Tenure-Track criteria

Tenure evaluations (mid-term and final) primarily consider the research contribution of the candidate as an indicator of his/her expected future academic performance. They are based on external and internal reviews of the candidate’s academic performance and achievements. Mid-term evaluations are necessarily more forward-looking than final tenure decisions. Successful mid-term evaluations do not preclude unsuccessful final evaluations.

Tenure decisions are based on the quality of the written work, its reception in the international profession, and the expected quality of research to come in the future. The tenure-track committee should form a judgement of the quality of research by taking a comprehensive look at the actual work, independent of its publication or other indirect measures.

Financial considerations such as the availability of a regularly funded, tenured position in the department’s personnel budget must not enter the considerations for tenure.

Considering these goals, the following describes an average successful candidate at the mid-term and final evaluation, respectively.

Mid-term evaluation:

• The proven ability to conduct independent high-quality research as evidenced by any of the following: publications in top field journals; articles submitted to such journals; working papers that have the potential to appear in a top field journal; ongoing research projects with a high potential for first-rate output.
• The proven ability and readiness to contribute to the development of the group he/she belongs to in terms of mentoring graduate students, an active role in the group’s
  research seminars, and the participation in recruitment processes.
• The willingness to contribute to the department’s academic self-governance and committee work, appropriate to the candidate’s career stage.
• A proven record of good teaching performance as demonstrated by teaching evaluations.

Final evaluation:

• One article published in a top-5 general interest journal in economics (American Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Political Economy, Quarterly Journal of
  Economics, Review of Economic Studies), reflecting the candidate’s quality of research and broader research agenda, and establishing the candidate as a leader in his or her field.
• Several published articles in top field journals and maybe further articles in lower ranked journals.
• A “pipeline” of unpublished working papers and a strong expectation that at least one of these papers will be published eventually in a top-5 general interest journal.
• The proven ability and readiness to contribute to research excellence in the department, for example through the participation in major grant applications (CRC,
  excellence cluster, etc.).
• The proven ability and readiness to contribute to the development of the group he/she belongs to in terms of mentoring graduate students, an active role in the group’s research seminars, and the participation in recruitment processes.
• The willingness to contribute to the department’s academic self-governance and committee work, appropriate to the candidate’s career stage.
• A proven record of good teaching performance as demonstrated by teaching evaluations.

Final evaluations take into consideration the academic importance of a candidate’s work in terms of originality, contribution to her or his field, and impact on the profession. They are not based on numerical publication scores. Specifically, a top-5 publication is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for tenure. In fact, a number of articles in top field journals can easily establish a candidate as a leader in a particular area. Conversely, even top- 5 papers may not be scientifically strong and judged as such by the committee and/or the external reviewers. Moreover, even if the paper is strong, it may not be attributed to the candidate but rather to a strong coauthor or her/his advisers.

When evaluating a candidate, the tenure-track committee should consider the time since PhD (and the length of the dissertation phase) and take into account publication lags that favor those who are out longer, but also special circumstances, especially childcare duties.

Tenure decisions are based on internal and external reviews as prescribed by the university’s and the department’s regulations for hiring and tenure decisions. External reviewers should be informed about the fact that the department does not count childcare leave against the tenure clock.

In the department’s requests for external reviews, reviewers are asked the following questions:

• Where in Europe or in the US do you think this person would likely be granted tenure? Where do you think would this person be unlikely to be granted tenure? How
  do you compare this person to the current faculty in Bonn in his/her field at a similar stage of their career? To facilitate an answer to these questions, a list of recently
  tenured professors (in Europe but also globally) could be given to the reviewers.
• Does the research pipeline and agenda of this person contain papers that have the potential to be published in top journals? Which one(s)?
• Is this person internationally recognized for his/her work, e.g., is there research that has built on the candidate’s work? Where and how much is it cited? Do your
  colleagues know of his/her work and have you/ would you invite the person for a seminar? Is this person the “go-to” referee in his/her area of expertise?
• In short: Is this candidate a person who is known and respected for their work in their field in departments of the LSE, UCL, Yale, etc.?