Referee/Evaluator and Comparator Information List Guidelines for Professor in the Practice

The academic unit chair (supported by staff) prepares an alphabetized list of proposed referees/evaluators and comparators for both initial appointments and promotions that includes as much of the following as is feasible to obtain without undue effort (and without revealing the identity of potential referees/evaluators/comparators to the candidate):

• The name of the referee/comparator (in bold)
• Degree information (institution and date [or approximate date if actual date is not readily available])
• Current professional or academic position (achievement and professional standing must be comparable to or higher than the rank for which the candidate is being considered)
• Relevant honors
• Major service activities
• Professional accomplishments and evidence of eminence (e.g., awards, reviews, and/or other discipline-appropriate evidence)
• Brief explanation of the appropriateness of the referee/evaluator and comparator for the particular case (expertise, stature, presence in leading organization or department, etc.).

Comparator Guidelines

• For initial appointments/promotions, generally three comparators are required who are within about five years of the candidate’s entrance into the profession or terminal degree year. An additional comparator is generally required who should be “aspirational” in the sense of having already achieved what we hope our candidate may achieve in the decade after promotion/appointment. All comparators should be the stars—rising or established—of their field(s) broadly conceived.
• In rare cases, there will be an acute trade-off between the requirement of four comparators and the need for comparators who are among the foremost experts in the relevant areas. In these cases, the divisional dean, in consultation with colleagues in the FAS Dean’s Office, may adopt a modified interpretation of the numeric comparator count.
• It occasionally happens that a referee is also selected as a comparator. In these instances, an additional comparator should be selected and approved by the relevant divisional dean and added in place of the referee/comparator’s name only to the list that is provided to the referee/comparator. This avoids having the referee/comparator see their own name as part of a comparison set.

Referee/Evaluator Guidelines

• Indication of whether the referee/evaluator was proposed by the candidate or by the academic unit
• Information about whether the referee/evaluator has written an evaluation of the candidate for a previous Yale appointment or promotion review (“fresh” status)
• Indication whether the referee is arm’s-length or not, with notes about any substantial connection to the candidate such as
  • whether the reviewer chaired or served on review committees or juries of the candidate’s professional work and/or was the candidate’s teacher or mentor
  • whether the reviewer and candidate are co-practitioners and/or have collaborated on professional work
• Note: the academic unit chair (supported by staff) should search the candidate’s CV, professional resume, or biography (ctrl + shift + F to access the Find menu) for the last name of each referee/evaluator. If a referee is listed, the relevant divisional dean should be informed so arm's-length status can be determined.

Please refer to the Criteria for Arm’s-Length and/or Fresh Status of External Referees/Evaluators for Professor in the Practice.