Academic Appointment & Promotion Policy
- Equality of Opportunity
- Unconscious Bias
- Additional Circumstances
- New Appointments / Recruitment
- Early Career Development Programme
- Promotion – Eligibility & Re-Application
- Advancement- Research Assistant (G6) to Research Associate (G7)
- Relationship Between Research Only and Research and Teaching Tracks
- Application Process
- Assessment Criteria
- Academic Career Tracks
- Teaching Certification
- Referee Nominations
- College Promotion Committee
- Board of Review
- Fast-Track Retention/Promotion
- Outcome Notification & Feedback
- Procedural Irregularity
- Application Retention
A PDF version of this policy is available here: Academic Appointment & Promotion Policy 2022-23
The University of Glasgow is committed to enhancing its reputation as international research led University, maintaining a level of academic discipline and achievement that is respected worldwide.
The University’s Academic Appointment and Promotion Policy sets out the principles that underpin a fair and transparent appointment and promotion process for eligible academic staff. The promotion process is designed to recognise and reward excellent performance that supports the delivery of institutional objectives. These are measured by demonstrable excellence over a sustained period evidenced by the significance of contribution and impact across the full range of academic activities.
The Performance, Development and Review (PDR) process affords an opportunity for career goals to be identified thereby enabling strategies to be put in place to achieve the relevant standards for promotion. Partnered with the PDR process this policy offers career pathways for academic staff in building expertise and standing, within the chosen discipline, within the University of Glasgow. There are five academic career tracks: Research & Teaching; Research; Research Scientist, Learning, Teaching & Scholarship; and Academic Clinician.
Equality of Opportunity
The University promotes equality of opportunity for everyone within a conducive working environment that is free from discrimination and unfair treatment. Athena SWAN Charter principles are embedded in the application of this policy. Applicants may apply for promotion at any stage of their career insofar as the criteria within the relevant career pathway is met.
The University's Equality and Diversity Strategy Committee monitors ethnic origin, disability and gender data relative to promotion applications and outcomes. This continual review of career development trends and statistics thereby ensures that the criteria against which decisions are taken, remain objectively justifiable and lawful in accordance with equality legislation.
Unconscious bias refers to an involuntary prejudice or preference applied to an assessment which forms part of a process that occurs outside the control and in a way in which those making such a judgement are not aware. It is a bias that happens automatically and is triggered by the brain making quick judgments and assessments of people and situations, influenced by background, cultural conditioning and personal experiences. (ECU: 2013 Unconscious bias in higher education).
Promotion committees must be able to defend any decision taken that forms part of the promotion process with regards to progressing or declining an application. A clear and reasoned rationale for every decision made mitigates against any form of bias or inadvertent subjectivity. Committees must ensure that every decision taken within the process is sufficiently evidence-based. Any such evidence should focus on the reasoning behind any decision not to progress a promotion application including the premature nature of any such case. Where additional circumstances have been submitted committees should consider these carefully and evidence how they have been taken into account relative to the criteria.
Applicants require to meet the requisite quality standards at the relevant level or grade of appointment and promotion. However, promotion committees may permit a reduction in the number or quantity of outputs/activities relative to a particular application where personal circumstances justify such mitigation subject to requisite quality standards having been satisfied. Evidence of work trajectory is important in the evaluation of track record of demonstrable performance and delivery with due consideration given to the circumstances presented based on the evidence provided in support of an application.
Applications will be assessed solely against the criteria necessary for appointment or promotion to a particular role or grade irrespective of employment or contractual status. Additional circumstances may be included for periods of absence from work (or where a situation has had a similar impact) for equality-related reasons, including career breaks and caring responsibilities. The Committee will take into account those circumstances that are clearly outlined in an application and give due consideration to the resultant impact of those particular factors relative to the overall profile and associated outputs.
The online application process permits applicants to outline any additional or specific impact on their track record of performance and activity profile as a consequence of the global pandemic. These may include, balancing remote working with additional caring responsibilities, lack of accessibility for laboratory based research, enhanced opportunity to collaborate, etc. Candidates should provide a brief outline of the resultant impact on their output for promotion committees to consider and determine in their deliberations.
The University’s processes have been developed with a view to ensuring that applicants are treated fairly and that the criteria are applied consistently and objectively based on individual merit and track record of demonstrable performance.
Each application will be considered and judged on its merits in accordance with the criteria applicable to the grade of application. The University is a signatory to the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) with any assessment of research contributions as part of this process compliant with these principles. The Committee will give due consideration to any circumstances that may have had an effect on productivity, while ensuring that the quality and impact of demonstrable achievements meets the requisite standard.
New Appointments / Recruitment
The quality of academic appointments substantially defines the quality of the University. New academic appointments are conducted in accordance with the University’s Recruitment Policy with each job description aligned with the promotion criteria for each grade and career track in terms of qualifications, skills and experience, as detailed in this policy document. Together, these policies set out the procedures designed to recruit the ‘best’ candidate to the University.
Newly appointed early career academic postholders will normally be placed on a salary point within Grades 7 or 8 on appointment. The initial salary placement will be commensurate with previous experience and achievements and will be approved by the Vice Principal & Head of College, or their nominee, in consultation with the relevant Head of HR. New academic appointees will be required to complete a minimum probationary period prior to confirmation of their appointment.
Early Career Development Programme
The University is committed to the development and progression of academic colleagues and the provision of meaningful development, constructive mentoring support and career development advice from senior academic colleagues through our established Early Career Development Programme (ECDP). The Programme facilitates proactive support, mentoring and career guidance for colleagues throughout their academic career through a holistic and co-ordinated approach to career development with the aim of developing high achieving, high performing academics who will be in a position to effectively contribute in delivering objectives aligned with University goals and objectives.
Over a period of five to eight years, newly appointed and promoted grade 7 and 8 academics will be guided and supported through their career with the expectation that they will reach grade 9 within this timeframe.
Promotion – Eligibility & Re-Application
Irrespective of employment type or funding source, academic colleagues will be eligible to apply for promotion in accordance with this policy.
Normally, colleagues will be eligible to apply for promotion after twelve months in post however, this requirement may be waived in exceptional circumstances by the Vice Principal and Head of College, particularly in the interests of recruitment and retention considerations.
Developing the requisite track record may take a number of years in order to demonstrate and satisfy the relevant criteria for promotion. It is therefore important to plan and diligently prepare the necessary documentation to ensure excellence can be evidenced against the criteria on which an application will be judged.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to seek advice/guidance from their Head of School prior to submitting an application form. Applications will not be considered for career grades at any level above that for which has been applied. Unsuccessful applications may be considered for a lower grade where such an outcome represents career progression (e.g., an unsuccessful Professorial application from a Senior Lecturer may be considered for Readership where the application demonstrated distinction in research).
It is for an applicant to decide to apply for promotion, irrespective of the explicit support of their line manager or otherwise. Applicants should be mindful that an unsuccessful outcome will normally prohibit a further application the following year, unless exceptionally supported by the relevant Vice Principal & Head of College. This, following consultation with the Head of School to confirm that there is the potential for a different outcome within the shorter timeframe.
ADVANCEMENT - RESEARCH ASSISTANT (G6) TO RESEARCH ASSOCIATE (G7)
Advancement from Research Assistant (Grade 6) to Research Associate (Grade 7) on reaching the scale point maximum of Grade 6 is the normal expectation. Research Assistants who are at the top of the scale will be expected to show a preponderance of strong performance across the Grade 7, Research Only promotion criteria.
Research Assistants who have attained their PhD but are not at the top of the Grade 6 scale may apply for advancement to Research Associate, subject to demonstrable evidence of a preponderance of strong performance across the Grade 7, Research Only promotion criteria. Applicants will be expected to evidence that significant steps have been taken to escalate research effort beyond the expectations of a Research Assistant.
Applications will be considered by the College Researcher Advancement Review Panel which will take place by June of each year and, where successful, promotion will normally be effective from 1st August. The Panel will comprise the College Dean of Research, two senior members of academic staff and the College Head of People & OD. Decisions will be communicated to the Performance, Pay & Reward team who will notify each applicant of the decision taken following consideration of their application by the College Researcher Advancement Review Panel.
Where an application is unsuccessful, feedback will be provided by the Head of School. Feedback for professional development purposes will include guidance on the action/s necessary to meet the criteria for promotion in any future application. Unsuccessful applicants at RA 6 may apply again in the following year.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESEARCH ONLY AND RESEARCH AND TEACHING TRACKS
The highest grade on the Research Only (RO) career track is Grade 9. The normal route of career progression beyond Grade 9 is to Research and Teaching (R&T) Grade 10 (Professor). Some individuals may make the transition between these tracks at an earlier career stage. It is recognised, however, that those on the Research Only track may not have had the opportunity to engage in Learning, Teaching and Scholarship due to the nature of their employment.
Promotion to R&T Professor normally requires an individual to demonstrate performance against criterion C (Learning & Teaching Practice) at a minimum of R&T Grade 9. In the case of individuals who have or are transferring from the RO track, where the individual has been employed for less than five years in an R&T post in a UK University at the point at which an application for promotion or assignment to an R&T Professorship is made, the requirement to achieve Grade 9 in Learning & Teaching Practice will be waived. Promotion committees will in this case assess the commitment of the individual to Learning & Teaching Practice based on the opportunities that were afforded to the individual.
It should also be noted that applicants who successfully transfer from the RO to the R&T track should, within five years, secure appropriate teaching certification either by completion of the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice PgCAP or through the University Recognising Excellence in Teaching (RET) Scheme.
The Director of People & OD is responsible for the annual academic promotion exercise and along with the Principal’s Board of Review ensures that the process is appropriately applied.
There are four main stages to the process:
Application Completion and Submission
Consideration by the College Promotion Committee
Principal's Board of Review
Notification of Outcome
Each application will be assessed against the promotion criteria applicable for the relevant career path and related grade. The career paths are: Research & Teaching; Research; Research Scientist; Learning, Teaching & Scholarship; and Academic Clinician. There is flexibility to take an alternative career path at any grade. Any such application will be considered in accordance with this procedure.
Academic Career Tracks
Academic Career Track
|Grade||Research & Teaching||Research||Research Scientist||Learning, Teaching & Scholarship||Academic Clinician|
|10||Professor||Professor||Professorial Academic Clinician|
|9||Senior Lecturer / Reader||Senior Research Fellow||Senior Research Scientist||Senior Lecturer / Reader||Senior Academic Clinician|
|8||Lecturer||Research Fellow||Research Scientist||Lecturer||Academic Clinician|
|7||Lecturer||Research Associate||Associate Research Scientist||Lecturer||Associate Academic Clinician|
|6||Research Assistant||Teaching Assistant||Associate Academic Clinician|
When completing the promotion application form applicants must provide evidence that they are performing at the requisite level and demonstrate an upward trajectory in performance that would merit promotion.
To be successful, applicants must demonstrate sustained performance, evidenced against the criteria specified for their chosen career track and grade. Normally, it is not possible to demonstrate sustained performance within a year of appointment or promotion.
|Grade||Research & Teaching||Research||Research Scientist||Learning, Teaching & Scholarship||Academic Clinician|
(qualifying criteria detailed on Zone Descriptors)
|3 columns. Remaining column should satisfy Grade 9 criteria||Clinical service* + at least 3 other criteria|
(for Reader see qualifying criteria detailed on Readership Descriptors)
|Preponderance||Preponderance||Column A + 2 others||Clinical service* + at least 3 other criteria|
|8||Preponderance||Preponderance||Preponderance||Column A + 1 other||Clinical service* + at least 3 other criteria|
|7||Preponderance||Preponderance||Preponderance||Alignment with UKPSF Descriptor 1+ evidence of progression towards Descriptor 2||Clinical service* + at least 3 other criteria|
*Clinical service: for use in cases where clinical work is performed directly for the University (veterinary clinicans); for others the academic value and esteem arising from clinical work may be articulated with reference to the other criteria.
When scoring the promotion application Committee members must assess the evidence provided and satisfy themselves that the applicant is performing at the level to which they are seeking promotion and demonstrating an upward trajectory in performance. To be successful, an applicant must demonstrate sustained performance meeting a preponderance of the criteria specified for the relevant career track and grade.
Colleagues applying for grade 10 should have appropriate teaching certification either by completion of the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice PgCAP or through the University Recognising Excellence in Teaching (RET) Scheme. The exception to this is where an applicant has been recruited directly to Grade 9 and is applying for promotion within three years and while the process of securing the teaching qualification is underway. In this case, their promotion to Grade 10 may progress but they may not be further promoted until such an appropriate teaching qualification is obtained. Where applicants have been in post for more than three years and do not possess the appropriate teaching certification, any promotion will not be effective until such an appropriate teaching qualification is secured.
Research Only (Already in Guidance)
It should also be noted that applicants who successfully transfer from the RO to the R&T track should, within five years, secure appropriate teaching certification either by completion of the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice PgCAP or through the University Recognising Excellence in Teaching (RET) Scheme.”
Each application will include an evaluation of the applicant’s suitability for promotion, prepared by the relevant Head of School. Heads of School are required to confirm the accuracy of information submitted by the applicant and make a detailed judgement on the extent to which the application meets the promotion criteria for the grade. The Head of School will comment on the applicant’s achievements taking account of any personal circumstances and confirm the factual accuracy of the applicant's submission.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that their application is made available to the relevant Head of School in good time to allow sufficient time for the supporting statement to be submitted prior to the closing date.
It is recognised that the Head of School may not always have the relevant subject specialist expertise to evaluate the standard of research outputs. In such cases, the Head of School may consult, confidentially, with a relevant senior academic who has the appropriate specialist knowledge. In such cases, the Head of School should indicate in their statement that consultation has taken place, indicating who was consulted. All assessments of the quality of research outputs should be compliant with the principles of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).
In the case of professorial promotion applications, the Head of School is required to consult with, and have their commentary informed by, key Professors within the relevant subject discipline. It should be made clear to those involved in the consultation that an objective view is being sought of the applicant, their portfolio of activity and track record of performance relative to the promotion criteria. It is recognised that the value of the feedback gained through this process may vary due to a range of factors including the extent to which Professors engage with the process. For this reason, while the feedback may be helpful in shaping the view of the Head of School, it should inform and not be the determinant of that view. Nevertheless, the statement from the Head of School should provide commentary on the range of views expressed and should list the professors with whom there has been consultation. For professorial promotion applications, Heads of Schools are required to assess and comment on the extent to which the research portfolio provides evidence of an outstanding and sustained internationally recognised research profile, evidencing innovative, distinctive and significant outputs which are considered to be world-leading in terms of originality, significance and rigour.
Key points to note are:
- Applications will be shared on a strictly confidential basis seeking a brief commentary with an indication of support or otherwise referenced to the promotions criteria.
- Feedback from the professoriate will be retained confidentially, complying with GDPR Principles https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/dpfoioffice/gdpr/principles/
- The Supporting Statement from the relevant Head of School should detail the number of professors consulted and the level of support or otherwise indicating clearly the numbers in support/not supportive of each application.
- Unconscious Bias.
- By submitting the application, the Head of School confirms that the information provided by the applicant in their Academic Promotion application is accurate to the best of the Head of School’s knowledge.
Please note that UK visas and Immigration rules for sponsored Skilled Workers limit the extent to which roles can be changed without requiring a new visa. Promotions within the same career track are generally permissible within the terms of an existing Skilled Worker Visa. Changing career track (e.g. moving from Research only to Research and Teaching) may necessitate a change in visa and a new visa application will be required. Case specific advice should be sought at an early stage as appropriate from the relevant College or University Services People & OD team.
Two external College nominated references will be sought for Professorial applications.
- Referees should be employed by a distinguished university.
- For each candidate, one referee should be employed by a top tier UK University and one should be employed by a distinguished overseas institution.
- Referees should be confined to those of full Professorial status. Heads of School should provide written justification in any case where a referee does not hold the title of Professor.
- Wherever appropriate referees should be of international standing and active in research or scholarship publication in the appropriate field.
- Referees should not normally have been on the staff of the School in the four previous years, held an honorary or visiting appointment at the School in the past four years or hold an honorary or visiting appointment at the School in the past four years or hold an honorary or visiting appointment currently.
- The naming of referees (external experts) should not, normally, include people who have co-authored with the candidate in the past four years. Heads of School should seek the advice of the Vice Principal & Head of College for disciplines where joint authorship is the norm and where collaborators may be best placed to act as referees.
- The naming of referees should not include people who have acted as a PhD supervisor to the candidate.
- There may be different aspects of an applicant’s work to be assessed and referees should be nominated with this in mind and with an indication, where appropriate, of which aspect(s) a referee is being asked to comment upon.
- For candidates with inter or multi-disciplinary research interests, Heads of School are encouraged to nominate referees with an appropriate profile which could include referees from outside the School’s dicipline.
External referees will be nominated by the Head of School and endorsed by the Vice Principal & Head of College when an application is to be considered by the Board of Review. It will not be normal practice for an applicant to be consulted. This information will be requested from the College following the meeting of the College Promotion Committee.
Referees will be invited to comment upon the extent to which an applicant meets the criteria for the level of promotion sought when comparing the full application with the University’s promotion criteria and will be asked to indicate if the applicant would be promoted to the level sought within their own institution.
References will only be sought in those cases where an application is considered by the College Promotions Committee to be borderline and where external assessment would assist the Board of Review in determining the final outcome.
References are confidential and accessible only to the Board of Review and People & OD colleagues involved in the application of this policy, for the purpose of processing and assessment of applications.
College Promotion Committee
The College Promotion Committee membership comprises:
- Vice Principal & Head of College (Convener)
- Thematic Vice Principal (one in attendance at each College Committee)
- Vice Principal Learning & Teaching (for LTS cases only)
- Director of Professional Services (where appropriate)
- All Heads of Schools
- A minimum of 3 College Deans
- Two Senate Assessors
- Executive Director of People and OD (or nominee)
- College Head of People & OD
The College Promotion Committee, convened by the Vice Principal & Head of College, will consider and assess all the applications for their College. Promotion decisions will be determined on the evidence provided by each applicant and on the extent to which they satisfy a preponderance of the criteria across the range of academic activity applicable to the grade and track. The Committee will decide on balance the extent to which the criteria are satisfied, potentially meriting promotion, and make their recommendation to the Board of Review.
In the case of promotions on the Learning, Teaching and Scholarship (LTS) track, the Vice Principal (Learning & Teaching) will attend all College Promotion Committees and will feedback the recommendations of the LTS Panel (which constitutes the VP (L&T) and the College Deans of Learning & Teaching) on all LTS cases. The VP (L&T) will, in addition, highlight borderline cases for consideration by the College Promotion Committee. Members of the College Promotion Committee may also request that any LTS case be further considered by the College Promotion Committee but, otherwise, the recommendation of the LTS Panel will go forward to the Board of Review. In those cases where there is disagreement between the College Promotion Committee and the LTS Panel over the outcome of the application, and where no final position is agreed, the application will be flagged for further consideration at the Board of Review.
Where the College Committee considers that an application for promotion to Readership and Professorship meets the relevant criteria for promotion, the Board of Review will determine whether an applicant is to be promoted.
The Committee will include staff trained in job evaluation, the Equality Act 2010 and Unconscious Bias, and every effort will be made to achieve a gender balance in its composition. All members of the Committee have a role in assessing each case for promotion and must vote either for or against promotion for each applicant. If, for wholly exceptional reasons, a member of a Committee is unable to attend a meeting, they will be required to submit their written assessment, in advance, to the relevant Head of People & OD and Convener. The Convener will inform the Committee of the submitted views on each case.
Heads of School are not permitted to contribute to the formal discussion and assessment of applications from within their School or Research Institute. They may however answer any questions of a factual nature as requested by the Committee. Similarly, any Committee member who has had substantial input into the completion of the submitted application will not be allowed to comment upon such an application.
All outcomes, including the rationale for each decision, will be recorded for the purposes of feedback to applicants and policy monitoring. The recommendations from the College Promotion Committee will be considered by the Board of Review.
Board of Review
The Board of Review membership comprises:
- Senior Vice Principal/Deputy Vice Chancellor – Academic (Convener)
- All Vice Principals
- Chief Operating Officer
- Executive Director of People & Organisational Development
- Director of Performance & Reward or member of PoD executive as nominated by the Executive Director of PoD)
- Senior Senate Assessor
- 2 External Assessors (written commentary and feedback to be provided where unable to attend in person)
The Board of Review is responsible for ensuring that the annual promotion process is appropriately applied.
A Board of Review meeting will take place for the purposes of assessing, reviewing and moderating the recommendations from the College Promotion Committees to ensure fairness and consistency across the University.
The University is committed to retaining high quality staff. To enable the University to respond rapidly to opportunities to retain high quality staff, a fast-track promotion procedure will be exceptionally applied in circumstances of retention, as deemed appropriate by the relevant Vice Principal & Head of College, in consultation with the Head of School as appropriate. In order to facilitate the efficient and timely handling of applications for fast-track promotion and to ensure that delays do not occur, applications may be presented to the College Promotion Committee for consideration out-with the normal timetable. In such cases, the normal assessment process detailed in this policy, and relevant promotion criteria, will be followed. Consultation / deliberation may occur via email and telephone. The Vice Principal & Head of College will determine the urgency surrounding such cases.
Outcome Notification & Feedback
People and OD are responsible for notifying each applicant of the decision taken following consideration of their application by the College Promotion Committee and the Board of Review.
Successful applicants will receive written notification of their promotion along with written confirmation of salary placement and, if appropriate, any market supplement. Promotion will normally be effective from 1st August.
A successful application for promotion to Grades 7, 8 or 9 will normally result in salary placement on the first point of the new grade unless the applicant is already being paid within the contribution zone of Grade 6, 7 or 8. In such circumstances, salary placement will be one incremental point above the current salary level prior to promotion.
In the case of promotions to Readership, salary placement will be at the top of the Grade 9 substantive pay scale.
A successful application for promotion to Professor will normally result in salary placement at the bottom of Zone 1 of the University’s Professorial zone-based pay and reward structure. Placement within a zone will be determined in accordance with the policy for zone-based pay and reward. Professorial designations are agreed in consultation with the relevant Vice Principal & Head of College.
Clinical academics working jointly with the NHS will receive confirmation of a change of status. Salaries are set by the NHS and depend on the level of the honorary contract. On promotion to Senior Academic Clinician, the University will establish a clinical slot at the appropriate level with the relevant NHS Medical Director, following which the recruitment team will set up a joint NHS committee to agree the award of honorary consultant status. Thereafter, on receipt of the honorary consultant contract from the NHS, a job plan will be jointly agreed with the NHS and a new contract of employment issued by the Recruitment Team accordingly.
Where an application is unsuccessful, feedback will be provided by the Head of School with appropriate information from the College Promotion Committee / Board of Review, and the support of the College People & Organisational Development team, as required. Feedback for professional development purposes will include guidance on the action necessary to meet the criteria for promotion in any future application. Unsuccessful applicants may not apply in the following year without the support of their Vice Principal & Head of College.
The decision of the College Promotion Committee and the Board of Review is final. There is no right of appeal against a decision taken not to accede to an application for promotion unless there are circumstances that call into question the procedures that have been applied. In such circumstances, the applicant is required to discuss the feedback received with their Vice Principal & Head of College.
An unsuccessful applicant may appeal to the Executive Director of People & OD in circumstances where they can demonstrate that due process was not followed, and that this failure has affected the outcome. The appeal should be made in writing, stating the perceived breach of procedure and detailing the way in which this has influenced the outcome. Resubmission of the original application or the provision of new information will not be accepted. An applicant has fifteen working days from the date of the notification of the outcome to submit an appeal.
Should the Executive Director of People & OD determine that there are grounds for an appeal, the applicant will be informed in writing. Thereafter, in accordance with the agreed procedures, an Appeal Committee will be constituted, with membership comprising individuals not previously involved in the promotion process for the applicant in question.
The membership will comprise of:
- One Professor, having due regard to the provenance of the appellant
- One UCUG Representative
- One Senior People & OD Professional
The Appeal Committee will meet as soon as is practicable following the decision of the Executive Director of People & OD. The written appeal will be circulated to the Head of and the Convener of the relevant College Promotion Committee or Board of Review. The Appeal Committee will interview the appellant (who may be accompanied by a colleague or trade union representative), and, where appropriate, may seek additional information from the Head of School and the Convener of the relevant College Promotion Committee or Board of Review. The Committee will consider the original material available and will be permitted to call others to attend or to request the submission of written statements.
The Appeal Committee will be empowered to consider the facts of the case presented before determining:
- to uphold the appeal and refer the matter back to the relevant Promotion Committee or Board of Review for reconsideration of the substantive case following the correct procedure and/or process; or
to reject the appeal.
- The Appeal Committee does not have the delegated authority to vary the original outcome. The decision of the Appeal Committee will be final.
All materials and deliberations relating to applications will be treated in the strictest confidence by all participants in the process. Members of the College Promotion Committee / Board of Review will not normally discuss applications or recommendations outside the Committee meeting structure, unless for advice on a procedural matter.
The contents of any references sought are confidential to the members of the Board of Review and will not be passed to anyone else including the applicant. All references will be obtained by the Performance & Reward team and authorisation to contact external referees will be obtained from each application at the point of application submission. In line with data protection legislation, the content of a reference and its use in the decision-making process may be scrutinised by the applicant.
It is the University’s policy, in accordance with GDPR Principles https://www.gla.ac.uk/myglasgow/dpfoioffice/gdpr/principles/ to retain each application, and associated correspondence, in an individual’s personal file, including references , where relevant, sought for successful applicants. References sought for unsuccessful applicants will be held for twelve months and then securely destroyed.
|Launch of Academic Promotion and Zone Movement Round||16th January 2023|
|Deadline for Academic Promotion Applications to be completed online||13th March 2023|
|Deadline for Professorial Zone Movement Applications to be completed online.||31st March 2023|
|1st LTS Panel||28th March 2023|
|2nd LTS Panel||17th April 2023|
|College Promotion Committees||Between 11th and 28th April 2023|
|RA 6 to 7 Advancement Panels||By 15th May 2023|
|Board of Review||By 22nd May 2023|
|Outcome Letters Issued to Applicants||By 30th June 2023|
|Effective date of Promotion||1st August 2023|