Proposed wording from the Executive Committee for the 4-9-07 meeting:

Members of a review committee typically expect to find external review in the files of all candidates. When external reviews are not employed, therefore, a brief explanation should be provided in the candidate's statement.

Proposed amendments to the report from the Faculty Affairs Committee 3-26-07 from Senator Vanderburgh

Amendment #1:(accepted by the Senate 3-26-07)

Candidates should seek the advice of their departments and colleges when deciding whether or not to include external peer reviews in their files, and should consider how they can best make an effective case that they have met college and University criteria for tenure and/or promotion. External peer reviews are not appropriate in some disciplines and are not part of the culture in some others. External peer reviews are normal practice in most disciplines, however, and members of review committees typically expect to find them in candidates' files. When external peer reviews are not employed, a brief explanation should be provided in the candidate's statement. When external peer reviews are employed, a standard procedure (determined by the  candidate's college) will be followed.

Amendment #2

An article counts as "refereed" when it has been carefully reviewed and evaluated before publication by scholars or experts in the research topic of the manuscript who are not the editors of the publication. (Since practices vary among disciplines, the review need not be blind in order to count as referreed.)