Tip Sheet: Nominees for UTQAP Reviews

The main requirements for external reviewers appear in the Reviewer Nomination Form (Word).

Here are some questions we ask when assessing nominees.


  • Do they hold a PhD from a peer institution?
  • Or in cases where a PhD is not the terminal degree in the field, have they obtained an equivalent degree in their field from a peer institution?

Current Employment Information

  • Is the nominee a Full Professor?
  • Are they currently at a peer institution?
  • Is their current institution known to offer high-quality programming in the field?

Academic Administration & Past Employment

  • Has the nominee held an academic administrative position with experience in program management (Chair, Director, Dean, Provost, etc.)?
  • What other post-secondary institutions has the nominee worked at? Are they peer institutions?

Field Expertise, Scholarly Publications, Awards & Honours

  • Is the nominee deemed an expert in the field that is undergoing review?
  • Do they have a frequent and strong track record of scholarly work and publications?
  • Have they received any high-profile or notable awards?

Arm’s Length & Other Conflicts

  • Questions about arm’s length or conflicts may arise if the nominee is/has:
    • a previous member of the program or department under review (including being a visiting professor)
    • received a graduate degree from the program under review
    • a regular co-author and research collaborator with a member of the program, within the past seven years, and especially if that collaboration is ongoing
    • close family/friend relationship with a member of the program
    • a regular or repeated external examiner of dissertations by doctoral students in the program
    • the doctoral supervisor of one or more members of the program
    • a relationship with a confirmed reviewer

Additional Considerations

  • Consider grouping nominations into sub-disciplines to ensure coverage, especially for reviews with many programs or reviews that include inter-/multi-disciplinary programs
  • Avoid two reviewers from the same institution on one review team (e.g., two faculty members from the same institution, or one faculty member and one recent PhD from the same institution)
  • Academic administrative experience should be relatively recent and relevant (e.g., Associate Chair, Graduate, isn’t useful for an undergraduate program review)
  • Consider the diversity of the review team

Highlights From the Reviewer Nomination Form

The cyclical review of an undergraduate program requires two external reviewers or one internal and one external qualified by discipline and experience to review the programs. The review of a graduate program requires three external reviewers or two external and one internal. Three external reviewers or two external and one internal reviewer are required for the concurrent review of an undergraduate and graduate program. When more than one program is under review, reviewers should be selected to ensure the appropriate review of all the programs being considered.

External reviewers should be active and respected in their field, and normally associate or full professors with program management experience. They will be representatives of peer institutions offering high quality programs in the field under review. In selecting reviewers, an appropriate balance needs to be struck between familiarity with the unit and/or program(s) under review and distance to allow for objective assessment.


Emma del Junco
Acting Coordinator, Academic Planning & Reviews

David Lock (on secondment until June 2023)
Coordinator, Academic Planning & Reviews