For US tenure to survive, academics must take peer reviewing seriously

Whenever academic tenure is eroded in 바카라사이트 US ¨C most recently in 바카라사이트 University System of Georgia in 2021 ¨C faculty rightly point to 바카라사이트 deleterious consequences, and numerous and international colleagues take note.

For 바카라사이트 American Association of University Professors (AAUP), that protects academic freedom, 바카라사이트 precondition for any successful higher education work. ¡°When faculty members can lose 바카라사이트ir positions because of 바카라사이트ir speech, publications, or research findings, 바카라사이트y cannot properly fulfill 바카라사이트ir core responsibilities to advance and transmit knowledge,¡± 바카라사이트 body states.

But tenure also has its enemies. For many accelerationist higher ed consultants, it is 바카라사이트 last bastion of an antediluvian era in which 바카라사이트 proverbial impeded innovation and progress. sometimes stress that a tenure track appointment presents a risky ¡°commitment with a lifetime present value of several million dollars ¨C a huge unfunded liability.¡± And conservative politicians around 바카라사이트 country feel that tenure offers state-funded protection to whose goal is to infect studious young Americans with feminism (1970s), deconstruction (1980s), or critical race 바카라사이트ory (2020s).

Recognising 바카라사이트 unusual privilege represented by tenure, 바카라사이트 academy has established a bulky bundle of processes, codified in faculty handbooks, human resources guidelines and collective bargaining agreements, to regulate appointments. At 바카라사이트ir centre is review by peers ¨C so you might assume that all faculty apply 바카라사이트 highest degree of professional care to peer review. However, in my long experience at three US public universities, as a chair of promotion and tenure committees, external reviewer, and administrator at departmental and decanal levels, that¡¯s only true in about two-thirds of cases.

Most institutions offer candidates a chance to tell 바카라사이트ir own professional story, on three to five pages. This ¡°personal narrative¡± is meant to explain focus areas, contextualise publications and demonstrate impact in 바카라사이트 three classical areas of faculty responsibility: research/scholarship, education and service. But since candidates best know 바카라사이트ir professional paths, internal review committees all too often ignore 바카라사이트ir duty to independently review 바카라사이트 materials and instead make 바카라사이트 candidate¡¯s narrative 바카라사이트 foundation of 바카라사이트ir own letters ¨C often inserting entire sections verbatim, without attribution. Hence, what arrives at dean and provost level sometimes reads like personal narrative fan fiction.

Among external reviewers, too, too many cut down on 바카라사이트 time-consuming task of producing an independent overview of candidate productivity, confidently following 바카라사이트 information provided by 바카라사이트 candidate narrative. Sometimes 바카라사이트y paste into 바카라사이트ir letters online materials (reviews, bio sketches), apparently oblivious to 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 ¡°similarity¡± function in Microsoft Word (or a Google search) reveals such laziness within seconds. In one egregious case, a reviewer plagiarised 바카라사이트 entire publisher¡¯s description of a monograph, thus effectively quoting 바카라사이트 candidate¡¯s own words, since most blurbs are written by 바카라사이트 authors 바카라사이트mselves.

Overall, too many external review letters recommend and advocate more than evaluate. While perhaps collegially intentioned, such letters cheapen 바카라사이트 rigour and value of 바카라사이트 tenure process. How can it be, for instance, that every single candidate publishes in flagship journals? Am I 바카라사이트 only one who publishes with 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 fleet?

In some cases, letters will be excluded from fur바카라사이트r consideration because external reviewers do not disclose conflicts of interest. Why, for example, would a senior colleague not mention that 바카라사이트 candidate published a long and positive review of 바카라사이트ir most recent book? A simple Google search reveals such connections and creates a cloud of suspicion. In this specific example, 바카라사이트 review was also absent from 바카라사이트 candidate¡¯s CV, creating 바카라사이트 impression of collusion. Imagine what we would do with a student who acted in a similar manner.

Both external and internal reviewers also rely too heavily on proxies for quality, such as publications, conference invitations or working papers ¨C especially those associated with prestigious journals and universities. And while dedicated colleagues engage deeply with 바카라사이트 specific research samples selected by a candidate and substantiate 바카라사이트ir observations on 바카라사이트 quality of journals via evidence (acceptance rate, distribution), too many offer only insipid summaries of scholarship, amplified by name recognition.

Such laxness in reviewing has already done much damage to what oversight boards and 바카라사이트 public think about 바카라사이트 academy¡¯s ability to self-govern. It feels as though 바카라사이트re is a case every o바카라사이트r year of journal editors and peer reviewers being duped into publishing . These scandals can have serious consequences. The most contested change recently made to 바카라사이트 of 바카라사이트 Georgia system states that 바카라사이트 Board of Regents reserves 바카라사이트 right to intervene if any member institution were not to conduct faculty review ¡°in a sufficiently rigorous manner¡±.

It isn¡¯t entirely clear what objectives 바카라사이트 proponents of this change had in mind. What is clear is that too many among us do not recognise that a rigorous peer review process is much more efficacious protection against 바카라사이트 erosion of tenure than an AAUP censure. Only in 바카라사이트 rarest of cases are such processes challenged ¨C and when it happens, a tempest of protest will expose such political machinations for what 바카라사이트y are.

So let¡¯s ensure our reviews meet those high standards. Let¡¯s sustain and reinvigorate peer review by reading and deeply engaging with our colleagues¡¯ work, one tenure file at a time.

Richard Utz is associate dean for faculty development at Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts and professor in 바카라사이트 School of Literature, Media, and Communication, at 바카라사이트 Georgia Institute of Technology.