Sharing revised promotion and tenure guidelines
June 17, 2026
Dear Stony Brook Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty,
Together over the past three years, we have been working to review and revise the University promotion and tenure guidelines. I am pleased to share with you an updated version of the guidelines.
The revised document reflects the feedback many of you shared, and I thank you for your active participation and input.
Because of your feedback, we have updated the guidelines to:
- More explicitly state that excellence is defined and interpreted through departmental, school/college, and disciplinary criteria;
- Strengthen the language that defines research, teaching, and service in ways inclusive of all fields;
- Clarify that the university-wide advisory committee is advisory and operates within the existing decision-making authority of the Provost and Executive Vice President for Stony Brook Medicine and Health Sciences (EVP-SBMHS);
- More clearly define the advisory committee's composition model, with attention to balance across the University;
- Clarify the role of the advisory committee regarding deliberations and post-review actions;
- Streamline the expedited tenure process to reflect hiring realities and give departments flexibility while preserving standards;
- Clarify requirements for external evaluator letters;
- Reorganize and clarify tenure clock stoppages and exceptional circumstances, including explicitly stating that a clock stoppage is not extra time;
- Adjust deadlines and timing to improve feasibility while maintaining rigor and timely review, notably making a change from Jan. 15 to May 1 for Associate to Full Professor cases due to the Provost's Office;
- Clarify the role and scope of internal letters, particularly for clinical cases; and
- Improve the document's organizational structure to improve flow, clarity, and consistency.
If you would like to compare the two documents, you may view the version of the guidelines we shared in May.
These guidelines, as you are all aware, provide a shared framework for process and consistency during the portion of the review that is the responsibility of the Provost and the EVP-SBMHS. The guidelines do not replace the standards of a candidate's discipline, department, or school/college. They improve transparency and build clarity at the central review.
If you have additional feedback after reviewing the revisions for the updated guidelines, I welcome your thoughts via this survey. It will be open through July 3.
Sincerely,
Carl
Carl W. Lejuez
Executive Vice President and Provost