comprehensive peer review similar to the review of promotions for tenure and tenure-track faculty. 

Process Overview

There are eight research faculty ranks:

• Postdoctoral Associate 
• Senior Research Scientist 
• Research Associate 
• Research Assistant Professor 
• Senior Research Associate 
• Research Associate Professor
• Research Scientist 
• Research Professor

The following table describes each rank, scope of responsibility, educational requirements and typical duties.

Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation, (revised July 2025)

All research faculty candidate dossiers are submitted to the designated departmental committee according to the following guidelines. 

Research Promotion Cover Page

Available on the provost’s website. Instructional information is also available on the Office of Research and Innovation Human Resources website.   

Document Format

The dossier is formatted as follows

• font type of either Verdana or Arial
• minimum font size of 11 
• single-space the text
• double-space between paragraphs 
• margins of 1-inch left/right and top/bottom

Dossiers are prepared and submitted as electronic documents.  A separate table of contents is not necessary.  The electronic bookmarks act as a table of contents.   If a section is not applicable to a candidate’s dossier, include the outline number in the body of the dossier, but indicate that the section is not applicable or “N/A.”  There is no need to bookmark a section that is not applicable. The final document should be saved with the bookmarks showing. Go to File → Properties → Initial view → Navigation tab – select Bookmarks Panel and Page → Ok.

Specific Instructions

• The candidate’s portion of the dossier (sections V. – XII.) should not exceed 10 pages in length.
• The cover page, recommendation statements, and appendices are not included in the above-mentioned 10-page limit.  
• Include as appendices only those items specifically required in the dossier instructions.
• Use the format as noted below.  For section with no applicable content, retaining the formatting and note “not applicable” for that section.

Dossier Contents

Cover Page

1. Executive Summary
2. Recommendation Statements  
   1. Statement from the dean: The dean provides a simple, brief statement of support.  If the dean does not support the case, his or her decision should be more fully explicated and justified.  Research faculty who are not recommended for promotion should receive written feedback on issues of concern.
   2. Statement from the departmental committee: The statement from the departmental committee is detailed.  It is an informative, individualized assessment of the candidate’s activities and contributions, and provides the committee’s evaluation.  The statement includes the division of the vote.  If the vote is not unanimous, a brief explanation of the concerns represented by the dissenting votes is included in the departmental committee’s statement.
   3. Statement by the department head or institute director: The letter of the department head or institute director is a relatively brief statement from the department head’s or institute director’s perspective, along with his or her recommendation.  Obviously a decision that is not in agreement with the committee decision should be more fully explicated and justified.
   4. Statements from other units for faculty with joint appointments or other formal interaction, as appropriate.
   5. Letters of evaluation submitted by outside reviewers from peer institutions or research organizations
      1. Provide information about the outside reviewers in a table format, as follows:
         

         Outside Reviewers Example Table

         Reviewer	Institution	Suggested by Candidate	Suggested by Committee

      2. Biographical sketch of each reviewer. Include an explanation for reviewers who are not at a major research university.
      3. Sample copy of the letter of instruction sent to outside reviewers.
      4. Letters from outside reviewers.
3. Candidate’s Statement: 
   
   The candidate’s statement is no more than one or two pages in length. The statement enables members of the departmental promotion committee to understand clearly the candidate’s contributions to organizational program(s). The candidate may wish to include in the narrative a statement of his or her philosophy of research, mentoring, and teaching, as applicable.  The candidate’s statement provides an overview of the research program and future goals, but does not evaluate the work or performance. The statement clarifies the criteria the candidate is using to claim eligibility for promotion with expectations of the organization.  (A current curriculum vita is attached as Appendix A, and is not included in the 10-page limit for sections V. – XII.).
4. Teaching, Advising and Mentoring Effectiveness (If applicable)
   1. Recognition and awards for teaching or advising effectiveness 
   2. A chronological list of courses taught since the date of appointment to Virginia Tech.
   3. A chronological list of non-credit courses, workshops, and other related outreach and/or extension teaching since the date of appointment to Virginia Tech. 
   4. Completed theses, dissertations, other graduate degree projects, major undergraduate research projects, and honors theses directed.
   5. Postdoctoral Fellow training and research  
   6. Current positions held by the candidate’s masters and doctoral recipients
   7. Special achievements of current/former undergraduate and graduate students
   8. Current academic advising responsibilities—graduate and undergraduate 
   9. Course, curriculum, and program development
   10. Student evaluations of instruction   
   11. Peer evaluations of instruction  
   12. Alumni evaluations of instruction 
   13. Demonstrated efforts to improve one’s teaching effectiveness
5. Research Program Effectiveness (Required)
   1. Awards, prizes, and recognitions    
   2. List of publication contributions
      1. Books or monographs
      2. Book chapters 
      3. Books edited
      4. Textbooks authored
      5. Textbooks edited
      6. Papers in refereed journals (both print and electronic)
      7. Papers in refereed conference proceeding
      8. Performances, exhibitions, compositions
      9. Digital scholarship
      10. Reviews
      11. Numbered extension publications
      12. Prefaces, introductions, catalogue statements, etc.
      13. Papers and posters presented at professional meetings
      14. Translations
      15. Abstracts
      16. Other papers and reports
   3. Sponsored research and other grant/contract/fellowship awards
      1. Active Awards
         1. Sponsoring agency, principal investigator or co-principal investigator role, award amount, level of effort credit, award duration
      2. Inactive Awards
         1. Sponsoring agency, principal investigator or co-principal investigator role, award amount, level of effort credit, award duration
      3. Pending Awards
   4. Invited keynote presentations, posters, and lectures
   5. Editorships, curatorships, etc.
      1. Journals or other learned publications
      2. Editorial boards
      3. Exhibitions, performances, displays, etc.
   6. Economic contributions and entrepreneurship
      1. Start-up businesses
      2. Commercialization of discoveries
      3. Other
   7. Intellectual properties
      1. Software
      2. Patents
      3. Disclosures (pre-patent)
6. International and Professional Service and additional Outreach and Extension Activities (If applicable)
   1. International programs accomplishments  
      1. International recognition and awards
      2. International research collaborations
      3. Other international activities
   2. Professional service accomplishments
      1. Service as an officer of an academic or professional association
      2. Other service to one’s profession or field (e.g., service on committees)
      3. Professional meetings, panels, workshops, etc., led or organized
   3. Additional outreach and extension activities and outcomes
      1. Peer evaluations of extension program(s)
      2. Professional achievements in program development, implementation, and evidence of impact
      3. Outreach and extension publications, including trade journals, newsletters, websites, journals, multimedia items, etc.
      4. Presentations in area of expertise to community and civic organizations, including schools and alumni groups, etc.
      5. Outreach to underrepresented or underserved communities, in the Commonwealth, domestically, or internationally.
      6. Service on external boards, commissions, and advisory committees
      7. Expert witness/testimony
      8. Consulting that is consistent with university/department priorities
      9. Recognitions and awards for outreach and extension effectiveness
7. University Service
   1. University meetings, panels, workshops, etc. led or organized
   2. Department, college, and university service, including administrative responsibilities
   3. Service to students—involvement in co-curricular activities, advising student organizations, etc.
8. Work Under Review or In Progress
   1. Work submitted and under review
   2. Work in progress
9. Other Pertinent Activities