General Criteria

1. Scholarly, artistic, or clinical/technical merit of the activities proposed.
   1. Value of the project, including its originality and potential contribution.
   2. Adequacy and feasibility of the project in relation to the length of the developmental award.
   3. Clarity and completeness of the proposal, including readability by the lay person and references to relevant scholarship.
   4. Project's potential for contributing to the faculty member's professional development.
   5. Potential for disseminating and/or applying anticipated achievements through publications, presentations, and development of curricular and instructional activities.
   6. Likelihood the project will contribute to the quality of the University and to the implementation of departmental, collegiate, and University strategic plans.
2. Scholarly, artistic, or clinical productivity of the applicant.
   1. Quality of professional products, in relation to field and years of academic service.
   2. Quantity of professional products, in relation to field and years of academic service.
   3. Consistency of professional productivity, in relation to years of academic service.
   4. Quality and quantity of work supported by previous UI developmental awards.
3. Other academic achievements and contributions.
   1. Awards, fellowships, grants, offices, and other honors earned.
   2. Consultantships, editorial assignments, review assignments, and other invitations that imply peer recognition.
   3. Conferences, displays, guest lectures, and other professional contributions.
   4. Special assignments, offices, and services performed for the University of Iowa and other outside agencies and associations.
4. In evaluating proposals for improving instruction, the University recognizes the following as major components:
   1. Instructional content, materials, and procedures.
   2. Procedures for evaluating student learning.
   3. Departmental support of and expressed need for curriculum development.
   4. Relation of proposed project to courses currently or formerly taught.

In evaluating proposals and applicants, evaluation committees and administrators also (1) consider the professional practices and traditions of each candidate's field, (2) treat applicants from fields with earlier or later promotion and tenure practices neither less nor more favorably than other faculty, and (3) recognize that the relative value of a smaller number of comprehensive and lengthy publications compared to a larger number of relatively brief, narrowly focused publications is a matter determined in part by the traditions of the field of study.