Annual Faculty Evaluations

UNR Med was selected to participate in the 2020 annual evaluation process utilizing a new online platform called Interfolio. Interfolio is a faculty activities reporting software used widely throughout higher education that accommodates faculty evaluation and promotion and tenure reviews. The information entered will be both accessible and cumulative over time. For supervisors and reviewers, this format simplifies the review process and signatory workflow, eliminating the need for exchanging paper and applying signatures in ink.

For academic faculty, Interfolio will replace Digital Measures, allowing you to build promotion and tenure packages by documenting role-related accomplishments (teaching, research, service) throughout the year. The self-evaluation portion of the annual evaluation is also in Interfolio.

For administrative faculty, Interfolio allows you to prepare your self-evaluation, your supervisor to provide input, and provides automated review and approval routing.

Effective immediately: Do not enter data into Digital Measures. Please enter data into Interfolio.

Video Instructions and Resources

Academic Faculty

Administrative Faculty

Required 2020 Annual Evaluation Documents

Academic Faculty

  1. Evaluation Narrative completed within Interfolio
  2. Role Statements: Current Role Statement (2020) and New Role Statement (2021) – see examples
  3. Role Statement Template
  4. CV updated through December 2020
  5. Teaching evaluations (if applicable)

Administrative Faculty

  1. Evaluation Narrative completed in Interfolio
  2. Goal Statements: Current Goal Statement (2020) and New Goal Statement (2021)
  3. Administrative Faculty Goal Statement Form Download


Video instructions supporting supervisors with review process in Interfolio

Evaluation Score and Merit Ratings

Merit ratings must be provided within Interfolio, and also entered on the Merit Spreadsheet emailed to each chair/director. Once completed, email the merit spreadsheet to the Office for Faculty, Debra Glogovac,


Met the requirements of ‘Commendable’, plus:

  • Significantly surpasses expectations in all
    aspects of position/responsibilities; and
  • Demonstrates highest knowledge and skills.


Met the requirements of ‘Satisfactory’, plus:

  • Successfully met, and in some areas, significantly exceeded established goals and objectives.


Met the established goals and objectives for the evaluation period, plus:

  • In a few instances, may have missed some or exceeded others, but on balance performs competently.


Did not meet established goals and objectives for the evaluation period, plus:

  • Has not performed competently or consistently; and/or
  • Has not experienced productivity and competence in one or more categories that were applicable.

Three ways you can share your comments and preliminary merit ratings with your faculty members: