Standards for Research Products

Peer-Reviewed Products

Preference or greater weight is given to products that are peer-reviewed or equivalent, namely, scholarly work that experts in the field have evaluated and judged to be accurate, valid, and/or of sufficiently high quality to be approved for dissemination.  
 

Acceptable Research Products

Acceptable products are to be determined by the Schools.**
 
Research products may include but are not limited to:

• Publications in scholarly or professional journals;
• Publication of specialized monographs or books;
• Presentations at professional meetings;
• Presentations in community settings;
• Demonstrations to other professionals;
• Proposals reviewed by other professionals, including grants;
• Products that may be used within an academic discipline (applied scholarship);
• Products that may be used by other professionals (applied scholarship);
• Products that may be used by the public (applied scholarship).
  (The above list was partly adapted from the IU East Promotion and Tenure Policy.)
  Modes of dissemination may include print, in-person, digital, virtual, and other. 
  Departments and Disciplines within Schools:
  Departments or disciplines within each School may develop standards for research products, which should be in writing and approved by the School and department. Departmental or disciplinary standards should be in keeping with the School’s research productivity policy.
  Co-Authored Work
  Each School will determine whether to include a statement about whether co-authored work should be accompanied by an explanation of the faculty member’s contributions. 

Timeframe for Products

The recommended timeframe for a research product, as outlined above and by School standards, is one every three calendar years. Deans/Schools may modify this timeframe for the School if there is compelling reason. Additional discretion is given to the dean*** for individual faculty members if there is compelling reason, and/or for reasons of fairness.

Process of Evaluation

Faculty’s Goal-Setting:

Each School will include in the annual report a section for goal-setting in which faculty specify how they will meet or exceed the School’s research productivity standards. Faculty’s goal-setting for the next three years (or another timeframe determined by the School) provides the foundation for determining whether faculty are meeting or exceeding the School’s research productivity standards in future.
 

Goal-Setting for Major Research Products:

Faculty who are developing a research product whose completion date is anticipated to exceed the School’s timeframe of three or more years should specify in their goal-setting what should be considered acceptable progress on the research product during the timeframe included in the goal-setting.
 
Each School's annual report will include a section in which faculty list their scholarly activities and products for the past year. Faculty shall explain how the listed scholarly activities and products meet or do not meet the School's research productivity standards, and faculty's own long-term goals.
 
As part of the annual review, deans, equivalents, or delegates will evaluate faculty’s scholarly productivity according to the School’s research productivity standards, and faculty’s own long-term goals. If the dean determines that the faculty member has not met the School’s research productivity standards, the dean may offer the faculty member a one-year extension (a conditional year) during which the faculty member should meet specific research productivity goals by stated deadline(s). For example, this might be done for a faculty member who potentially could meet research productivity standards if given such an extension. Or the faculty member will be offered the opportunity to accept an increased, agreed-upon course load that shall not exceed 4/4 (or equivalent). The agreement must be in writing and signed. If the faculty member does not sign within thirty days, the faculty member will automatically be assigned the course load according to the agreement.

Grievance Policy

A faculty member who wishes to appeal the dean’s decision regarding research productivity should follow the School’s appeals process for annual reviews. (The IU East Evaluation Policy, approved in March 2012, delegates the appeals process to each School.) 
If the School wishes, the School’s appeals process may include a peer evaluation stage.
[Comment: One example of such a peer evaluation stage is as follows:
The faculty member may appeal to a three-member research productivity committee consisting of elected, tenured faculty members in the School who make recommendations on the case to the dean. If needed, faculty members from outside the School may be elected to the committee. Alternatively, a School may use an existing committee with tenured faculty members for this purpose. The dean shall concur or disagree with the committee’s recommendations in writing.]
 
Whether or not the School’s appeals process includes a peer evaluation stage, if the faculty member is not satisfied with the outcome of the appeal, the faculty member may write a dissent to be included in an appeal to IU East’s Chief Academic Officer, in keeping with IU East’s Evaluation Policy. If the faculty member is not satisfied with the appeal to the Chief Academic Officer, the faculty member may submit an appeal (a complaint) to the Faculty Board of Review.

Adjustments to Teaching Load

When it is determined that a faculty member’s course load should increase based on research productivity, the increase should ordinarily be 3 credit hours (or equivalent) for one or two semesters per academic year. The resulting course load should not exceed 4/4 (or equivalent), or 12 credit hours/12 credit hours.
 

Applications for Reducing Course Load:

Faculty members whose course loads have increased based on research productivity standards have the right to apply to have their course loads decreased. Each School must have a written procedure by which a faculty member whose course load has increased may apply to reduce the course load. The following are hypothetical examples of what may be acceptable reasons, among others, to apply for a reduced course load:
 
Faculty whose research productivity has increased to the point of meeting School research productivity standards may apply to have the course load reduced.
 
Faculty may submit a proposal to be given a reduced course load in order to meet specific research productivity goals, including a timeframe for meeting the goals. The proposal must be approved before faculty are given the reduced course load for the specific timeframe.
 
(An explanation of the course load reduction may be included as part of the original written agreement for the faculty member’s research productivity.) Any agreement to a course load reduction should be in writing.
 

Applications for Increasing Course Load:

Faculty may request to increase their course load, ordinarily to a maximum of 4/4 or equivalent, in negotiation with their School for a defined period to provide workload flexibility, for example due to personal or professional situations. Any agreement to an increased course load should be in writing.

Expectations for Those on Administrative Assignments

Schools will determine which faculty administrative appointments (e.g., department chairs or higher, some directors) will be exempt from research productivity standards. Consideration should be given to whether or not the faculty administrative appointments include course reduction(s) that are sufficient to allow faculty administrators to meet School research productivity standards while fulfilling administrative responsibilities.
Faculty whose service loads are comparable to those of School faculty administrative appointees who are exempt from research productivity standards may apply to their deans for exemption from research productivity standards.
Faculty administrative appointees reporting to Academic Affairs (e.g., directors of the Center for Faculty Development, Honors Program, Graduate School) will be exempt from the School’s research productivity standards as determined by Academic Affairs.

Confidentiality

Faculty annual reviews are performance evaluations that are confidential according to HR-07-20 Confidentiality of Student, Medical and Personnel Records. Performance evaluations and associated agreements, including those described in this Research Productivity Policy, are confidential.  
 

School Policies

Schools and academic units must have policies and procedures that are consistent with this and other relevant IU and IU East policies. Deans and School committees (if applicable) are responsible for implementation of School, IU, and IU East policies.
 

Deadlines and Oversight for School Research Productivity Policy and Procedures:

Each School or equivalent academic unit must have a written policy with procedures for School research productivity by November 2023. The Chief Academic Officer has oversight for the completion of written School research productivity policies and procedures.

**”Schools” includes equivalent academic units such as the Library and Social Work/Human Services.
***”Deans” includes equivalent academic unit heads, and delegates.