[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-174832-105":53,"doc-detail-174832-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","annual-review-template-faculty-annual-review","Annual Review Template - Faculty Annual Review","","Annual Review Template is a structured form for documenting a faculty member’s annual performance across workload allocation and multiple areas of effort, including teaching and mentoring, research and scholarship or creative work, service, clinical care (if separate), administration, and any additional TIU-defined areas. It requests workload averages from the previous year, evaluation expectations and metrics from the APT document, qualitative feedback, explicit next-period goals, and performance ratings with required categories. It also includes summary evaluation and a rights, next steps, and appeals process describing review compliance, file placement, dean/provost approvals, and a 14-day appeal window based on substantive factual or criteria-related issues.",{"@graph":63,"@context":122},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":36,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/forms/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/annual-review-template-faculty-annual-review/174832/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/annual-review-template-faculty-annual-review/174832.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Maeve","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document","2026-10-22","2026-09-02",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":25},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114,118],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What information is required to complete the faculty annual review template?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The template collects faculty identity details, track/pathway (if applicable), department and college, campus, review year, reviewer name, review completion date, and the date of review.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"How does the template define workload allocation for the review period?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"It requires providing previous year average workload allocation for each area with at least 5% effort, and for the 2026 review estimating 2025 workload if it was not provided. It also asks to reconcile discrepancies between documented and reported workload by stating the reason.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What must be included in the evaluation for each work area?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"For each area with at least 5% effort, it requests workload allocation out of 100%, expectations during the review period, evaluation metrics based on the APT document, qualitative performance feedback, explicit goals for the next period, and a performance rating including exceeds/meets/does not meet expectations.",{"name":119,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does the appeals process work after the annual review is finalized?",{"text":121,"@type":109},"The review follows interim policy and after completion the document is forwarded for dean review and possible provost decision. To appeal, the faculty member has 14 days to identify disagreeing ratings and show a substantive factual error, inconsistent criteria application, or misalignment with TIU criteria.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":124,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":56},174832,1791541427,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":9,"category_id":35,"category_name":36,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":25,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":73,"language":139,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":143,"read_time":9},5909877438554,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/5600025385ad2bf12a7?_k=1778553567797529272","OFFICE OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS\nAnnual Review Template\nFaculty member (name, title, rank):\nTrack and pathway (If applicable):\nDepartment/school:\nCollege:\nCampus:\nReview year:\nReview completed by:\nDate of review:\nWorkload allocation\nProvide the previous review year average workload allocation for any area of effort with at least 5% assigned (e.g., teaching, scholarship, service, clinical work, administration, others as defined by the TIU head, regional campus dean/director and/or unit APT document). This information should be available in the previous year’s annual review. For the 2026 annual review only, if workload for 2025 was not provided, list estimated workload. Annual review writers may seek input from the faculty member about what their workload distribution was for the previous review period.\nTeaching and mentoring (including clinical teaching, advising and supervision):\nResearch, scholarship or creative work plans:\nService:\nClinical care (if separate from teaching and mentoring):\nAdministration:\nAdditional areas determined by the TIU head, regional campus dean/director and/or articulated in the unit’s APT document (describe each additional area):\nIf the documented workload and faculty member’s reported workload do not coincide, provide the reason for this discrepancy.\n\u000f\nAreas of work evaluation\nComplete for each area of work in which a faculty member had at least 5% effort allocated. Add additional sections as needed.\nArea:\nWorkload allocation for that area for the review period (out of 100%):\nWhat were the expectations for the faculty member in this area during the review period?\nHow do you evaluate the performance of the faculty member in this area during the review period (use the metrics defined in the APT document as a basis for the evaluation)?\nProvide additional qualitative feedback on the faculty member’s performance in this area.\nInclude explicit goals for the next review period based on the evaluative feedback.\nProvide a rating of the faculty member’s performance in this area. The rating must include “exceeds expectation,” “meets expectations” and “does not meet expectations,” though units can include up to two additional ratings, which must be defined in the unit’s APT document.\nSummary evaluation\nProvide an overall narrative evaluation of performance for the review period. This evaluation does not have to include a specific rating, though units may include one if they choose. Reaffirm or update the workload allocation for the next review period and include explicit goals for each area of work assigned. If updating the workload, provide a clear interpretation of what this new workload allocation will look like for the faculty member.\nRights, Next Steps, and Appeals Process\nThis review was completed in compliance with the \u0013 HYPERLINK \"https://policies.osu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2025/09/faculty-annual-review-policy.pdf\" \u0014interim Faculty Annual Review, Post-Tenure Review, and Reappointment policy\u0015. This letter will be placed in your primary personnel file and will become part of your dossier for subsequent reviews. Under university policy, you have the right to review your primary personnel file and may place in it, and in your dossier where appropriate, a response to any evaluation, comment, or other materials it contains.\nUpon finalizing this written annual review, this document, any comments generated, and any supporting materials will be forwarded to the dean for review and approval or disapproval. If the dean approves the ratings, all materials will be forwarded to the provost for review. If the dean disapproves any rating, the provost will make the final decision.\nShould you wish to appeal any rating in this review, you have 14 days to identify any ratings with which you disagree with and to demonstrate that the final evaluation contains a substantive factual error, inconsistently applies the established criteria of the TIU, or otherwise does not align with the criteria of the TIU. You may only app","cbCait5Ab2RIO8yc","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCait5Ab2RIO8yc","docx",36282,"English","# Annual Review Template\n## Workload allocation\n## Areas of work evaluation\n## Summary evaluation\n## Rights, Next Steps, and Appeals Process","[{\"question\":\"What information is required to complete the faculty annual review template?\",\"answer\":\"The template collects faculty identity details, track/pathway (if applicable), department and college, campus, review year, reviewer name, review completion date, and the date of review.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the template define workload allocation for the review period?\",\"answer\":\"It requires providing previous year average workload allocation for each area with at least 5% effort, and for the 2026 review estimating 2025 workload if it was not provided. It also asks to reconcile discrepancies between documented and reported workload by stating the reason.\"},{\"question\":\"What must be included in the evaluation for each work area?\",\"answer\":\"For each area with at least 5% effort, it requests workload allocation out of 100%, expectations during the review period, evaluation metrics based on the APT document, qualitative performance feedback, explicit goals for the next period, and a performance rating including exceeds/meets/does not meet expectations.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the appeals process work after the annual review is finalized?\",\"answer\":\"The review follows interim policy and after completion the document is forwarded for dean review and possible provost decision. To appeal, the faculty member has 14 days to identify disagreeing ratings and show a substantive factual error, inconsistent criteria application, or misalignment with TIU criteria.\"}]","Annual Review Template - Faculty Annual Review | DOCX",1788316897]