You sit down to write your dossier, open a colleague's successful example, and feel a little better. Finally, something concrete. Then you notice it uses a different template, covers a different review period, and includes sections your instructions barely mention. Now you're less sure than when you started.
A sample can help you picture the finished product. But the first useful document is the current set of requirements that applies to your own review. The book makes this the starting point for dossier preparation, and there's a practical reason: otherwise, you can spend days polishing the wrong thing.
Identify the review before collecting attachments.
An annual review, a mid-tenure assessment, and a promotion application may draw on some of the same work, but they aren't interchangeable submissions. Confirm the review type, your appointment or track, the relevant unit, and the cycle you're preparing for.
Then locate the applicable university, college, and department instructions. Where several documents apply, keep them together and note their dates. If they appear inconsistent, ask the designated review coordinator which rule governs the specific issue. Don't quietly choose whichever version is easiest to follow.
Turn the instructions into questions you can answer.
What sections are required? What period does each section cover? Is there a prescribed CV format? Are publications submitted in full, as abstracts, or through another approved method? Which narratives have page or word limits? Where do supporting materials belong?
These questions aren't busywork. Each one prevents a different kind of rework. Learning about a strict narrative limit after writing ten pages feels very different from knowing it before you outline the section.
Check how works in progress should be described too. A submitted manuscript isn't an accepted article. An application isn't an awarded grant. Whatever categories the institution permits, use status labels that accurately describe the work as of the relevant date.
Make a checklist with evidence attached.
A useful checklist has more than a row of empty boxes. For each requirement, record where the instruction came from, what material will satisfy it, its current location, and any unresolved question. Mark an item complete only when the requested material is actually ready.
For example, a row labeled “teaching evidence” is too broad to guide much work. A more useful entry identifies the required evaluation report, the semesters covered, and the file you'll submit. If you still need an official report, write that down rather than letting the vague label hide the gap.
Separate required material from helpful context.
The book raises questions about citation measures, publication types, and external referees. Don't turn those examples into a universal list. Find out what your institution actually asks for. Optional material should earn its place by clarifying a relevant contribution, and it still needs to fit the submission rules.
Procedures for external reviews deserve their own careful check. Determine what information you're responsible for providing and who handles communication. Don't assume collecting your own recommendation letters is part of the assignment.
Before you write another paragraph, spend twenty minutes building the checklist for one section. You don't need to resolve every question today. You need to see which decisions are settled, which records are missing, and who can answer the questions that would otherwise derail your work later.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, chapter 14, pp. 227–228.
