Application for promotion from 1st October 2018 to a Readership

SUB-COMMITTEE EVALUATION

THIS DOCUMENT IS DISCLOSABLE UNDER THE FEEDBACK ARRANGEMENTS.

Applicant : ________________________________  Faculty/Department : _________________

Terms of Evaluation
Applications should be evaluated in relation to all the criteria for the senior academic office for which the applicant is being considered (Section 5). 

Performance descriptors (bandings): The appropriate boxes should be ticked to record the relevant Committee’s decisions.  Sub- Committees should provide comment in relation to each criterion for the office for which the candidate has applied taken from the minutes of the meeting. These comments will form the basis of the feedback recorded in the notification letters to unsuccessful candidates and given orally at the feedback meeting with the Head of Institution, if requested.

Research/Scholarship Criteria

There must international recognition in the relevant subject with reference to:
•	originality
•	contribution to the advancement of knowledge 
•	reputation

Tick box

□

□

□

□

□

Outstanding 
evidence            

Strong 
evidence            

Clear 
evidence           

Insufficient 
evidence           

Clearly 
unsatisfactory   	
Comment

	

SUB-COMMITTEE EVALUATION

Teaching Criterion *

There must be an effective contribution to undergraduate and/or postgraduate teaching. 

*This criterion does not apply to those whose duties do not include teaching.. 

□

□

□

□

□

Outstanding 
evidence            

Strong 
evidence            

Clear 
evidence           

Insufficient 
evidence           

Clearly 
unsatisfactory   	
Comment

	

General Contribution Criterion

There must be an effective contribution to the subject other than in teaching and research.  This may include administration and, where appropriate, management of research groups and the creation and management of multi- institutional/national/international research facilities.  It may also include contributions, other than teaching and research, to the subject made more widely, for example, widening participation activity and the design and delivery of outreach programmes, also editorial work, and clinical work (if applicable). 

□

□

□

□

□

Outstanding 
evidence            

Strong 
evidence            

Clear 
evidence           

Insufficient 
evidence           

Clearly 
unsatisfactory   	
Comment

	

Signed:________________________________________    Date:_____________________
Chair of General Board’s Senior Academic Promotions Sub-Committee