P&T Review Conflicts of Interest
Introduction
Both real and perceived conflicts of interest (CoI) threaten the integrity of the promotion and tenure review process. Conflicts of interest may occur with three types of P&T reviewers: (1) the candidate’s Unit Executive Officer (UEO) or Dean; (2) internal UIC P&T committee reviewers; and (3) external reviewers. The process to identify and request alternatives in the case of a conflict of interest, and the most common forms of conflicts of interest are included below. If in doubt about a conflict, please email facultyreviews@uic.edu.
Identifying Conflicts of Interest with UEOs & Deans
- UEOs/Deans must set an internal deadline (early spring) for candidates to confirm their intent to be reviewed for promotion and/or tenure in the following academic year. See P&T Guidelines, Part I, Section 2.B.4. – Notification of Intent for P&T Review
- UEOs/Deans must review the list of candidates scheduled for P&T review and identify any conflicts of interest or ineligibilities between faculty candidates and the UEO/Dean.
- By June 15th, the P&T Special Request for Alternative UEOs/Deans (form) must be submitted for review and approval by the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs (OVPFA), if conflicts of interest or ineligibilities are identified.
Identifying Conflicts of Interest with External Reviewers & Committee Members
- UEOs must identify any possible conflicts of interest or ineligibilities between candidates and external reviewers, and unit/college committee members. Committees at each level must have a 75% quorum to review and vote, with a minimum of 3 eligible faculty members at the unit level, and with a minimum of 6 eligible faculty members at the college level.
- The P&T Special Request for Alternative Committee Members (form) must be submitted for review and approval by the OVPFA, if conflicts of interest or ineligibilities are identified for committee members and there is a need to add alternative committee members to have a 75% quorum and 3 unit or 6 college eligible faculty members.
Conflicts of Interest in the P&T Review Process
UEOs and Deans
- Serving as the candidate’s doctoral or postdoctoral mentor*.
- Serving as a research or scholarship collaborator in the past 5 years*.
- Co-teaching (regularly) with the candidate during the past 5 years.
- Being a relative of the candidate (spouse, child, sibling) or domestic partner.
- Familial, romantic, financial, or other close personal relationship.
- Any other real or perceived reason whereby the UEO or Dean would benefit from the candidate’s promotion and/or tenure, or they do not believe they can provide an impartial and unbiased review of the case.
- *If a UEO or Dean is the candidate’s mentor or collaborator, they should provide a letter of support (mentor) or letter of collaboration (collaborator).
- In cases where the UEO or Dean has a conflict, a special request for an alternative UEO/Dean must be submitted for review and approval by the OVPFA.
- The alternative UEO will prepare the dossier and provide the UEO evaluation for the case.
- The alternative Dean may be an Executive, Senior, or Associate Dean in the college or a Dean from another college.
P&T Committee
- Serving as the candidate’s doctoral or postdoctoral mentor*.
- Serving as a research or scholarship collaborator in the past 5 years*.
- Co-teaching (regularly) with the candidate during the past 5 years.
- Being a relative of the candidate (spouse, child, sibling) or domestic partner.
- Familial, romantic, financial, or other close personal relationship.
- Respondent or complainant with a grievance or disciplinary investigation whereby:
- a) A member of the unit, college, or university committee is a respondent or complainant in a grievance or disciplinary investigation involving the candidate OR
- b) The candidate is a respondent or complainant in a grievance or disciplinary investigation involving the P&T committee member.
- Any other real or perceived reason whereby a committee member would benefit from the candidate’s promotion and/or tenure, or they do not believe they can provide an impartial and unbiased review of the case.
- *If a committee member is the candidate’s mentor or collaborator, they should speak with the UEO/dossier preparer about providing a letter of support (mentor) or letter of collaboration (collaborator).
External Reviewers
One of the biggest challenges that P&T committees encounter when conducting reviews are real and perceived conflicts of interest by external reviewers. To avoid such conflicts (real or perceived), it is important for the UEO to confirm that the external reviewers do not have any of the following conflicts. In the letter requesting the final letter (after affirming that no conflicts exist), the UEO should ask the letter writer to clearly state their relationship or lack thereof in the introductory section(s) of the review letter.
Conflicts of interest for external reviewers INCLUDE the following:
- Supervisory relationship such as a journal editor supervising an Associate Editor.
- A research or scholarship collaborator.
- Serving as co-PIs/co-Is on the same grant during the past 5 years.
- Serving as the candidate’s doctoral or postdoctoral mentor.
- Being a faculty member in the candidate’s prior unit.
- Co-teaching with the candidate during the past 5 years.
- Familial, romantic, financial, or other close personal relationship.
- Any other real or perceived reason whereby the reviewer would benefit from the candidate’s promotion and/or tenure, or they do not believe they can provide an impartial and unbiased review of the case.
Conflicts of interest for external reviewers DO NOT include the following:
- Serving on dissertation, grant review, or other scientific committees together.
- Serving as co-chairs of a dissertation committee WOULD be a conflict.
- Serving as assistant or associate editors for the same journal without having any supervisory relationship.
- Interacting or serving on panels or other forums at scientific and professional conferences.
- Serving as an invited speaker/lecturer in the candidate’s course(s) or college.
- Being investigators on a large multi-site funded grant.
- Being familiar with the candidate’s work.
- Being from the candidate’s prior institution but with no real or perceived conflicts noted above.
- Personally knowing the candidate without having a conflict of interest noted above.