A colleague says you need more publications. Another says journal quality matters more. An online guide gives a third answer. Before you change your plans, ask a quieter question: which rules actually apply to your case?
The handbook puts official criteria before informal advice for a reason. General guidance can help you think, but it can't establish your institution's requirements. Find the documents first, then use conversations to understand them.
Locate the guidance for your actual appointment
Start with the official source and identify the applicable university, college, and department documents. Check your track, rank, review type, and any guidance about which version applies. Don't choose a document simply because it appears first in a search result.
If the version is unclear, ask the responsible office to confirm it. Save that clarification alongside the file so you aren't repeating the search before every review.
Read for evidence, not only broad expectations
Words such as quality, effectiveness, and contribution need context. Look for how the process asks you to demonstrate them. Which materials are required? How should collaborative work be described? What information is needed about teaching and service?
Make a list of the parts you can act on now. You may need to begin collecting a type of evidence well before the submission year.
Separate criteria from submission procedures
Criteria explain what is assessed. Procedures explain how the review happens. Find both. A strong narrative still needs to arrive in the correct format, with the required materials, through the specified route.
Record the deadlines and identify any steps handled by someone else. Don't assume you're responsible for collecting a confidential document just because it appears in the completed file.
Ask about ambiguous dates and statuses
Research often crosses appointment and review boundaries. A study may begin before a job starts and appear in print afterward. Ask how those circumstances should be reported rather than deciding which date makes the strongest case.
Keep the record accurate even when the categorization needs clarification.
Use informal advice to test your understanding
Once you've read the rules, bring a focused question to a chair or mentor: 'This section asks for evidence of impact. What would help a reviewer understand my work in this area?' That's more useful than asking for a universal publication target.
Keep a requirement and its interpretation together
When a conversation clarifies a rule, write down the question, the answer, and the source. Distinguish an official clarification from a colleague's suggestion about presenting your work. Both can help, but they shouldn't become indistinguishable in your notes.
For example, a mentor may suggest explaining why a publication matters to your field. That's useful writing advice. It doesn't establish that the outlet satisfies a particular institutional requirement. If that point affects a major decision, check it through the appropriate route.
Revisit your checklist when a new review cycle begins or an official change is announced. Don't assume that a saved document stays applicable forever, and don't assume a newly posted version automatically governs an earlier appointment. Ask which version applies. A small note explaining that answer can prevent a much larger disagreement between the plan you followed and the instructions you're later asked to use.
Make a one-page checklist from the governing documents today. Put a question mark beside anything you can't interpret confidently. Your next task is to resolve those marks, before they become assumptions in a multiyear plan.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, pp. 23-24.
