Progress Review

Progress Reviews for Teaching-Track Faculty during Initial Appointment Period

Either in the fall or spring term of the second year of a faculty member’s initial three-year appointment, the chair or director shall convene a review committee for a Progress Review. The review committee will consider the faculty member’s teaching and service, and in the case of a Teaching Professor, scholarship. See Section 4.2 “Progress Review During Initial Appointment” of the Principles and Procedures for Teaching-Track Faculty Appointment, Reappointment, and Promotion for details. 

A copy or accurate summary of the progress review should be shared with the faculty member under review and uploaded to their annual merit evaluation case (the case will be available in Interfolio/Facet RPT late in the Spring semester). Should the department/program decide to provide a summary rather than a copy of the progress review to the faculty member under review, it should inform them that the document is a summary.

After the initial appointment period, the term of appointment and the review and reappointment schedule will be determined by rank (assistant teaching professor, associate teaching professor, teaching professor). For detailed information regarding the review and reappointment process, please also refer to the Teaching-Track Faculty page.

Progress Reviews for Assistant Professors

Please see Section 2.3.2 of the Principles and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure.

Beginning in the second year of their appointments, untenured faculty members’ progress is reviewed annually by all tenured faculty members in their department. Led by the department chair, this includes a thorough review of the faculty member’s teaching, research, and service.

At the conclusion of this review, the chair summarizes the department's review and states the department's recommendation for renewal or non-renewal of the faculty member's appointment. A copy or accurate summary of the progress review should be shared with the faculty member under review and uploaded to their annual merit evaluation case (the case will be available in Interfolio/Facet RPT late in the Spring semester). Should the department/program decide to provide a summary rather than a copy of the progress review to the faculty member under review, it should inform them that the document is a summary.

 *In consultation with the chair of their department, an assistant professor may elect to have their major Pre-Tenure Assistant Professor Review earlier than the fourth-year of their appointment. However, unless assistant professors have held faculty positions elsewhere, such reviews usually should not take place before the third year of an Emory appointment.

Additional examples of the timing of review processes during a tenure-track faculty member’s initial appointment, accounting for tenure clock extensions, are available here.

For detailed information regarding the tenure and promotion process, please also refer to the Tenure-Track Faculty page.

Progress Reviews for Associate Professors

Please see Section 2.3.3 of the Principles and Procedures for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure.

Tenured associated professors’ progress is discussed annually by all tenured full professors in their department. Typically led by the department chair, this includes a review of the faculty member’s teaching, research, and service. If an associate professor is judged to merit serious consideration for promotion to full professor, a thorough review of teaching, research, and service shall be conducted. Every tenured associate professor should be evaluated thoroughly by the department at least once every five years. This evaluation should be more than cursory and should include a closer examination by the tenured full professors of teaching, research, and service. A copy or accurate summary of the progress review should be shared with the faculty member under review and uploaded to their annual merit evaluation case (the case will be available in Interfolio/Facet RPT late in the Spring semester). Should the department/program decide to provide a summary rather than a copy of the progress review to the faculty member under review, it should inform them that the document is a summary

Both the annual review and five-year evaluation should be considered preliminary to the more thorough review required for promotion to tenured full professor. These processes should be conducted so as to provide associate professors the best advice possible for undergoing the promotion review and the appropriate timing for the promotion review.