First, I need to say how wonderful it has been in the past few days to be
able, albeit over the wires, to have a conversation about the topic of
scholarship evaluation.  I am grateful to all of you for the input I have
received.
 
Second, in response to Ken's comments:  I believe that he and I are of
one mind.  I would prefer nothing more than having a committee read and
review my actual articles.  It seems rather superficial that, after all of the
thought, sweat and tears that go into an article, i am later reviewed not
on the basis of what it says but instead on the basis of where it is
published.   Also, remember that I need not publish only in those
"approved" journals, but I am welcome to publish in others and receive
credit based on my justification and validation of those outlets.
 
Third, in response to Keith's comments:  He mentioned outside
reviewers.  In fact, that is what the department proposed prior to
formulating the criteria of which I discussed previously.  This year, my
information and scholarship will be sent to two reviewers, to whom I will
be eternally grateful.  This is the first time this will have occurred in six
years.  (You can imagine I am anxious, but nervous and self-conscious.)
I believe that the department is looking for both external validation as well
as its own personal determination.
 
Finally, I believe this discussion has relevance, as others have noted, not
only because some of us are in the unfortunate position of having our
near futures depend on it, but also because it says something about how
each of us is viewed in our own individual departments.  Our profession
is one which is generally unique in a business school and we need to
focus on the maintenance of its integrity and the integrity of our work in
the eyes of our colleagues.
 
Thanks again.
 
Laura Pincus