Skip Navigation

Reviewer Process

Dear Colleagues,  

As I indicated in the email that I sent earlier this month to the members of the department, many members of the faculty will be reviewed in Fall 2011 (for the 2011 Career Development Report). You are receiving this email because you are slated to review one or more people. Attached, please find the list of the people in the department who need to be reviewed by December 31, 2011 along with the name of the person responsible for their in-person review (referred to as the evaluator in the report). Also, the attached document can offer you useful guidance with regard to the review process.  

Please remember, this process is designed to support the person being reviewed professionally, offer guidance, and help with career advancement. It is also an opportunity for the person being reviewed to share with a member of the Executive Committee what he/she has accomplished, talk about goals for the future, and ask for resources that he/she needs to enhance his/her functioning.  While we recognize that the prospect of a review can raise people’s anxiety level, the expectation of these reviews is that they be conducted in a collegial fashion, without intimidation. As such, hopefully you will conduct the review in a fashion that should limit the person’s level of concern and increase the chances that the person being reviewed and his/her mentor(s) find this to be a valuable experience.  

In this email, I will briefly describe the Conference Report process. The 2011 Career Development Conference Report is available online at:   

The person being reviewed will need to go to the website and sign in using his/her Emory ID and password (as used for other Emory business). The person will then be redirected to a secure Emory server (https) and need to enter his/her login and password again.  

The 2011 Career Development Conference Report is divided into four parts. There are instructions that will guide you through the completion of the report.  

Part I is completed by the faculty member being reviewed. It is comprehensive, yet relatively simple to complete, as it allows one to cut and paste publications and grants from the curriculum vitae directly into the form.  It should take approximately 30-60 minutes to complete. It asks for demographic information and time allocation, as well as details about scholarship, teaching, courses attended service, awards and notable achievements, and goals (previous, current year, long-term). I recommend that the faculty member being reviewed discuss Part I with his/her mentor(s) before sending it to the evaluator. List as the evaluator the person on the attached sheet who is the designated reviewer. Once Part I of the report is finished, click save Part I and the click the send to evaluator button.  

Part II is completed by the reviewer/evaluator. This should be discussed in a face-to-face meeting between the individual responsible for conducting the review and the faculty member being reviewed. Whenever possible, I recommend that the mentor(s) for the person being reviewed be included in these meetings. As noted above, these reviews should be conducted in a collegial fashion and designed to provide useful input and feedback to the person being reviewed and his/her mentor(s). In addition, the reviews should offer an opportunity for the faculty member being reviewed to make requests about things that they need to assist them in more effectively carrying out their roles and responsibilities. These meetings should be scheduled for approximately 45-60 minutes sometime in the next six weeks.  

Part III should be done after the in-person meeting is held and after Part II is completed. Part III affords the person being reviewed the opportunity to comment on the Part II feedback and make any optional comments that they would like. Once Part III is completed, the person being reviewed must click ‘Faculty’s signature and notify your Chair’ button to complete.   

Part IV is completed by the Chair, who may provide additional comments.  Afterwards, the file becomes a read-only and can be printed out at any stage. Since it will take Dr. Rapaport, Chair, some time to review all of these reports, make comments on them, and sign off on them prior to December 31, 2011, I recommend that the teams listed in the attached file complete this process by mid December if at all possible.  

In closing, we recognize that this is a new process for our department. Thus, we all have a lot to learn. I welcome your feedback about how to improve the process. We want to optimize our procedures to ensure that a collaborative review process takes place that offers guidance to faculty, supports mentorship teams, and enhances the quality of life in the department for each faculty member.  

For questions about completing the forms and the review process, please contact me at or (404)547-1957.