Guide for Submitting and Studying

Promotion Requests by Teaching Staff Members

at King Khalid University

1
 In order to facilitate the tasks of the specialized committees in studying the promotion
requests of the faculty members at the university, the Scientific Council has prepared and
approved this guidance manual. It includes detailed procedures that must be followed when
submitting and studying promotion requests of faculty members by the specialized committees at
the department, college, and scientific council levels. Additionally, it specifies the expected
timeline for each stage of studying the requests.

The approval of this manual by the Scientific Council makes it binding for all parties
involved, and any failure to comply with its instructions may result in delay or obstruction of
promotion requests without proper justifications, which requires accountability from the
authorized person.

First: Preparation and Submission of the Promotion Request:

A faculty member is obligated to properly prepare their promotion request by accurately filling
out all the required information and uploading all the necessary attachments in the academic file.
Any failure to do so will inevitably result in a delay in the study of the request. It is the
responsibility of the faculty member to review the detailed guide for preparing the academic file
and follow the instructions outlined in it. The key elements of the required academic file, which
need to be completed, are summarized as follows:

• Committees: In this tab, the applicant enters information about the committees they
participated in (at the department, college, or university level) by entering the
committee's name, level, date of formation, and date of its termination, then attaching the
official decision to form it.
• Scientific output: In this tab, the applicant enters information about their scientific output.
Please refer to the enclosed academic file guide for more details.
• Other contributions: This section includes several elements, as follows:
1. Postgraduate studies: It consists of two parts: the schedule for postgraduate
courses, which appears automatically, and the student's messages (counseling,
supervision, or discussion) which the applicant enters manually.
2. Awards: The official awards obtained by the faculty member.
3. Scientific activities: Refers to scientific communication and academic pursuits.
4. Community service: In this tab, all activities of the faculty member directed
towards community service are defined, with the attachment of evidence and
supporting documents.
5. Consultancy work: The consultancy tasks in which the faculty member
participated and have official decisions.
6. Other contributions: Any other contributions by the faculty member that do not
belong to any of the previous tabs.
7. Conferences and seminars: The conferences and seminars in which the faculty
member participated, along with their respective supporting documents.

2
 After completing the academic file data, the faculty member will proceed to the
faculty promotion system and submit a promotion request after completing the required
information (refer to the attached Faculty Promotion System Guide).

Secondly, Studying the Promotion Request by the Relevant Department:

Paragraph number "2" of Article 26 of the Regulations for the Affairs of University Staff in
Saudi Arabia, states that: (The department council will consider the promotion request, verify the
fulfillment of the conditions and procedures, and recommend forwarding the request to the
faculty council along with a proposal of at least eight specialized referees' names).

Therefore, the stage of studying the request by the department council is considered the most
important stage of the promotion request. It is their responsibility to verify the fulfillment of all
approved conditions and procedures. This stage should be carried out with high professionalism
to facilitate the work of the higher councils that deal with a larger number of requests, whether at
the college or the scientific council level.

The department head and council are required to adhere to the following during the study of
faculty members' promotion requests:

• Documenting the date of receiving the promotion request and immediately referring it to
the department council or the relevant committee.
• Completing the study of the request within a period not exceeding two weeks from the
date of its receipt (excluding official holidays when council meetings are suspended).
• The study of the promotion request includes verifying the fulfillment of all approved
conditions and procedures, including the content of this guide and the attached evidence.
• Approving promotion requests that meet the conditions and forwarding them to the
College Council. Rejected requests should be returned to the applicants along with all the
notes.
• Documenting all stages of studying the promotion request through official minutes that
are approved and registered on the Administrative Communications System (Enjaz).

The evaluation and study of the promotion request are conducted by browsing through the
different tabs of the electronic system for faculty members' promotion and verifying the
completion of data and attachments (for more details, refer to the attached guide for the
promotions system). During this stage, the fulfillment of the request for the following conditions
and procedures is verified:

3
 • (Procedure 1)
• (Procedure 2)
• (Procedure 3)
• (Procedure 4)

Please refer to the guide for the promotions system for more detailed information on each
procedure.

a. Applicant's Information:
• Verifying the completeness of all data (see attached guide), especially the general and
specific specialization data in Arabic (and in English if the submitted scientific
production for promotion is published in English). If the data is incorrect or incomplete, it
should be reviewed by the Deanship of Human Resources for updating. The general and
specific specialization data must be accurate and consistent with the data of the scientific
qualifications obtained by the applicant. The applicant and the department are responsible
for this. Any errors in these data may result in sending the scientific production to non-
specialized referees, leading to delays in the promotion process.
• Additionally, the validity of the attachments, the appointment decision to the current
rank, the curriculum vitae, and the accuracy of the promotion eligibility date (four years
from the date of appointment to the current rank) should be verified.

b. Scientific qualifications and publications:

In this tab, the applicant is required to attach copies of all their scientific qualifications
(Bachelor's, Master's, and Ph.D. or equivalent) and an official copy of their Master's and
Ph.D. theses. If the applicant does not have a Master's thesis, they should attach their
academic transcript as proof.

c. The scientific production submitted for promotion:

This tab includes all the data related to the scientific production submitted for promotion
(published research, books, and inventions) that the applicant has previously entered in their
academic file. It is the department's responsibility to verify that this production fulfills all the
criteria and conditions specified in the executive regulations for the promotion of faculty
members, as well as the approved evidence and guidelines provided by the Scientific
Council.

4
 One of the essential requirements is the compliance with the Scientific Council's
standards for the respective scientific fields and other publishing outlets. Based on paragraph
"1" of Article 29, the Scientific Council adopts several criteria for the peer-reviewed
scientific fields, as explained below. It is the responsibility of the faculty member to verify
the applicability of these standards, and therefore, they should review the journal before
submitting their research for publication. This can be verified as follows:

§ Criteria:
a. Editorial Board of the Journal:

The majority of its members should hold at least an Associate Professor degree, and the
majority of them should be academics specialized in the field relevant to the journal. This can be
verified through the journal's official website. Journals that do not have an official website are
not considered to meet the standards set by the Scientific Council.

b. Journal Classification:

The journal should be listed in one of the classifications adopted by the Scientific Council
for each specialization. In the absence of a specific classification requirement, it should at least
be affiliated with an accredited scientific or educational institution. This includes accredited
universities and scientific societies affiliated with accredited universities or internationally
recognized government institutions. (Publishing in journals affiliated with commercial entities,
imaginary academic institutions, or those with a bad reputation should be avoided, as it reflects
on the university's reputation and the possibility of accepting the research for promotion).

c. Regularity of Journal Publication:

This can be verified by browsing the journal's website, specifically the archive of previous
issues, to ensure the regularity of publication. The department evaluates the regularity of the
journal's publication until the time of research publication.

d. International Registration and ISSN Deposit Number:

The journal should be internationally registered and have a documented International

Standard Serial Number (ISSN) printed on its publications. The registration and verification of
the journal's international registration number can be done through the International Register and
the ISSN Depository Centre website. https://portal.issn.org

5
 e. Publishing Guidelines:

These requirements should be visible on the journal's website and on its printed publications.
Journals that do not meet these requirements are not accepted.

f. Minimum Number of Issues Published by the Journal:

This is verified through the journal's website and the archive of previous issues. The volume
or issue numbers are not an indicator of the number of issues published by the journal, as some
journals may use advanced numbers for their editions.

g. Publication Format (Print / Electronic):

This can be found either on the website of the scientific journal itself, or on the website of
the International Register of ISSN, which indicates the nature of the journal's publication.
Usually, journals use two international deposit numbers for each copy: one for the printed copy,
usually written as pISSN, and the other for the electronic copy, written as eISSN or with "online"
appended before it. It is important to avoid publishing in non-accredited electronic journals (not
listed in any accredited databases or not previously accredited by the scientific council).

Note: It is not sufficient to rely solely on the journal's website for its evaluation, especially
regarding the databases listed on it. It is necessary to visit accredited database websites and
search for the journal there. Many predatory or fake journals display misleading information on
their websites, including claiming to be included in international databases.

D. Uncredited Scientific Output for Promotion:

The electronic system automatically includes all scientific output entered in the academic
profile that is not submitted for promotion in this tab. The applicant is required to enter all their
scientific output data in the academic profile, including research papers and publications derived
from scientific articles, research papers and publications submitted for previous promotions, and
research papers and publications that were not submitted for promotion.

E. Teaching Load:

It has two important factors; the teaching load and the teaching performance.

-The teaching load is evaluated automatically by calculating the points allotted for the burden
according to what is determined in the executive regulations for the promotion of faculty
members.

-Teaching performance is assessed fairly and credibly by the department head, by awarding the
points deserved for each criterion of the evaluation standards, as follows:
6
Criteria for Teaching Performance:

1. Delivering lectures on time and in their entirety.

2. Ability to maintain discipline within classrooms, laboratories, and effectively manage
lectures.
3. Updating the course content with the latest advancements in the field of specialization.
4. Using effective and appropriate teaching methods.
5. Implementing supportive e-learning.
6. Utilizing diverse assessment methods for students.
7. Actively participating in the development of departmental plans and curricula.
8. Commitment to office hours.
9. Active participation in committees and final examination tasks.
10. Teaching postgraduate courses.
11. Supervising and discussing postgraduate research papers.

Evaluation Mechanism for the Teaching Performance Points:

1. The assessment of the department head is based on their monitoring of the advanced
commitment to delivering lectures on schedule.
2. The assessment of the department head is based on their monitoring of the advanced
performance.
3. The assessment by the department council or the relevant committee is based on the
quality reports of the courses taught by the applicant.
4. The assessment by the department council or the relevant committee is based on the
quality reports of the courses taught by the applicant.
5. The assessment by the department council or the relevant committee is based on the
quality reports from the e-learning dean attached by the applicant in the academic file.
6. The assessment by the department council or the relevant committee is based on the
quality reports of the courses taught by the applicant.
7. The assessment by the department council or the relevant committee is based on the
evidence and documentation provided by the applicant (3 points are awarded for each
decision made by the committees formed at the department level and concerned with
developing plans and curricula). If there is no evidence or documentation for this
criterion, no points are awarded to the applicant.
8. The assessment of the department head is based on their monitoring of the advanced
commitment to office hours.

7
 9. The assessment by the department council or the relevant committee is based on the
evidence and documentation provided by the applicant (3 points are awarded for each
decision made by the committees formed at the department or college level and
concerned with exam work). If there is no evidence or documentation for this criterion,
no points are awarded to the applicant.
10. If the department has graduate programs, the option "applies" is selected and the
applicant's contribution to teaching is assessed based on their study schedules. If there is
no contribution to teaching, no points are awarded for this criterion.
11. If the department has graduate programs, the option "applies" is selected and the
applicant's contribution to supervising graduate theses is assessed based on the evidence
and documentation provided in the academic file. If there is no contribution to that, no
points are awarded for this criterion.

F. University and Community Service:

The department council or the relevant committee evaluates the applicant's contribution to
each criterion of the university and community service, based on the evidence and
documentation provided in the academic file. They are as follows:

Criteria for University and Community Service:

1. Attendance at department council meetings and active participation in its decisions.

2. Effective contribution to department activities and scientific initiatives.
3. Active participation in various committees at the department and college level.
4. Active involvement in administrative tasks at the department and college level.
5. Participation in academic guidance for department students.
6. Constructive collaboration with department staff.
7. Participation in various university-level committees.
8. Full dedication to fulfilling the duties of a faculty member as prescribed by regulations.
9. Compliance with rules, instructions, and ethical behavior guidelines.
10. Provision of therapeutic services (for relevant medical colleges).
11. Involvement in committees, associations, and boards outside the university.
12. Translation: Participation in Public Lectures.
13. Participation in University-directed Activities for Community Service.

Evaluation Mechanism for University and Community Service:

1. One point is deducted for each department council meeting that the applicant misses,
starting from the date they submitted their promotion request and for a minimum of two
years.

8
2. The applicant is evaluated based on the evidence and proof attached to their academic
file, by granting them 3 points for each scientific activity they participated in (lectures,
workshops, etc.), and the applicant will not receive any points without providing
evidence and proofs.
3. The applicant is evaluated based on the evidence and proof attached to their academic file
(committee formation decisions) by granting them 2 points for each committee they
participated in as a member, and the applicant will not receive any points without
providing evidence and proofs.
4. The applicant is evaluated based on the evidence and proof attached to their academic file
(decisions on committee formation and contributions) by granting them 2 points for each
committee they participated in as a member, and the applicant will not receive any points
without providing evidence and proofs.
5. The applicant is evaluated based on the evidence and proof attached to their academic file
(academic guidance data from the academic system) by granting them 2 points for each
student, and the applicant will not receive any points without providing evidence and
proofs.
6. Department head evaluation.
7. The applicant is evaluated based on the evidence and proof attached to their academic file
(committee formation decisions at the university level) by granting them 5 points for each
committee they participated in as a member, and the applicant will not receive any points
without providing evidence and proofs.
8. Department head evaluation.
9. Department head evaluation.
10. A certificate from the dean of the college is attached to the academic file as a
contribution.
11. The applicant is evaluated based on the evidence and proof attached to their academic file
by granting them 5 points for each committee or council, and the applicant will not
receive any points without providing evidence and proofs (meaning committees or
councils outside the university and with community-oriented missions).
12. The applicant is evaluated based on the evidence and proof attached to their academic file
by granting them 5 points for each public lecture they delivered, and the applicant will
not receive any points without providing evidence and proofs (referring to lectures
targeted towards the community outside of the university).
13. The applicant is evaluated based on the evidence and proof attached to their academic file
by granting them 3 points for each contribution, and the applicant will not receive any
points without providing evidence and proofs (referring to decisions or evidence that
demonstrate participation in university activities aimed at serving the community outside
of the university, in which the applicant directly participated).

9
Note: The decisions regarding committee formation at the department, college, and university
levels must be registered in the administrative communications system and distributed over the
applicant's service periods in the current rank. Decisions that are not registered or those
registered during very close periods will not be considered in order to provide the required
evidence and proofs.

Only decisions, evidence, and proofs issued during the service period in the current rank will be
considered.

G. Department Council Recommendation:

The head of the department attaches the minutes of the department council and its approved
letter in the designated place (see the proposed format for the recommendation at the end of this
guide). The following should be considered in the council minutes: 1. Compliance with the
administrative instructions and regulations regarding printing the minutes on official papers and
correctly numbering the pages, including the signatures page that should be printed on the same
official papers and carry the same information. 2. Verifying the legal quorum of the attending
council members. 3. Compliance with the regulatory guidelines of the conflict of interest policy
for King Khalid University staff, which means that the applicant should not attend the council
discussion of their subject and this should be noted in the minutes. 4. Including the explicit
recommendation of the council for the promotion application, the approved list of scientific
production for promotion, and the proposed list of referees by the department council (see the
proposed format for the recommendation at the end of the guide). 5. Clearly stating the general
and specific specialization (should be determined based on academic certificates and the content
of the doctoral thesis). 6. Noting that the council has verified the absence of plagiarism in the
master's and doctoral theses or other works of the applicant. 7. Noting that the scientific
production is free of any prohibited references (in disciplines that require it).

H. Recommendation of the College Council:

The dean of the college attaches the minutes of the college council meeting and its approval
letter in the designated place (see the proposed formula for the recommendation at the end of this
guide), taking into consideration what is considered by the department council, except for the
reference to the council's verification of the absence of conflict of interest and the absence of
prohibited references in the scientific output, which is the responsibility of the department
council.

10
I.List of Proposed Referees:

The stage of refereeing the scientific output submitted for promotion is one of the most
critical stages in studying the promotion request, and selecting the appropriate referees plays a
critical role in its speedy completion. The relevant department is the most knowledgeable and
capable of nominating referees who are specialized in the same field as the candidate. The
department’s commitment to proposing a list of referees that meet the scientific council's criteria
is one of the factors that accelerate the decision-making process regarding promotion requests.
There are criteria that contribute to feeding the council's database with a sufficient number of
specialized referees, which speeds up their nomination and replacement in a short period of time.
These criteria can be summarized as follows:

1. Nominating the largest possible number of referees, and it is preferable not to be less than
10.
2. The department and college councils ensure the exact match of the referees' specialization
to the candidate's field of specialization.
3. Avoid nominating referees who have a personal relationship or research cooperation with
the candidate.
4. Avoid nominating referees from the universities where the candidate obtained his
Master's and Ph.D. degrees.
5. Avoid repeating the names of referees in promotion requests submitted by the same
department.
6. Avoid nominating more than one referee from the same university.
7. Avoid nominating more than two referees at the rank of associate professor if the
promotion is to the rank of associate professor, and limit that to cases where it is difficult
to find referees at the rank of professor.
8. It is necessary to take into account the diversity of the referees' countries and to comply
with the countries listed in the table below as much as possible, and the number of
candidates from each country should not exceed the specified limit.

11
 Maximum number
Specialization Geographic Region Countries
of Referees

Saudi Arabia 2
Gulf Countries
Other Arab Gulf countries 1

Egypt, Morocco,
Other Arab countries 2
Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan
Basic sciences Western European
Engineering 2
countries
Computer science Europe
Health sciences Eastern European countries 1
Languages and
translation
Business* North America United States 2

South Asia India, Pakistan 1

East and Southeast Japan, South Korea, China,

2
Asia Taiwan, Singapore
Other countries around Australia, New Zealand,
1
the world South Africa

Sharia Saudi Arabia 6

Humanities Gulf Countries
Education
Other Arab Gulf countries 3
Business*
Egypt, Morocco,
Other Arab countries 5
Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan
*Note: If the scientific output is published in English, the international classification is
adopted, and if it is published in Arabic or part of it is published in Arabic, the second
classification is adopted.

12
Thirdly, Study of Promotion Request by the College Council:

After the department council has finished studying and accepting the promotion request, it is
submitted to the College Council. The College Council, through the relevant committee,
examines the request and verifies that the department council has properly studied the request
and ensured compliance with the conditions and procedures according to the executive
regulations and approved references. The College Council must conclude its review process.
Upon studying the request within a period of two weeks from its arrival date, if accepted, it is
forwarded to the Scientific Council. Otherwise, it is returned to the department along with all the
observations. These procedures are documented through the official minutes of the relevant
committees.

The College Council and its specialized committees are committed to all instructions and
guidelines mentioned. The following points are also considered in the minutes of the College
Council:

1. Compliance with the administrative instructions and norms related to printing the minutes
on official papers and correctly sequencing the pages, including the signature page, which
should be printed on the same official papers with the same data.
2. Compliance with the organizational regulations of the conflict of interest policy for the
staff of King Khalid University, by not attending the council discussion of their own
topic and the need to mention it in the minutes.
3. Including a clear recommendation from the Council approving the promotion request, a
list of approved scientific productivity for promotion, and a list of proposed arbitrators by
the department council.

Fourth, Studying the Promotion Request by the Permanent Committee for Faculty
Promotion:

After the College Council completes the study and acceptance of the promotion request, it is
forwarded to the Permanent Committee for Faculty Promotion through the electronic promotion
system. The committee immediately begins studying the request upon its arrival and includes it
in the nearest scheduled meeting. They verify its compliance with the approved conditions and
procedures and recommend its acceptance if it is complete, or return it to the college along with
all the observations. They document all their procedures through their official minutes.

Fifth, Addressing the Observations Recorded on the Request:

The applicant and the relevant councils are committed to addressing the observations
mentioned on the request at any stage of the process and responding accordingly. They are
responsible for promptly resubmitting the request.

13
A suggested Format for the Recommendation of the Department and College Councils:

Department Council

After reviewing the promotion application submitted by Dr. ................, Assistant Professor
in the Department, to the rank of Associate Professor after leaving the meeting room, and after
reviewing the list of scientific output submitted for promotion, and after verifying that there is no
plagiarism in this output from my Master's and PhD theses or any other works of the applicant,
and after verifying that he is free from any reference mentioned in the list of prohibited
references by the Saudi faculty members, and after reviewing Articles 22 to 37 of the regulations
governing the affairs of Saudi university staff and their executive rules, the Council recommends
the following:

First: Approve the promotion application submitted by Dr. ................, Assistant Professor in the
Department (General specialization: ............., Specific specialization: .................), as this meets
the requirements.

Second: Approve the list of scientific output submitted for promotion, as follows:

• ...................... .1
• ...................... .2

Recommendation text:

• ...................... .3

Third: Propose the list of referees as follows:

• ............... .1
• ............... .2
• ............... .3

Note: The approved scientific output list should include the title of the research, publication date,
and the publishing medium, and it can be presented in the form of a table.

The proposed list of referees should include the name of the referee, their academic rank, general
specialization, specific specialization, address, and contact information, and it can be presented
in the form of a table.

14
 College Council

After reviewing the promotion request submitted by Dr. [………], Assistant Professor in
the […………….], to be promoted to the rank of Associate Professor, and after reviewing the list
of scientific outputs submitted for promotion, and after verifying that there are no citations in
these outputs from my Master's and PhD theses or any other works authored by the applicant,
and after presenting the subject to other members for review, and after confirming that it does
not contain any references from the list of prohibited references, and after the Saudi faculty
members reviewed the recommendation of the [……………] Council, Number [……………], in
its meeting held on [Date], they recommend the following:

First: Approve the promotion request submitted by Dr. [……………], Assistant Professor in the
[……………] (General Specialization: [……………], Specific Specialization: [……………]
based on its merits.

Second: Approve the list of scientific outputs submitted for promotion, as follows:

1. [Title 1], [Publication Date 1], [Publication Outlet 1]

2. [Title 2], [Publication Date 2], [Publication Outlet 2]
...
[N]. [Title N], [Publication Date N], [Publication Outlet N]

The text of the recommendation is as follows:

[……]

Third: Propose the following list of referees:

1. [Referee 1], [Academic Rank 1], [General Specialization 1], [Specific Specialization 1],
[Contact Information 1]
2. [Referee 2], [Academic Rank 2], [General Specialization 2], [Specific Specialization 2],
[Contact Information 2]
...
[N]. [Referee N], [Academic Rank N], [General Specialization N], [Specific
Specialization N], [Contact Information N]

15
Note: If the applicant is a member of the College Council, their departure from the meeting room
during the discussion of the subject should be noted.

The approved list of scientific outputs for promotion should include the title of the research,
publication date, and publication outlet, and it can be presented in the form of a table.

The proposed list of referees should include the referee's name, academic rank, general
specialization, specific specialization, title, and contact information, and it can also be presented
in the form of a table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-The End of the Guide-

16