Skip to main content

The Academic Review Process

Contents of a Review File

Faculty members undergoing review are responsible for collecting and submitting most, but not all, of the materials to be included in the review file. Each faculty member is responsible for providing updated versions of his/her biography-bibliography, copies of his/her publications, and a written self-review. The self-review is a fairly detailed, descriptive statement that addresses the following headings: (1) research, including research in progress; (2) teaching; and (3) university and public service. The Chair will rely heavily on the self-review when preparing the required departmental letter for each file. Please note that the biography-bibliography and self-review should be signed and dated by the faculty member.

Faculty members undergoing a review should submit all required review materials to the MSO by the deadline established by the Chair and/or Dean. Once the MSO has received all of the materials (including external letters of review, if necessary) and has prepared the file, the file is submitted to the faculty for consideration and vote. At this point, the file contains:

  1. University of California Academic Employment History (prepared by Samira);
  2. Teaching evaluations: one form of evaluation each for undergraduate and graduate teaching is required.  More than one form is encouraged.  (Faculty members may also request a written assessment of the faculty member's teaching performance by a fellow faculty member following a class visit at the invitation of the Chair.);
  3. Other evidence of teaching effectiveness (course syllabi, students’ testimonials, etc.)
  4. Signed and dated Course load and Student Direction forms (provided by the Statistical Unit of the Campus Planning Office);
  5. Academic Biography-Bibliography packet (completed and signed by the candidate).  Faculty members are encouraged to update their biography-bibliography form on an annual basis in-between review periods so that they do not have to reconstruct several years' worth of data when they next come up for review. The biography-bibliography form and accompanying instructions may be downloaded from the web at:
  6. For promotion and career reviews outside evaluation letters solicited by the Chair, (a minimum of five recommendations for promotion to tenure, three for promotion to Professor, three for advancement to Professor VI or Above-Scale);
  7. Sabbatical Leave Report (signed and dated) if the faculty member took a leave during the review period;
  8. Publications: All publications since the last review/advancement. Work in manuscript form accepted for publication may be included
  9. Other materials that the faculty member may wish to include, such as reviews of recently published books.

Time-table for the Review Process

The review process begins in the spring of each year when faculty due for review are informed, and meet with the Chair and MSO to discuss their upcoming review. If external review letters will be required, the candidate is asked to provide 1-2 names so the department can begin soliciting external review letters during the summer. Publications and an electronic, updated CV that are to be reviewed for the review period should be submitted at that time in order for the department to send the external reviewers the candidate’s material, along with an updated CV.

Once a faculty member provides all of his/her review materials to the MSO, she reviews the materials for format and advises the faculty member regarding any corrections that are necessary to bring the review materials into compliance with APO guidelines.  The file is then uploaded into the AP Online Review system (APOL). Review candidates are given the opportunity to review the confidential materials in their file (letters of evaluation in redacted form) and to respond, if they so desire. The candidates certify that they have had the opportunity to review their file by signing Certification 1.

Individual review files are available for review by the voting members of the faculty prior to the faculty meeting at which the vote is scheduled. Following the vote, the Chair prepares a departmental letter for review by faculty members eligible to vote on the file. Once the faculty approves the departmental letter, the review candidate is provided the opportunity to review the letter, respond if he/she so desires, and sign Certification 2 (signifying that he or she has had the opportunity to review the departmental letter). The file is then submitted to the Dean of Social Sciences Office and candidates are usually informed of the results of their review in the spring.

Final Deadlines for Submission of Academic Review Files for Implementation in July of the Next Academic Year are typically as follows, though exact deadline dates will change from year to year. Please check actual deadlines each fall with Samira.

October 15:

All Deferrals

November 1:

Advancements within Above Scale

Normal Merits*


New bonus off-scale salary components

New, increased, or rejustified market off-scale salary components (with or without other review actions)

Non-salaried actions requiring campus review

No change actions


December 1:

Accelerated Merits

December 15:

Professor VI
Above Scale

January 15:

Crossover Merits
Reconsideration of Terminal Appointments
Terminal Reappointments

Adherence to deadlines is critical. Action on files submitted to the Office of Academic Personnel after these deadlines will be postponed until the following year. All subsequent normal merit review dates will be postponed accordingly.