b. External Review Procedure
For candidates applying for professor or associate professor, three external peer reviewers will evaluate appropriateness for promotion based on the MGH Institute’s criteria for promotion in the area of scholarship. The AUL/D shall consult with the candidate to identify six unbiased potential external reviewers and will solicit commitments from at least three to provide a review within the established timeline.
An unbiased or “arm’s length” reviewer is a person who is not compromised in his or her ability to provide an objective evaluation of the professional performance and scholarly reputation of the candidate. The following are examples of professional or personal relationships that are commonly perceived to put in question the objectivity of an external reviewer:
• Having acted as the thesis or dissertation adviser for the candidate
• Having been a faculty or student colleague at a previous institution
• Having been a co-investigator on grants, a co-author on publications, or a co-inventor of intellectual property
• Having been related to the candidate by birth or marriage
• Having a financial partnership or consulting arrangement with the candidate
• Having a close personal or family relationship (vacation together, godparents, etc.)
• Potential reviewers who are personally known to the candidate are not excluded from eligibility, nor are persons with whom the candidate may have discussed a project, attended a conference, or participated on a professional committee.
External reviewers must be at or above the rank of associate professor in their home institutions. They should be recognized as educational and scholarly leaders in their fields. External reviewers will be asked to evaluate the impact of the candidate’s scholarly work and the potential for sustained scholarly contributions.
The portfolio materials sent to external reviewers by the AUL/D will include:
1. A cover letter from the AUL/D that follows the standard template provided by the committee. The cover letter indicates the candidate’s current department, rank and area(s) of impact, and outlines procedures, timeline, and evaluation guidelines for the review process. The reviewers will be informed that the MGH Institute will make every reasonable effort to keep their evaluations confidential to the extent permitted by law.
2. The MGH Institute Scholarship Model and the scholarship section(s) of the Criteria and Examples for Appointment and Promotion for the relevant area(s) of impact
3. The scholarship section of the candidate's Self-Evaluation for Promotion
4. The candidate’s CV
5. The candidate’s four exemplars of scholarly work