UCSC: APO: 12/13
Cumulative Biobibliography Preparation Guidelines for Personnel Actions
In the interest of clarity and consistency in the campus personnel review process, all UCSC faculty preparing biobibliographies should adhere to the outline and formatting guidelines listed below. Biobibnet is the recommended campus information system to generate biobibliographies that conform to this standard, but faculty can produce their own by hand as long as the resulting output conforms to the guidelines in this appendix.
Biobibliography Privacy Notice
The State of California Information Practices Act of 1977 (effective July 1, 1978) requires the University to provide the following information to individuals who are asked to supply information about themselves:
The principal reason for requesting the information on this form is for purposes of academic personnel administration and University public relations. University policy authorizes maintenance of this information. For academic personnel administrative purposes, furnishing all information on this form is mandatory and failure to provide it may result in denial of the action for which you are completing the form.
With your permission, information on education, honors, awards, and/or publications may be used for University public relations purposes and therefore may be released to the public.
Individuals have the right to review their own records in accordance with Academic Personnel Manual Section 160. Information on this policy can be obtained from campus or Office of the President Academic Personnel Offices.
All faculty bio-bibliography information should be divided and sorted into the following main sections, in the order listed below:
|Personal Information||University and Public Service|
|Employment History||Professional Activity|
|Honors and Awards||Courses Taught|
|Grants||Other Teaching Information|
All faculty information should be sorted and contained within one of these main categories.
Category Definitions and Descriptions
Includes the name, department affiliation, and contact information which appears at the top of the biobibliography. Also contains the following two fields:
- Research Interests – A short description of current research interests should be stored in this section. A list separated by commas is preferred (research topic 1, topic 2, topic 3, etc).
- Teaching Interests – A short description of current teaching interests should be stored in this section. A list separated by commas is preferred (teaching topic 1, topic 2, topic 3, etc).
A reverse chronological (newest record to oldest record) listing of the individual’s employment history is displayed in this section. The preferred format is as follows: [Begin Date] - [End Date] [Entry] [Employer/Institution]. Begin and end dates should be written out at as a four digit year (YYYY). A blank end date will indicate current, ongoing employment. The [Entry] field should contain all pertinent information about the job, e.g. “Assistant Professor, Department of History.”
A reverse chronological (newest record to oldest record) listing of the individual’s educational history is displayed in this section. If a degree was received, the preferred format is as follows: [Degree Year] [Degree] [Entry]. If a degree was NOT received, the citation format should be as follows: [Entry] [Begin Date] - [End Date]. Begin and end dates should be written out at as a four digit year (YYYY). The [Entry] field should contain all pertinent information about the degree or course of study and the educational institution, e.g. “Theoretical Astrophysics, magna cum laude, Princeton University.”
A reverse chronological (newest record to oldest record) listing of honors and awards the individual has received is displayed in this section. The citation format should be as follows: [Begin Date] - [End Date] [Entry]. Begin and end dates should be written out at as a four digit year (YYYY). The [Entry] field should contain the details of the honor or award and the granting organization or entity, e.g. “Best Documentary, Sundance Film Festival.”
A reverse chronological (newest record to oldest record) listing of contracts, grants, or other funding the individual has received is displayed in this section. The citation format should be as follows: [Funding Begin Date] - [Funding End Date] [PI Status] [Entry] [Amount]. Begin and end dates should be written out at as a four digit year (YYYY). The [PI Status] field is used to designate the individual’s role in the award. Include additional explanation about the role in the [Entry] field or in the candidate’s personal statement. The [Entry] field should contain the type of award, project name, name of the funding agency, names and institutions of co-investigators, annual and total direct costs, and any other pertinent information. It is helpful to reviewers if the Entry field notes whether a grant proposal was peer-reviewed. Grant proposals which are not yet funded may be listed if they are clearly marked as in progress or submitted, along with the date of submission. The [Amount] field should indicate the total dollar amount awarded to the individual; if this is a portion of the overall amount of the award, details should be provided in the [Entry] field.
A reverse chronological listing of research publications, writings, creative activities, and other scholarly work is displayed in this section. It should be divided into two main sections: In Progress Work and Published/Completed Work.
Comments on Displaying In-Progress Work in a Biobibliography
Any work that is in reviewable draft form and which is being submitted to the Department for evaluation and comment as part of a personnel action should be contained in the Work In Progress section of the biobibliography. In Biobibnet, this is accomplished by setting the [Status] field in the Scholarly Activity record to anything other than Published/Completed. The optional self-statement of the faculty member under review and the department letter should comment on the status of in-progress submitted for consideration.
Work that is beyond the conceptual form, but not yet in a reviewable draft form, may be discussed in the candidate's optional statement but should not appear on the biobibliography. Likewise, patents and copyrights which have not yet received an application number should not appear on the biobibliography if they cannot be reviewed by the department for reasons of confidentiality.
Scholarly work should remain in the In Progress section until published or completed. If in-progress work is, in fact, making no progress or has been abandoned, it should be deleted from the biobibliography.
Comments on Displaying Published/Completed Work in a Biobibliography
When updating their biobibliographies faculty members should, where appropriate, move finished and published work from the in-progress section to the published section by changing the [Status] field to Published/Completed and completing a full bibliographic citation (see below). Care should be taken that the full title of the final published version is correctly stated in the biobibliography entry. In instances where in-progress work has been reviewed once by the Department and is reviewed a second time because it has been revised before publication, the nature and extent of the revisions should be clearly indicated in the department letter and in the candidate's optional statement.
Citation Format for Scholarly Activity Entries
The format for all citations entered in Scholarly Activity should be as follows: [Review #] [Status] [Type]: [Entry] [Peer Review] [Review Status]. Bibliographic styles may vary by department or discipline, but to ensure thorough documentation for reviewers, all citations must include all pertinent details, including but not limited to: full title of the work; names of all authors or participants; publisher’s name and location; date of publication or exhibition; editor’s name(s); volume numbers; page numbers; curator(s) names; etc.
It is very helpful for reviewers if scholarly activity entries include information about whether the work was peer-reviewed. This can be accomplished in Biobibnet using the optional [Peer Review] field; options are Peer Reviewed, Invited, Juried, or blank meaning none of the above or decline to state. If further clarification would be useful, the candidate is encouraged to discuss the nature of the work in the optional personal statement.
In the case of co-authored publications or projects with multiple participants, the department must discuss the nature of the candidate's contribution in the department letter, and the candidate is encouraged to describe their contribution in the candidate's optional statement in order to facilitate this analysis.
Annotating Scholarly Work for Personnel Reviews
Publication Status, Peer Review Status and Reference number for Personnel Review– All publications submitted by a faculty to the department for consideration in a personnel review must be annotated on the biobibliography by the faculty using the [Publication Status], [Peer Review Status] and [Reference # for Personnel Review] fields in Biobibnet, or marked by hand in any biobibliography created outside of Biobibnet according to department practices.
[Reference # for Personnel Review] should be set by the faculty either by using the [Reference # for Personnel Review] field in Biobibnet or marked by hand, and should be a unique value to be used as a reference number for personnel review. This value should be displayed on the biobibliography before the citation for the scholarly work. If these annotations are made by hand, follow department practices. Hard copy publications or other materials forwarded with the file should be numbered (such as by affixing a post-it note), with the numbers corresponding to the Reference # annotation on the biobibliography. Numbering conventions may differ by department. Reference numbers allow all reviewers to easily move between the citation on the bibliography, the actual work (if included), and the discussion of that work in the personnel review file.
[Publication Status] should be marked by the faculty and should be set as one of the following: “In Progress”, “Under Review”, “Under Revision”, “Submitted”, “In Press” or “Published/Completed”. [Publication Status] should be at the beginning of the citation for the scholarly work, but after any reference number marking for that particular citation. If these annotations are made by hand, follow department practices.
[Peer Review Status] should also be marked by the faculty, and any combination of the three values of “Yes” (yes it was peer reviewed), “Invited” and “Juried” may be selected at once. These annotations should be at the end of the citation for the scholarly work. If these annotations are made by hand, follow department practices.
Annotations for Review in Current Period
Annotations marking work reviewed and forwarded by department –Departments should mark all citations for scholarly work within the current period of review to show if the work was reviewed by the department and if the materials were forwarded from the department to the division and CAP for subsequent review. Departments should use the [Annotation for Personnel Review] field in Biobibnet and check the “Reviewed” and “Forwarded” field. If these annotations are made by hand, follow department practices.
Annotations marking status of work within review period – Faculty should mark all citations for scholarly work within the current period of review to show if the work is either entirely new or if it is a new revision to a work counted in a previous review period warrants a new review. Faculty should use the [Annotation for Personnel Review] field in Biobibnet and check either the “New” or “Revised” field to add these annotations to the end of the citation following [Peer Review Status]. If these annotations are made by hand, follow department practices.
The ordering of all annotations, publication status and citation itself should be as follows:
[Reference # for Personnel Review] [Publication Status]: [Body of citation for scholarly work including name of work, author information, etc] [Peer Review Status] [Annotation for Personnel Review]
It is the candidate and department’s responsibility to ensure that these annotations are made. These annotations provide the official record of what publications were reviewed by the department and/or forwarded to subsequent reviewers.
Category and Type of Scholarly Activity
All scholarly work should be sorted into one of the following broad categories on the biobibliography. In Biobibnet, this is accomplished with the Category field in the Scholarly Activity record.
|Contributions to Books||Journal Articles|
|Critical Reviews (written to critique the work of others)||Papers in Conference Proceedings|
|Curation||Other Creative Activities|
|Other Scholarly Activities||Biographies or Retrospectives of My Work|
Within these categories, scholarly work may be further defined by prefacing each citation with a relevant medium, genre, or activity. In Biobibnet, this is accomplished with the [Type] field in the Scholarly Activity record. A list of possible [Type] values follows, but the user may enter anything. Within each Category, work should be sorted in reverse chronological order by date of publication/completion. Work is not aggregated by [Type], but [Type] appears in bold font at the beginning of the citation so that reviewers can quickly identify sub-categories of work, for example, Acting and Directing work within the “Theater” Category.
|Costume Design||Critical Review||Curator||Dance||Dictionary Entry|
|DVD||Editing||Encyclopedia Entry||Essay||Exhibition Catalog|
|Film||Film Festival||Group Exhibition||Installation||Intermedia|
|Interview||Magazine Article||Mixed Media||Monograph||Narration|
|Novel||Original Recording||Original Score||Painting||Performance|
|Printmaking||Public Art||Radio Broadcast||Recording||Research Cruise|
|Set Design||Short Film||Software||Solo Exhibition||Television Broadcast|
Related Records in Scholarly Activity
Biobibnet users also have the option to add related records to an entry in the Scholarly Activity section. These records will appear below the entry in reverse chronological order. Related records are used to call attention to new impact of older work, which may be quite significant. By grouping related items, reviewers can see the trajectory and development of a piece of work over time. It is the responsibility of the candidate to articulate the originality and significance of any entry on a biobibliography, whether it appears as a main entry or a related record.
An appropriate use for related records would be for an original work of art that is displayed in multiple exhibits, or an original play that is performed by multiple productions. Rather than displaying each exhibit or production as a separate entry in the Art or Theater category, reviewers prefer to see the original work as the main entry, and then each exhibit or production as a related record below that entry.
Related records are also useful for recording critical reviews of one’s own work. For example, if an individual was interviewed to discuss a recently published journal article, that interview should be listed as a related record under the article’s entry, rather than in a completely separate category called Interviews. Interviews or critical acclaim which is not related to a particular work, but rather to an individual’s overall career or body of work, can either be listed in the category Biographies or Retrospectives of My Work within the Scholarly Activity section, or they can be listed in the Professional Activity section.
A listing of service the individual has rendered to the University of California is displayed in this section. This section includes service to University committees, service as a representative of the University, or service to a program that is under the auspices of the University. All other professional or public activities should instead be placed in the Professional Activity section. The preferred format is as follows: [Begin Date] - [End Date] [Entry]. Begin and end dates should be written out at as a four digit year (YYYY). Biobibnet will sort Service records in reverse chronological order by the Begin Date. Sort Year can be used to override the default sort. For example, the individual may wish to aggregate all currently ongoing service commitments at the top of the list by entering the current year in Sort Year for these records, even though they began at various points in the past.
The [Entry] field should include all pertinent information about the activity. All University Service entries should be sorted into sub-categories by the type of contribution. In Biobibnet, this is accomplished by choosing from the following options for the [Type] field in the University Service record:
|Other Campus||K-12 Outreach|
A reverse chronological (newest record to oldest record) listing of all professional activities that the individual has participated in is displayed in this section. Note that any service to the University, as a representative of the University, or on behalf of University interests should instead be placed in the University Service section. The preferred format is as follows: [Begin Date] - [End Date] [Entry] [Peer Review] [Invited]. Begin and end dates should be written out at as a four digit year (YYYY). The Entry field should include all pertinent information about the activity. All Professional Activity entries should be sorted into sub-categories by the type of activity. In Biobibnet, this is accomplished by choosing from the following options for the [Type] field in the Professional Activity record:
|Public Lecture||Work Presented|
|Comissioned||Local,State, Federal Government Service|
It is helpful for reviewers if Professional Activity entries include information about whether the activity was invited or commissioned. In Biobibnet, this can be accomplished using the [Peer Review] and [Invited] fields in the Professional Activity record. Choosing ‘yes’ in either field will append the words “Peer Reviewed” or “Invited” to the citation. Additional details about the nature of the contribution should be explained either in the Entry field or in the candidate’s personal statement for a personnel review.
A reverse chronological (newest record to oldest record) listing of all student supervision engaged in is displayed in this section. Student Supervision records are comprised of two components: a top level record noting the student name and degree objective, and related sub-records where details on supervisory activities will be kept. Since supervisory activities and relationships change over time, it is helpful for reviewers if these are aggregated by the student’s name.
The format for the top level record is as follows: [Begin Date] to [End Date] - [Supervisory Relationship]; [First Name] [Last Name] [Degree Objective] [Year Degree Completed]. Records will be sorted by the Sort Year field.
The format for the supervisory detail sub-records is as follows: [Begin Date] to [End Date] [Quarter], [Activity] - [Detail on Supervision]
If the [End Date] is left blank, the Student Supervision record will be marked as an ongoing activity.
A reverse chronological (newest record to oldest record) listing of all courses taught is displayed in this section. This information should be grouped by academic year. Instructional data is automatically loaded into Biobibnet at the end of each quarter from the DWH Instruction universe, which is the archive of the AIS 3rd week snapshot for that quarter.
At the time of the load, Biobibnet will create a new record for each course in the instructor's Biobibnet profile. The data loaded into each record will include, academic year, quarter, course number, section number, course name, units, 3rd week enrollment, and the instructional percentage.
Immediately after the instructional data is loaded, Biobibnet will then load any corresponding instructional evaluation data from ECommons to each course record for that instructor. A link to the evaluation set itself will also be added to the course record, as well as a count of evaluations collected. The addition of the count of evaluations will cause Biobibnet to automatically calculate the % Evals Returned field. If the count of evaluations is added because of the addition of an evaluation set from ECommons, the count will be locked against further edits.
Factual comments about courses should be stored in the Comments section of a course entry. Examples of acceptable comments would be listing the name of the institution the course was taught at if it was not UCSC, naming co-instructors if your instructional load for the course was less than 100%, or noting that it was a newly developed course. Narrative comments regarding courses or teaching performance should be part of your personal statement and NOT stored in the Courses Taught Section. Any other information regarding impact to your teaching workload (leaves, sabbaticals etc) should be placed as entries under Other Teaching Information.
Each course entry may also be marked as either Reviewed and/or Forwarded. If course materials (student evaluations, syllabi, etc) have been reviewed by the department for a personnel action but not forwarded beyond, the course entry should be marked as Reviewed. If course materials (student evaluations, syllabi, etc) have been forwarded beyond the department, the course entry should be marked as both Reviewed and Forwarded. Courses outside of the current review period should not be annotated.
The format in which course instruction should be displayed should be as follows: [Quarter] [Course #] - [Section] - [Name] [Units] [Enrollment] [Course Evals] [% Taught] [Comments] [Review Status]. Any missing instructional information in a Biobibnet profile will need to be added manually by department staff.
A reverse chronological (newest record to oldest record) listing of all other teaching information not placed in the Student Supervision and Courses Taught sections is displayed in this section. This information should be grouped by academic year and interleaved in the biobibliography with information in the Courses Taught section. Suggested uses of Other Teaching are to note course relief or course development work.