Peer Review Policy

(Reviewed and approved by Library Faculty October, 2019)

"Every candidate for promotion or tenure review shall undergo peer review."

(WSU PPM 8-11:E-3)

  1. Assumptions:

    The purpose of peer review is to facilitate the evaluation process primarily through evidence gathering. The professional file, supplemented by observation, interviews, and other relevant evidence as outlined in this document, forms the basis for peer review. Reviewers shall interpret this information in terms of library expectations. Since there is no department level review in the Library, the Peer Review Committee gathers evidence in all three categories of formal evaluation.

    Peer review should be perceived as a means of helping faculty to improve and enhance their performance and professional files. It should be clearly defined and well-understood by all library faculty.

  2. Categories to be considered in the peer review process:

    1. Teaching (incluedes Librarianship)

      1. Classroom/Online Instruction

      2. Other instructional Activities

      3. Collection Management/Faculty Liaison

    2. Scholarship

    3. Administration and/or Professionally Related Service

  3. Time frame

    1. While library faculty may request peer review during any academic year, peer review is required in the years in which the faculty member is formally evaluated:

      1. Interim Review (3rd year)

      2. Tenure and Promotion Review (6th year)

      3. Promotion to Full Professor

      Peer review of a tenured or untenured faculty member may also be requested by the Dean of the Stewart Library

    2. Peer reviewers will be selected by during the academic year prior to the review. Reviewers will serve for one year.

    3. Faculty being considered for tenure or promotion have until January 15th to complete their professional file for review by the college Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee. To accommodate the peer review process, a working file should be ready for review by September 30th.

    4. To accommodate the University's time-frame for tenure and promotion review, the peer review must be completed by no later than December 15th.

  4. Composition and Selection of the Peer Review Committee

    1. All library faculty are eligible to serve as peer reviewers.

    2. Membership of the peer review committee is done in agreement between facutly member and Dean or Department Chair.

  5. Procedures

    1. The Dean will meet with the faculty member to select peer reviewers. The Dean will then contact the mutually agreed upon individuals to invite them to serve on the Peer Review Committee

    2. The Dean will meet with peer reviewers to select a chair, discuss the peer review process, and determine the category for which each reviewer will take primary responsibility.

    3. Reviewers will meet with the faculty member to establish a method and time table for completing the review, identify any supplementary information they wish to examine that is not available in the faculty member's professional file, and select the individuals whom they may wish to contact.

    4. Throughout the peer review process, the faculty member is responsible for providing materials deemed necessary by the reviewers. While the information included in the professional file forms the basis for peer review, additional relevant information may be requested by the reviewers and should be provided by the faculty member in a timely manner.

    5. Reviewers will review the information contained in the professional file and any supplementary information, observe instructional activities, and solicit comments from mutually agreed upon individuals who have direct knowledge concerning the faculty member's performance in classroom/online instruction and other instructional activities.

    6. Reviewers will use the appropriate forms to record their observations and comments, giving careful consideration to the goals of the individual and the library.

    7. Upon completion of their review, the peer review committee will meet with the faculty member to discuss the results.

    8. The committee’s written report will be a narrative summary that addresses the strengths of the candidate and identifies areas for improvement in each of the categories considered by the reviewers. Specific suggestions for improvement may also be included. The report should not include suggestions for ratings in the review categories.

    9. Signed copies of the reviewers' written report will be forwarded to the faculty member and the Dean. Should the faculty member wish to, they may place a written response in the file or may ask to appear before the college Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee (PPM 8-11:E3).

    10. A copy of the signed written report will be placed in the faculty member's professional file prior to the faculty member's evaluation by the college Ranking and Tenure Evaluation Committee. If the faculty member is not up for promotion or tenure, then the candidate may wait until the next promotion-tenure review or petition for removal of the peer review as provided in PPM 8-13.

    11. The results of the peer review are to be evaluated by the college Ranking Tenure Evaluation Committee, which is charged with making a formal evaluation and forwarding its recommendation to the candidate with a copy to the Dean. Since the Library is not divided into departments, there is no department level review.

    12. The Dean makes a separate and independent review. Her/his review is than forwarded to the Provost. (PPM 8-11:C)


Peer Review Forms