Recommendations partly implemented: clearer process for academic promotions at the University of Malta

Recommendations partly implemented: clearer process for academic promotions at the University of Malta

Published April 02, 2026

The complaint

An Associate Professor within the Faculty of Laws applied for promotion to full Professor in October 2024 in line with the applicable Collective Agreement. The application was rejected by the Promotions Board in May 2025 and again upon reconsideration in July 2025.

The complainant argued that the Promotions Board failed to follow the rules set out in the Collective Agreement. He claimed that irrelevant considerations were taken into account and that the decisions did not provide proper and clear reasons.

Facts and findings

The Commissioner for Education examined the legal framework governing academic promotions, including the Collective Agreement and the University’s internal guidelines.

The investigation confirmed that the Promotions Board enjoys discretion in assessing candidates. However, this discretion must be exercised within the law and must not result in maladministration.

Two external peer reviews were obtained. One strongly supported the promotion, while the other expressed reservations, particularly on research output. The Commissioner was of the view that the Promotions Board relied heavily on the negative review without properly assessing all the criteria required by the Collective Agreement.

The Commissioner found that the Board did not carry out a full and balanced evaluation of all relevant factors, including teaching, research, and broader contributions. Instead, it appeared to give decisive weight to one of the two ACU (Association of Commonwealth Universities) appointed peer reviewer reports.

The investigation also found that the reasons provided to the complainant were vague and lacked the detail required by law. References such as “careful consideration” did not explain how and why the decision was reached.

In addition, the Promotions Board appeared to apply internal guidelines in a rigid manner, treating two positive peer reviews as a strict requirement, despite the Collective Agreement allowing for flexibility.

Conclusions and recommendations

The Commissioner concluded that the Promotions Board acted in breach of the law by misapplying the relevant rules and by failing to give adequate reasons for its decision.

The complaint was, therefore, upheld.

Given the time that had passed, the Commissioner did not recommend reopening the specific promotion process. Instead, he made recommendations aimed at improving future procedures.

The Promotions Board was advised to:

• assess carefully the expertise of external reviewers
• apply strictly the criteria set out in the Collective Agreement
• provide clear, detailed and reasoned explanations when applications are rejected

Outcome

The University acknowledged the Commissioner’s recommendation regarding the need to provide clearer and more detailed reasons in negative decisions.

While it maintained its position on other aspects of the process, the University confirmed that it had taken note of the recommendation to improve the reasoning provided to applicants.