Guide for "impactful/meritorious” across disciplines for promotion/tenure

[lalochezia]

I'm interested in running for my College's Promotion and Tenure committee. I'd be on the committee deciding on peoples tenure (and promotion) cases after they'd passed departmental muster.

Is there some sort of published* guide to "what is considered impactful/meritorious in scholarship and outside-university-service" across DIFFERENT disciplines?

I don't want to be That Scientist who shows his ignorance by assuming a low publication count in the arts/social-sciences is a demonstration of lack of impact when gallery shows/scholarly books are the output of merit (for example).

If such a guide doesn't exist, it should!

I realize that there wouldn't be "One standard per discipline" Harvard is not a SLAC is not a StateU is not a community college, but there should be some sort of....disciplinary calibration for CVs/packets BEYOND just reading external letters and nice words from the department committee.

*by published I mean on a webpage or in a book, not necessarily in a peer reviewed sense.

[AJ_Katz]

There is no published guideline that I am aware of and, unless the breadth of disciplines that you would need to evaluate on the college P&T committee is exceptionally narrow, it seems like you're treading into the danger zone on this. 

I would ask each department to provide their guidelines / expectations for how they define "what is considered impactful/meritorious in scholarship and outside-university-service" and use the department's standards to evaluate candidates.  If no guidelines exist at the department level, I would look to the college to provide their guidelines, and if none there, keep going up the food chain.

To try to develop some type of measuring stick independent of what the department has done sounds like some candidates might end up being held to two different standards (the department says one thing and the college P&T committee has a different standard).

[namazu]

See also the discussion here (minus the sidebar on rankings of math journals):
https://www.chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=264051.0
(I was getting a bit of déjà vu!)

[lalochezia]

See also the discussion here (minus the sidebar on rankings of math journals):
https://www.chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=264051.0
(I was getting a bit of déjà vu!)

the OP in that question was  me as well.....

[namazu]

See also the discussion here (minus the sidebar on rankings of math journals):
https://www.chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=264051.0
(I was getting a bit of déjà vu!)

the OP in that question was  me as well.....

Yes, I know!  :)  No harm in asking the question again here, but I figured I'd link to your original original post a) to ease the minds of those who might have the same sense of déjà vu as me, b) to acknowledge those who've already contributed responses, and c) to save the time of people who might be inclined to repeat advice you'd already received.

[Phydeaux]

I just submitted my tenure file, so this has been on my mind a lot. At my place, it's the candidate's job to make the case for "impactful/meritorious." I can't just say that I published something in Journal X; I have to discuss Journal X's reputation, provide info about the review process and acceptance rates, and so on. The same thing goes for conference presentations; I need to show how/why it's a significant conference, how it's related to my field, etc. etc.