- Each application will be considered and assessed on its own merit against the Assessment Criteria for the level in question, taking into equal account evidence of both inputs and outputs. The generic Indicators of Excellence as well as the respective School/Institution-specific Indicators of Excellence provide examples of evidence of fulfilment of these criteria. Assessment against the criteria requires the exercise of good judgement, balance and objective evidence.
- Each committee should be mindful of the existence of unconscious biases – both in themselves and others - and consider how these biases might affect how assessments are made and how they affect objective decision-making. Committee members should constructively challenge any potential implicit or explicit biases they observe in the assessment process, whether in themselves or others, to ensure fairness and promote inclusion.
- Whilst it is important to ensure a fair and consistent approach is taken to evaluating excellence, the University recognises that certain metrics, such as student feedback and bibliometrics, have their limitations. Committees should, therefore, be mindful of the importance of judgement and be aware of the limitations of metrics when making their assessment. By signing the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) the University has acknowledged that intellectual content is more important than publication metrics or the identity of a journal. Terms such as 'high quality research' or 'influential research' should be preferred to the words 'impact' or 'impactful', which may be misinterpreted as denoting 'journal-impact factor'. Committees are directed to the University's guidance on the Responsible Use of Metrics in Research Assessment, and are expected to follow these principles.
- It is recognised that the lines between research leadership (or education or clinical leadership) and service are not always clear-cut and that there may be differences between disciplines. Assessments should, therefore, be made within the context of relevant disciplinary norms, taking care to avoid double-counting and ensuring that decisions are objective and clearly documented.
- The University aims to be a leader in driving an inclusive and respectful culture and in promoting a positive working environment for all in its community and high standards of conduct are expected from all employees. Formal sanctions will be taken into account when assessing the applicant’s suitability for progression or promotion and employees with live disciplinary warnings on file may be excluded from applying.
Important note regarding application details
When preparing a promotion application, the ACP application portal automatically populates an applicant's appointment start data using date in the University's HR system. However, there are some circumstances when this appointment start date may not be the appropriate date to refer to for the purposes of promotion applications, including the change in academic titles in October 2021, and the change in title of Grade 9 academics on passing probation (from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor). These title changes appear as new appointments in the HR system. Committees should therefore be mindful of the appointment start dates shown in the application form and must refer to the applicant's CV to determine their professional history.