The program, introduced in 2010, is designed to fast-track early career researchers into senior professor roles.

Unique in Australia but similar to some programs in the US and Canada, the assistant professor scheme offers a shorter, seven-year pathway to the role of associate professor - and higher wages - via two performance reviews.

But while the program has been pegged as a selling point to work at the university, it is also known around campus as the "burn and churn" program or the "seven-year probation", with some professors fearing it is exploiting their junior colleagues.

Vice-Chancellor Deep Saini announced the review this week, after an extensive university-wide consultation process found several issues needed addressing.

But he maintained that the program had a high success rate.

“When you look at the evidence, very possibly there are areas for improvement, like there are in any other area, but to characterise this program as a complete disaster for faculty and staff is not supported by the evidence,” he said.

“We've looked at the numbers of people who've gone through this program, and 90 per cent of them have been retained by the university, so the success rate is extremely high.

“That is 2 per cent higher than the general staff retention rate. A 90 per cent retention rate for employees over an extended period of a decade is extremely impressive, in my view most employers would love to have that kind of retention rate.”

Assistant professors currently make up around 22.5 per cent of the university’s academic staff.

The review will be carried out over 12 weeks by a five-person panel, with four from external institutions, and one a product of the program itself and now a senior professor at the University of Canberra.

The review’s scope will include frameworks for review and promotion, supervision and mentoring, and assessment of whether workload and salaries are compatible with a work/life balance.

Professor Saini said one of the fundamental issues to be addressed in the review was whether some staff had been overworked or exploited as they strived to reach the end of the program.

“The panel itself would go deeper into those issues, and if we find that there are cases where people may have not been fairly treated, we are going to address that," he said.

“That we would address as a matter of course, that part doesn't even need a review, is not specific to assistant professors or even universities.

“There are institutions of our type that have checks and balances in place to deal with any cases of exploitation, or even the word bullying gets used. If it comes to the attention of the university, we act very fast on these things.

“In this case, we're formalising that process and we want to know if there are specific cases where we need to investigate. And the panel would bring that out.”

ACT division secretary for the National Tertiary Education Union Rachel Bahl said while the review was welcome, it was clear there had been issues with overwork and stress among staff.

“This program has the accelerated increments, and as a result, there is that high level of stress and performance expectations put on those incumbents,” she said.

“It's not about ‘just’ performing at your level and doing an excellent job, it's about performing at the next level, so that it's an easy transition to promotion, but that's not always easy.”

But Professor Saini maintained that the program was the best of its kind, and one that other Australian universities should consider emulating.

“I myself am a product of the tenure track stream in Canada, so having been through this myself, I made it as a vice-chancellor, so obviously I'm a success story from that kind of system,” he said.

“Whether it is only UC for which it is suitable, no, I would actually like the entire country to look at this option and adopt it, because universities are institutions about excellence, and continuous pursuit of excellence.

“In my view, this is a program that when it is done right, allows for a very strong tool to strive for excellence and reward it. The flip side of that is that we have to do it in a way that the right kind of people come into the program - that's very important - and then they're given the right conditions to succeed and express their talents.”