Insufficient research typically does not truncate the usual "6 years to publish or perish" (6PP). Specifically, an Asst. Professor usually is not asked to leave because of insufficient research progress--he or she simply is cautioned in a formal or informal review(s), then he or she is denied Promotion and Tenure at the end of year six (but, see below). However, experience suggests that low student evaluations can truncate 6PP. Thus, "acceptable" student evaluations are usually critical to remaining in 6PP at an institution. Determining what is "acceptable" student evaluations can be accomplished by interviewing selected departmental faculty, and by requesting informal teaching evaluations by selected faculty during the first year. 

It is frequently a good idea to request a formal evaluation of progress toward P&T each year during the 6PP. This evaluation should cover research and teaching progress toward Promotion and Tenure, and more than the department head should probably be involved. Unfortunately, a slow start on the required number of published articles is not uncommon because the publication process can be lengthy. (This matter is discussed later.) Teaching evaluations are typically based on student evaluations, but they can also involve "peer evaluation" utilizing one or more (fully affiliated) departmental faculty, and classroom observation by one or more (fully affiliated) departmental faculty. Experience suggests that peer evaluation can be especially important if student evaluations are less than stellar. If P&T is denied with positive yearly evaluations, there may be grounds for legal action.

That said, there are schools where teaching clearly comes first. There, good teaching evaluations are very important, and research is typically done as time permits (e.g., over the Summer, etc.). Not surprisingly, publication requirements for P&T are comparatively few. At these schools, a teaching evaluation is frequently made in the first semester, and the results may determine the frequency of subsequent evaluations. These evaluations are almost always based on student evaluations. Because they can truncate 6PP, these student evaluations sometimes are conducted with "inducements" from the teacher, such a classroom or offsite pizza party, for example. I also witnessed a "guest" (influential) senior faculty member reminding the class of the importance of high student evaluations to their instructor, and "encouraging" them to favorably evaluate their instructor.

Experience suggests that the Senior Faculty who evaluate candidates for Promotion and Tenure (P&T) will each have a minimum number of publications that they will require for P&T. This can be an informal number based on past P&T's, or it can be formally stated in departmental or college bylaws, etc. Either way, these expectations can seem high and it should be identified early.

Unfortunately, this "number of publications" may be divided by 6 to become an expectation of annual research progress. However, a "slow start" on the number of published articles is not uncommon because the publication process can be lengthy (more on this later). 

There also is a publication quality issue, and this also can be an informal or formal expectation. Experience suggests, however, that quantity frequently is more important than quality. While there are schools where all or some publications must be "A level," and situations where "this journal counts twice as much as that journal," this quantity-vs-quality issue can produce confusing advice such as "always submit your paper to a conference first," "always submit to an A-level journal first," or "always submit to a low-level journal first." 

Each approach has advantages and disadvantages for P&T. Submitting a new paper to a conference first, usually requires editing the paper down to its essentials, and this frequently "focuses" the paper. I also find the customary deadline for submission helps me to "get moving" on a new paper. However, with exceptions, I have found that papers were little improved by the comments from conference reviewers.

Submitting a new paper to an A-level journal first usually provides helpful reviewer comments that can frequently be used to improve the paper. Unfortunately, their acceptance rate is low, and rejections are seldom a pleasant experience. Many A-level journals also have an unpleasant habit of inviting a resubmit, even when there is little chance that any revision will be acceptable. However, because a revise and resubmit's chances are usually unknown to the author, some of the best advice I ever received was to "always make them reject the paper" (i.e., never decline an opportunity to revise and resubmit) (more on these matters later). 

Although acceptance rates are higher, my experience with submitting a new paper to a low-level journal has seldom been positive overall. Reviewer comments typically did not produce an improved paper, and the review took many months. In addition, if the paper was accepted there, the publication backlog typical of low level journals added months, occasionally years, to its appearance in print. In addition, I usually wondered if the paper would have been accepted in a higher level journal.

Tied for the best advice I ever received was to request informal reviews of the paper by people who know the subject area. Experience suggests that some informal reviewers will decline, and most will not review the paper in detail. But requesting them to suggest where the paper should be submitted was usually fruitful. However, if they recommended a low-level journal, I usually submitted the paper to a conference (to focus the paper), and an A-level journal (for their comments) anyway. (I recall the remark, "Someone my actually read this paper years from now, so you always want it to be your best work.) 

Also tied for the best advice I ever received was to consider "teaming up" with other authors whenever possible, and to consider starting to write papers early, even during the dissertation process. Also, consider submitting several papers at once for review, and turn papers around immediately. To team up and start to write papers early, consider going to conferences, etc. even when not presenting, to identify others with which to team up. This might be less effectively done by e-mail. Presenters in your session and any who request copies of your paper may be suitable candidates. Authors who are in subject areas where you might contribute, or who might benefit from your expertise may also be suitable. While some P&T committees reduce one's publication count by the number of authors, many do not, and the "one paper produces three hits--one for each author," strategy is ubiquitous. (Consider checking on whether the number of authors on a paper is a factor at your institution.) Occasionally, a Senior Faculty member may add your name to their paper (for your meaningful contribution). They also may add their name to your research to ease the review process. (Consider checking on this at your institution as well.)

Submitting several papers at once for review, and turning papers around immediately, are usually required during 6PP because sometimes it can take years for a paper to appear in print (e.g., multiple rejections, followed by multiple revise and resubmits, then a publication lag between acceptance and publication). (Consider asking if a letter of acceptance would "count" toward P&T.) 

Revise and resubmits always should be turned around in weeks, if possible, rather than the several months typically requested by editors. This is always difficult because dealing with negative reviewer comments can be emotionally exhausting. One strategy is to take very "small steps" at first. On day 1 consider volunteering to do the revise and resubmit. On day 2 consider borrowing a format for the responses to the reviewers (see for example Exhibit 1 below) and open a new computer file for the responses to the reviewers. On day 3 consider responding to Reviewer 1's first comment in the responses to the reviewers file. A positive comment might receive a "thank you" comment. A negative comment might generate a brief outline of a response, including any changes to the paper--a full response and any paper changes can be generated later. On day 4 consider going on to reviewer 1's second comment, etc. Experience suggests that after several days, a full day of revise and resubmit is usually possible. Experience also suggests that it can be emotionally easier to tackle a negative reviewer's comments, and the editor's comments, last.

As previously stated, the best advice I ever received for revise and resubmits was, "make them reject the paper." Stated differently, consider never declining an opportunity to revise and resubmit. I have sometimes ignored this advice, and always regretted it later. For emphasis, it can be a bad idea to read all the reviewer's comments before beginning the response to reviewers. Experience suggests that this can add weeks to the revise and resubmit, and it can lead to a decision not to revise and resubmit, because negative reviewer comments can be so deflating. 

In responding to reviewers' comments, one can be "humble," "direct," or polite. I have tried all three, and have experienced mixed results with each approach. In being humble or polite one should never say "I disagree," or "I respectfully disagree." Instead one might say "I am not sure I (completely) understand the statement/question," then responds with words to the effect that the reviewer might have missed the point, might be incorrect, etc. In being direct, one says "I disagree," or one can ask, for example, "do you have a citation for that assertion?" 

Nevertheless, experience suggests there are several realities in revising and resubmitting: some editors are "scorekeepers," as someone put it, and they tend to listen to the majority of the reviewers. However, if two reviewers obviously like a paper, and one does not, my experience suggests that the authors still must convince the editor, not necessarily the dissenting reviewer, that the paper has merit (and that the unfavorable reviewer is "off the mark"--you can say things to the editor that the reviewers will not see). Failing to do this can result in the editor "siding" with the dissenter, especially if the dissenter is somehow "important." (Experience suggests that a negative reviewer seldom becomes positive.) For emphasis, I have had revise and resubmits eventually rejected because I was unable to convince the editor of the dissenting reviewer's wrong-headedness.

As previously mentioned, some top-tier journal reviewers request a revise and resubmit for articles they have little intention of accepting. This may occur for several reasons, including that editors usually dislike the generally rough treatment first submissions can receive, and a "resubmit anyway" somehow soothes the authors. Because this practice can add months to a rejection, a speedy revise and resubmit is especially advisable during 6PP (again, consider making them reject the paper).

Finally, consider continuing to submit the rejected paper to relevant journals, books, etc. Stated differently, consider never "giving up" on a paper as long as there is an outlet that will count toward P&T. However, after about two rejections it may be prudent to start on the next new paper while the "difficult" paper is in its next review cycle. In other words, a "difficult" paper may take years to appear in print, which may be too long for 6PP.  

Several comments may be of interest. One occasionally hears advice such as "one must establish a research stream early." Such suggestions are important because establishing a research stream tends to "distinguish" an author. However, given the usual P&T requirements, this may not be possible during 6PP. There usually is plenty of time afterwards to establish a research stream. 

I also have heard suggestions that were difficult to follow: E.g., its OK to "kick back" after the dissertation is accepted, prepare minimally for class, do not teach in the summer, and start saving early for P&T. It is natural to want to take the summer off after receiving the degree; or to take the first semester after being appointed Asst. Professor to learn the system, to learn how to teach, to prepare for classes, etc. However, the same discipline that won the dissertation "battle" is usually required to win the P&T battle. In particular, experience suggests that it may not be possible to learn the system, how to teach, etc. even in several years, and "the clock is ticking."

Assuming one has been asked to teach introductory courses, consider requesting a text with the best instructor's manual, PowerPoint slides, computerized test bank, videos, web sites, etc. While experience suggests that many Senior Faculty believe that all faculty should "add value" to every class, this may not be good advice for 6PP. Stated differently, consider minimizing class prep time, using multiple choice tests, requiring no term papers or projects, etc. at this point in your career--you will have the rest of your academic life to be a good teacher and get the best from your students. 

While it is attractive financially, teaching over the summer typically involves a compressed teaching schedule, and it can seldom be accomplished without considerable sacrifice of valuable writing time. Thus, the "start saving early" suggestion. 

The "submitting multiple papers at once" requirement also suggests replications of the dissertation model, extensions of the dissertation model into other contexts, etc. However, funds may not be available during 6PP unless they have been personally set aside by the Jr. Faculty member. Again, consider starting to save early. (However, consider using a Scenario Analyses--search on "scenario analysis" in the monographs on this web site.)

Nevertheless, teaching evaluations seem to be positively correlated with grades, although in some studies they explain very little variance in student evaluations (i.e., their effect is comparatively small). Thus, one simple strategy is to "give away grades." At one point teaching evaluations in my department had become so important that few faculty had class averages below a B for undergraduates. 

However, useful themes related to teaching evaluations emerge from several research streams (see for example the paper "Web-Based Course Benefits..." above). Summarizing what could be termed the "communication styles" research (see for example Jung 1924, Psychological Types, NY: Random House; and Alessandra, Cathcart and Wexler 1988, Selling by Objectives, NJ: Prentice Hall), communication styles can be plotted on a graph with one axis that is task (cold)-to-social (warm) style, and the other axis that is fast-to-slow paced. Some authors argue that one communicates with others near one corner of the four corners of this graph most of the time (e.g., warm-slow, warm-fast, cold-fast, etc.). Since Ph.D.'s generally are task oriented (task/cold) (but fast or slow paced), this may make them "different" from many of their students. This may explain low student evaluations of Jr. Faculty who have not yet learned to moderate these tendencies (i.e., to "move" their communication style with students more to the center of the communication styles graph). For emphasis, one of the conditions for a relationship is "similarity"--see for example, Thibaut and Kelly 1959, The Social Psychology of Groups, NY: John Wiley & Sons.) In different words, consider lecturing, etc. in a "warm/social" manner that is neither too fast nor too slow.

On the matter of "warm/social," there seem to be three types of instructors: high, medium and low authoritarian/disclosing (see for example the paper "A Note on Interventions..." above). High authoritarian/low disclosing (i.e., cold) instructors may experience comparatively less communication with their students (e.g., students have few questions/comments, do not come to office hours, etc.), and as a result these instructors may be less well-liked, and they receive lower student evaluations. High authority instructors also may have high expectations of students, and they may give lower grades, which also may result in lower student evaluations. 

While all this may seem obvious, philosophers of higher education raise the specter of increased public oversight (e.g., loss of academic freedom, loss of "lifetime" employment, peer review of ethics violations, etc.) if "the public" perceives the professorate to be unethical, either individually or as a group, in their creation of knowledge (e.g., via research) and its dissemination (e.g., via teaching). This already has happened to another peer-reviewed profession in the U.S.: physicians. Their inability or unwillingness to "contain their costs" has led to substantially increased oversight at the federal, state, local and provider levels. In my opinion there already may be more than a few elements of declined trust of tenured faculty by "the public" in the growing preference for vocationally experienced and non-tenured faculty, and the current emphasis on accountability in higher education (e.g., measuring what students have learned) by accreditation agencies. 

Thus, after P&T one should consider internalizing the ethics of the professorate. One also should consider internalizing the long-term consequences to the professorate of individual lapses in these ethical expectations (e.g., increased public oversight, loss of academic freedom, loss of lifetime employment, loss of peer review of ethics violations, etc.). The obvious ethics of research are well documented, and include not being a principal, or an accessory, to intentional errors of omission or commission. Apparently less obvious is that not continuing to create knowledge throughout one's academic career, an error of commission, may be an ethical lapse (e.g., it may create the perception that professors "do nothing but teach a few classes" for their comparatively "high" pay, lifetime employment, etc.). Thus, for emphasis, ethical behavior may include the sustained publication of theoretical and applied research throughout one's academic career. 

The ethics of knowledge dissemination are less well covered. Knowledge dissemination may include reviewing papers, and organizing and chairing at conferences. Reviewing papers can be especially conflicted. Rejecting "less than perfect" papers protects the knowledge base, but it restricts the dissemination of knowledge. Knowledge dissemination obviously includes teaching. Nevertheless, the ethics of teaching are comparatively thinly covered, perhaps because they may seem "obvious." I will not attempt to fill any gaps in this subject area, but the following business ethics guide is offered as a general guide for the ethics of teaching (click here).  

There is another matter that may not be well understood: the obligation to participate in "peer review" in all its forms (i.e., civic virtue--habits of personal living that are important for the success of the (academic) community--see Kraus, Christina Shuttleworth (1994), (Livy) Ab vrbe condita Book VI, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.) This may include peer-reviewing papers for publication. This also may include willing service on internal or external peer-review-like committees (e.g., college and university P&T committees, grievance committees, etc.--any "peer" committee that might be replaced with a committee of "outsiders" when academic "peer review"/civic virtue fails). For emphasis, this peer committee responsibility becomes increasingly important as the numbers of tenured faculty decline.

Finally, philosophers of higher education write of fiduciary responsibility (i.e., acting as a trustee of the "freedoms" granted by the public to the professorate). It may not be well understood that the professorate's fiduciary responsibility is exercised at the individual level. Stated differently, philosophers of higher education believe it is the responsibility of each tenured faculty to ethically create and disseminate knowledge, and to exercise peer review in all its forms. 

At the risk of overdoing it, one hears aphorisms such as "recent Ph.D.'s are entrepreneurs," "what is good for the individual is good for the discipline," etc., which tend to suggest that a recent Ph.D. is Robinson Crusoe living on his or her own little island. While there may be merits to this view, it ought to be tempered with the realization that each tenured faculty member is a member of "the professorate." Membership in the professorate confers individual responsibilities that extend beyond one's little island, and that are important to the survival of that professorate.