Merit Review

Merit review policies and procedures

The Merit Review committee consists of four members, one from each tenure-track rank and one from any rank. One member is appointed by the Unit Director; the other three are elected by the CS faculty. Members of the committee serve staggered two year terms. In the first year of the two-year cycle, two members are elected. In the second year, one new member is elected and one is appointed by the Unit Director. New members have the same ranks as the departing members.

The committee elects its own chair. The Unit Director is an ex-officio member and attends all meetings.

Materials for annual merit reviews include each faculty member’s DMAI, resume, student evaluations, grade distribution report, and whatever supplemental materials, including, course syllabi, that each faculty member wishes to include.

Merit allocations will be based on the following breakdowns:         

• Assistant professors: 50-40-10 (research, teaching, service).
• Associate and full professors: 40-40-20 (research, teaching, service).
• Lecturers: 90-10 (teaching, service).
• Senior lecturers: 80-20 (teaching, service).
• POPs expected to continue doing creative work: 80-20 (teaching, service including creative work).
• POPs expected to focus internally: 90-10 (teaching, service).

Procedure for assigning merit scores

Each committee member will first individually review the materials of each member of the faculty. The committee will then meet to discuss their evaluations of each member of the faculty.

Each member of the committee will individually assign a merit score (using tenths) to each member of the faculty and submit their scores to a Senior Assistant to the Unit Directors as designated by the Unit Director. These scores will be averaged across committee members producing each faculty member’s merit score. The Senior Assistant to the Unit Director will then relay the results to the Unit Director. 

Merit allocations will be based on a rolling three-year average.

Recommendations for merit raises will be based on performance using the following formula: 

Merit raise = (M/T)*P where M is the faculty member’s rolling 3 year average merit
score, T is the total of all rolling 3 year average merit scores for faculty in the unit, and P is the total pool of merit money allocated to the unit.

Committee merit allocations are recommendations and are advisory to the Unit Director. Unit Director merit allocations are advisory to the deans. 

By March 30th, the Unit Director will prepare and deliver to each faculty member a summary of the Merit Review Committee’s discussion and evaluation of their merit materials. The Merit Review Committee will provide the Associate Dean with a narrative assessing the Unit Director’s performance by the date specified by the Associate Dean.

Communication Science Guidelines for Establishing Merit

Committee members will use the following scale for evaluating research, teaching and service contributions:

4.5 - 5.0           outstanding

3.5 - 4.4           very good

2.5 - 3.4           adequate

1.5 - 2.4           needs some improvement

1.0 -1.4            inadequate 

The following descriptions of outstanding, very good, adequate, needs some improvement and inadequate – for research, teaching and service respectively – are intended to serve as benchmark suggestions for the evaluation of merit within the unit. They are NOT prescriptive definitions. Committee members should take into account the unique output of each faculty member when assigning merit scores. 

Each benchmark description is suggested as performance deserving of the minimum value for each merit range. Committee members can then add tenths as needed to recognize additional quality and quantity, up to the maximum score for the assigned rating. Faculty members may include, in their DMAI, information that the committee might find useful for determining quality in the comment sections of their annual reports. Information used to determine quality for research, for example, might include order of authorship, citation rates, H-scores, journal impact factor, journal acceptance rates, etc.

Research

Excellence in research is defined in the unit’s tenure and promotion criteria as the production of the following four things:

1. Refereed published articles in influential scholarly journals and law review journals.
2. Books published by prestigious presses.
3. Rigorous and impactful research distributed through other outlets such as published proceedings, grants, and book chapters. In addition, for those in the law and policy area, research papers, expert testimony, and ex partepresentations or filings prepared for legal institutions in the process of evaluating or deciding matters of policy related to communication.
4. Evidence of an ongoing research record (projects at multiple stages of development including submitted, revised, and resubmitted manuscripts; conference papers; manuscripts in preparation; projects where data are being collected; and grant applications or awards).

The following benchmarks allow for merit based on the “book” OR the “refereed article” approaches to publishing. Faculty who publish books receive significant merit allocations both for securing an accepted book contract and for the final publication of the book.

Outstanding    4.5       One book contract or book publication plus one refereed publication, plus some evidence of ongoing research OR three refereed publications, plus evidence of ongoing research

Very good       3.5       One book contract or book publication, plus evidence of ongoing research OR two refereed publications plus evidence of ongoing research

Adequate         2.5       One refereed publication and some evidence of ongoing research

Needs some improvement   1.5       No publications, but projects under review/revision and other signs of ongoing research productivity

Inadequate      1.0       No publications, no projects under review or revision, and no signs of ongoing research

Teaching

Outstanding    4.5       Quantitative teaching evaluations around 3.5 or above with corresponding qualitative comments; multiple efforts beyond showing up and teaching (e.g., updating courses, re-vamping courses, working with CITL to improve teaching, new preps). More than 5 student mentees.

Very Good      3.5       Quantitative teaching evaluations around 3.0 or above with corresponding qualitative comments, some effort beyond showing up and teaching (e.g., updating courses, re-vamping courses, working with CITL to improve teaching, new preps). Two to five student mentees.

Adequate         2.5       Quantitative teaching evaluations around 2.5 with corresponding qualitative comments – no major investments in courses beyond showing up and teaching. At least one student mentee.

Needs some Improvement    1.5       Quantitative teaching evaluations around 2.0 with corresponding qualitative comments, no mentees, no evidence in major investments in courses.

Inadequate      1.0       Quantitative teaching evaluations less than 2.0 with corresponding qualitative comments. Complaints and absenteeism. No mentees and no evidence of investment in improving courses/teaching.

Service

Outstanding    4.5       Strong service at three or more levels (unit, school, university, and profession)

Very good       3.5        Strong service at two levels

Adequate         2.5      

• Assistant professor – some service at the unit or school level
• Associate professor – some service at two levels
• Full professor – some service at two levels

Needs some improvement     1.5       Less than the levels described in adequate 

Inadequate      1.0       Does not serve

(Approved 1/29/2018)
(Amended 11/12/2018)
(Amended 8/19/2022)
(Amended 10/30/2023)
(Amended 10/1/2024)