The NSHE Code, University bylaws, and/or college/school/department bylaws govern the process of reviewing non-tenure track faculty applications for promotion. These applications for promotion receive final approval from the President.
Overview of non-tenure track promotion
There is no minimum or maximum time in rank to be considered for promotion to the next rank.
Faculty who wish to go up for promotion should consult with their department chair in the fall or early spring preceding the spring in which they plan to apply for promotion.
University of Nevada, Reno Bylaws 3.3.5. A Rank 0(I), Rank 0(II), or Rank 0(III) faculty member shall be evaluated in writing by the department and/or the dean regarding progress toward promotion no later than the end of the sixth full academic year in rank. The above specified times shall not be construed as a minimum time in rank before promotion, and any rank may be a terminal rank.
The NSHE Code Subsections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 outline the process and timeline for reconsideration from an adverse decision regarding promotion, salary, or tenure.
For promotions of non-tenure track faculty (Rank 0), requirements vary depending on the nature of the appointment. For Rank 0 research faculty, no fewer than three external letters are required. For Rank 0 instructional faculty and Rank 0 faculty whose assignment is clinical, external letters may be required by the college but are not required by the university.
It is the responsibility of the department chair to obtain external peer-review letters. These letters should be solicited under the following guidelines. The initial contact may be made via email or phone, but each reviewer should then receive a formal letter (which may be sent electronically) following the template provided in the Directions for Preparing and Submitted Applications for Promotion and/or Tenure on the Office of the Provost website.
If external reviewers are required or are being solicited reviewers for Rank 0 applications should be selected by the department chair in consultation with faculty eligible to vote on the application.
The chair should allow and encourage the applicant to suggest potential reviewers. It is recommended that the candidate submit a list of 5 or 6 potential reviewers. The candidate should bear in mind that half or more of the reviewers will come from individuals not on the candidate's list. The reason for this is to avoid selecting a set of reviewers that are strongly biased in favor of the candidate. Therefore, the candidate should think carefully about how many reviewers to put on the list, and who to include. For example, if the candidate lists the top 20 people in the field, the committee may have relatively few additional qualified reviewers to call upon. The candidate may also submit names of potential reviewers the candidate feels should not be used.
If for research faculty, reviewers should be experts in the applicant's area of research and should not be closely associated with the candidate for promotion. Avoid reviewers that have or could reasonably be perceived to have a conflict of interest. For example, they should not be a current or former research collaborator, a former graduate mentor or thesis advisor, co-authors, or a former contemporary at another institution. Avoid reviewers who hold a position at an institution where the candidate has earned a degree, performed postdoctoral research, or had any other official appointment, regardless of whether the reviewer's appointment overlapped with that of the candidate.
Do not solicit letters from more than one individual as a single institution.
Minimize the number of reviewers from non-U.S. universities. Researchers from non-U.S. universities often do not understand the U.S. tenure system and the importance of writing a detailed evaluation. Thus, any non-U.S. reviewer should be selected with care, with the recommendation being to limit the number to 2 or less.
Reviewers from universities must be at or above the rank the candidate is seeking.
For candidates with research as their primary responsibility reviewers, preferably full professors, should come from programs at institutions with a research stature that is comparable or superior to that of the University of Nevada, Reno.
A majority should come from institutions classified by the Carnegie Foundation as R1. Reviewers from institutions that are classified below R2 should be avoided.
In certain cases, it may be appropriate to solicit reviews from individuals who are not in programs of equal or higher stature or desirable to solicit reviews from individuals who are not affiliated with academic institutions. In such cases, the department chair should explain their stature and suitability in the brief summary of the reviewers' qualifications that is part of the application packet.