ORU Director’s Letter Template____________________________________________

January 16, 2015

TO: Sandra BrownVice Chancellor for Research

FROM: Brad Pitt, PhDDirector of XXXX

RE: (Action Requested Normal Merit and Reappointment (or Promotion to, or No Change as, etc)) for XXXXXX Jones, Ph.D.

The Center for XXXX recommends the Reappointment and Normal Merit of Fred JONES, PhD, to Assistant Project Scientist, Step III, salaried at $XX,XXX, (07/01/15 B/E/E salary scale; fiscal year; 0-50% variable effort), effective with a mid-year start date of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017. (For new appointments or CIS appointments only: A Waiver of Open Recruitment (W-xxxx was submitted and approved for this appointment.)

Reminders:

From “Where CAP Stood 12-13”:

- If the director is an appointee's mentor, co-author, or collaborator, he or she should be recused from preparing the file.

- Appointees' mentors, co-authors, or collaborators should not chair unit committees. However, they may serve as committee members if their expertise is needed. The unit recommendation letter should explain why they were asked to serve.

- Conflicts of interest should be noted in the file. Any faculty member or director who has a financial or management interest in a company providing support for either an appointee's research or an appointee's salary should avoid contributing to the file. If such a faculty member or director does contribute to the file, his or her relationship to the company and the appointee should be detailed in the unit recommendation letter.

- No academic appointee may participate in any academic review affecting a near relative. (For the definition of "near relative," refer to APM 520. Appointment of Near Relative.) If an academic appointee would have participated in the review if the reviewee were not a near relative, the unit recommendation letter should state that the academic appointee did not participate in the review.

Presenting the departmental recommendation

The departmental letter is one of the most useful parts of an academic file. This letter presents the departmental recommendation, summarizing faculty discussions, and puts the remainder of the file in a context that helps reviewers evaluate the entire file. The best departmental letters say just enough to allow the committee to understand the scope, significance, and impact of the research, the quantity and quality of the teaching, and the extent of service. Letters that are cursory or too long become less useful. Letters should be written for a general audience. Finally, and importantly, letters should provide an objective appraisal of the file.

‘Spin’

While it is natural for chairs to want to advocate for their faculty, the most effective letters are evaluative. Letters that are free of ‘spin’ are the ones with the most force. Most files have potential liabilities and CAP notices them (all committee members read all files). If a

departmental letter fails to address these or if the discussion of problematic aspects feels dismissive or disingenuous, the letter ceases to be as effective as it should be. CAP then interprets the file material without the benefit of a reliable departmental context.

Lack of expectations

It is incumbent on the department to make clear what the expectations are for the proposed action. How much research and in what kinds of venues? How much teaching and with what level of evaluation? How much service? Once the expectations are clear, the department can proceed to honestly evaluate the file against these yardsticks. A lack of these measures might result in files being returned for additional information or may result in CAP applying standards that may not be accurate (potentially leading to an unwelcome recommendation and preliminary decision, and an angry request for reconsideration).

Lack of criteria for normal advancement

In a related note, we return to the issue of acceleration, as CAP requested additional information in a large number of cases in 2012–13. The same section of the PPM quoted above notes that “The degree of achievement required for acceleration is greater than that expected for normal advancement” and that “A departmental recommendation letter proposing accelerated advancement must include a statement describing the department standards for a normal advancement to the same rank and step.” CAP Common Law interprets “greater than expected” as roughly twice the research productivity that would be typical for a normal merit (note that CAP Common Law almost always requires that the greater achievement be in the area of research).2 Thus, the department needs to make clear what is typical for a normal merit and how the file exceeds this by a factor of two.

Lest one jump to the conclusion that CAP is only interested in ‘bean counting’, the above should be qualified with two important caveats. First, CAP is not expecting a single, one- size-fits-all standard for each department. Clearly there can be different standards for different sub-fields; hence, any metric needs to be relativized to the candidate’s discipline. Note, however, this does not mean relativizing the metric to the candidate’s last review period – the standard should be independent of any particular candidate. Secondly, it is possible for quality to trump quantity. The University expects excellence in the area of research, so a large number of minor publications should not be the basis of acceleration. Conversely, a smaller number of high-quality publications may be. It is up to the chair to make the case, based on evidence in the file for quality of venue, impact, significance, and the like (prestigious awards may be another factor). While the Common Law rule is a rule of thumb, the departmental argument should be appropriately nuanced.

Many departmental recommendation letters neglected to provide standards in acceleration files – these were usually sent back for additional information. Departments were often reluctant to provide standards, even after such a request. Sometimes the reason was that there was no single standard, but again, standards can be relativized to the candidate’s area. The Task Force on Faculty Rewards recommended that each department prepare a single document that CAP would keep on file. This may be difficult to do, due to the nuanced nature of these standards. However, CAP would like to see the case made for each file as part of putting the candidate’s work in context.

1. Biography ( include ONLY for New Appointments, Promotions and Career Review Actions - not used for Merit files )

Dr. Jones attended Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, where he received his BS degree in Engineering (2002), his MS degree in Bioengineering (2004) as well as a PhD (June 2009) in Bioengineering. Since August 2009, Dr. Jones has been a postdoctoral fellow in the UCSD Department of Bioengineering in the Brain Engineering Center, under the joint mentorship of Drs. Gabe Starshine and William Freeburger. He was the first person in the world to discover brainwaves (2011). He was appointed to my laboratory as an Assistant Project Scientist, Step I, at ORU XXXXX on July 1, 2013. Dr. Jones’ salary is currently, and will continue to be, funded by Department of XXXXXX grants.

2. B/E/E Salary Scale Justification (if the candidate does not already have an Engineering degree – please refer to the B/E/E Matrix)

Research - Dr. XXXXX has a PhD in physics. He has outstanding technical abilities in his role in Dr. YYYYY’s lab which involves finding engineering solutions to signal processing problems. His work on new virtual reality systems couples with his interest in brain disorders of movement positions his to develop new approaches to rehabilitation of such newromorotr disorders. Dr. XXX is associated with Dr. YYYY’s Institute for …..and his group is also working closely with several faculty in the UCSD Bioengineering department.

Funding - Dr. XXXXXX is a valuable member of a project in a newly funded NSF Engineering grant titled “……………………………….” on which Dr. XXXX is listed as a Co-PI. Dr. XXXX’s expertise and participation is critical to the ongoing efforts of this project.

Publications - During the past year, Dr. XXX has published in Physical Review E and IEEE Biocas Proceedings, and has submitted papers that are under consideration in the Proceedings if the National Academy of Sciences. These are high-impact journals relevant to Bioengineering.

For all of the preceding reasons, we feel Dr. XXX should be under the auspices of Engineering.

3. Committee Review

ORU’s Committee reviewed Dr. Jones’ file and unanimously voted (4-0) in favor of the proposed action as well as the 4th-year appraisal with a “Favorable” (4-0) rating. The committee was comprised of 3 full Research Scientists and 1 Associate Research Scientist. I fully concur with the Committee’s recommendation of the proposed action. Dr. Jones’ accomplishments are impressive for a scientist at this stage of career. I also agree with the recommendation that Dr. Jones should strengthen university service.

4. Mentor Paragraph – for NEW “Assistant” level appointments only

It is a new requirement to provide central review offices with an outline and description of who the mentor will be and the mentors role

Dr. xxxxx will be mentored by Prof. (or other title) xxxx xxxxx, who is a senior researcher and/or faculty member in the xxxx ORU. As his mentor, Prof. (or other title) xxxxx will provide him/her informal advice on aspects of expected research, publications, funding and/or committee/service work and/or direct him to another resource. In helping Dr. xxxxx adjust to and learn about UC San Diego and the ORU Unit expectations, Prof. (or other title) xxxx will help him/her identify key individuals for different tasks, find key funding opportunities, resolve problems and learn key policies and procedures, and determine priorities for him/her as a new research member. Prof. xxxx (or other title) will provide invaluable support in this role particularly as Dr. xxxxx prepares for future promotion processes. In that regard, Prof. xxxx (along with the Unit Director) can explain the evaluation process and expectations for the Assistant Research Scientist level and beyond.

5. Conventions in the “field”

It is a new requirement to provide central review offices with an outline and description of what the conventions are in the pertinent field of the candidate regarding publications, roles, author order, funding conventions, collaborative vs. independent environments, etc.

6. Conventions in the “Unit”

It is a new requirement to provide central review offices with an outline and description of what the conventions are within the candidate’s Unit regarding expectations for publications, roles, author order, funding conventions, collaborative vs. independent environments, etc., for the different types of proposed actions. I.e., what does a “normal merit” looks like vs. and “Acceleration”?

7. Research and Roles (Description, roles and impact of research work in this review period)

Dr. IQ has done exceptionally well this review period. He has led the modeling effort …..and has focused on three topics; i) ………, ii) ………….. and iii) ………… He for the first time discovered ………….which is extremely challenging. In these simulations, he found that ……………………. This is an extremely important finding for …….. and he has contributed significantly to the understanding of ………………….. My group plans to perform the first experiment using ……………………based on these novel modeling predictions. The …………for this experiment was obtained through a highly competitive international process. The potential of this modeling work was recognized by the ……………………….and they have awarded him a grant to test his idea on world’s highest energy short pulse laser……….. at the Laboratory for …………………..

Project and Research Scientist Series: The statement should begin with a broad, yet BRIEF overview of the research problems, so that non-specialists can appreciate the significance of the work. In this context, provide a description of the research goals, and the applicability of this work to broader areas of the Research Unit.

Describe specific research accomplishments over the review period. Annotate each area/description of research results with the appropriate references from the UCSD Bio-Bibl publication list citation #. Indicate where the field was before the work was published and how the work changed the previous understanding of the problem being investigated. Place the work in the context of work in the field in general, and explain the specific significance of the studies and how they have advanced the field, including International Impact and Significance. Detail research from individual papers that are particularly noteworthy.

If initiated a new research direction and have made significant progress, please highlight these studies. Be enthusiastic about especially exciting findings. If the advancements in the lab have established new paradigms or have changed the direction of ideas in a field. On the other hand, be evaluative. Put the work and findings into perspective. Explain the specific role in all collaborative and coauthored works when not first or senior author.

Associate and Full Research Scientists: required At the Associate Research Scientist level in the “Professor equivalent” series,

independence of research and funding are key.  Please pay particular attention to highlighting this idea as much as possible within these as well as the other sections.

The Research Statement should be pointed and factual and display the novel accomplishments, the independence, the contributions and detail the role as related to the “intellectual force” contribute/d to the research and publications.  At this level, should be separate from a mentor.  Explain the former mentor situation and the transition of the work.  

Explain the specific role in all collaborative and coauthored works when not first or senior author, or those pubs which still include the former mentor.

From “Where CAP Stood 12-13”:

Research independence

An important criterion for promotion to the Associate Research rank is evidence of research independence. CAP often sees files at the Assistant rank (both at the fourth-year appraisal and at promotion) that fall short in this area; this is particularly true in laboratory fields. Evidence for independence can come from first-, but particularly senior-authored publications independent of former mentors, independent grant support, and leading a laboratory. Problems may arise in cases where post-doctoral researchers or project scientists are proposed for appointment to the Adjunct Professor or Research Scientist series. In some cases, they later fail to establish independence from their former mentors, continuing to work in their mentors’ laboratories, and continue to publish with their mentors. This appears to be an issue for both mentor and mentee, but mentors, in particular, need to be aware that the mentees’ careers are on the line. There has been a good deal of discussion of whether independence is possible if the mentor remains on the candidate’s publications (e.g., as a middle-author) – this depends – it is easier and cleaner if the candidate publishes without the mentor, but failing this, there needs to be independent evidence in the file that shows the candidate is leading the science.

CAP sometimes hears complaints that it discourages collaborative research. This is not true – in fact, in most fields, the vast majority of research is collaborative. In some fields, co-authors tend to make equal contributions, while in others there can be more than one principle investigator. The departmental letter should make the nature of such collaborations clear. Finally, there are a few areas where large-scale collaboration is common. Without guidance, CAP cannot easily determine the role of a co-author who is one of hundreds. In these cases, additional evidence of research leadership is essential.

8. Publications, Roles, Citations, Impact Factor

Dr. IQ has published eight new articles (UCSD BioBibl #A.I.6 – A.I.13) in high quality journals including two in Physical Review Letters since his last review, the prestigious journal for…. He is first author (project leader) on four of these publications. In 2013 he also gave an invited talk (#A.III.21) at a major plasma physics meeting (International Conference on Plasma Science) of which only 20% of papers submitted are accepted. His article about …. has an impact factor of…

Regarding publications and citations DO NOT include a new bibliography list in this document. Refer ONLY to the UCSD Bio-Bibl form for citation #’s and references.

Project and Research Scientist Series: Please identify from the UCSD Bio-Bibl form the new articles of significance since the last review along with why it is significant. Please also explain the role in each significant new paper (are first-author, last (senior)-author, etc). If the mentor is included on any of the papers, please discuss this relationship and roles. Tie in any “National and International” impact where appropriate.

Describe “Impact Factor” and Indices of the stature of journals (e.g., journal ratings by professional societies, acceptance/rejection rates, etc.) should be provided for key pieces of work, particularly if they are published in journals that are not likely to be familiar to campus reviewers.

Associate and Full Research Scientists: required – also discuss the independence and contributions to each new paper and explain any situation where the mentor still appears in the author list, and the mentor’s role

9. NEW Bibliography Form Section B.IV Additional Major Research Products (Please list other work of significant impact to the Academic Field.  [e.g., patents (List US Patent Number), patent licenses; software, databases, websites; devices, hardware, structures, fabrications; research leading to legislative action, policies, business processes].)

Please describe the significance of anything that the mentee has listed in the new Section B.IV of the Bibliography Form

10. Funding

Dr. IQ’s salary is currently, and will continue to be, funded by my Department of XXXXXX grants. He has applied for ….. grant as a PI or Co-PI based upon ……. project and will…..

Please describe candidate’s grants, particularly roles and related UCSD collaborators briefly in this section. Describe their track towards independence as applicable and/or success in obtaining support for research and other creative activity, including support for graduate students, should be addressed. In addition, their role on grants should be indicated (e.g., Principal Investigator, Co-Principal Investigator, or Co-Investigator, with the number and identity of other co-investigators specified).

At the Associate Research Scientist level and above are in the “Professor equivalent” series, independence of research and funding are key.  Please pay particular attention to highlighting this idea as much as possible within these as well as the other sections.

11. University and ORU Service, External Service, Presentations, and Organizations

Dr. IQ provides day-to-day supervision to two graduate students (names…). He has done an excellent job in mentoring these students and has recently published a paper with one of them. Although Service is not required under this series, Dr. IQ has served as a reviewer to various plasma physics journals. In 2013, he was also invited to review proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation.

Note: For Project Scientist and Assistant Research Series: if you have anything for this category you can mention it here - but not technically required until the Associate Research Scientist level and above, but recommended

Please provide a summary of service, particular role and the broader significance of this service in the context of the university, the division or the community. Summary should specify and evaluate administrative service within the ORU, on the campus, and within the University of California.

Describe roles and significance/impact of any new External Service, Presentations, and National/International Organizations/Committee Service

Service to the community, state, and nation, when the work done is at a sufficiently high level and of sufficiently high quality, as provided as part of the special capacities as a scholar and in areas beyond those special capacities, should likewise be recognized as evidence for advancement. Academic service activities related to the improvement of elementary and secondary education represent one example of this kind of service. Please indicate whether you hold an appointed or elective office in professional organizations, on professional publications, or within community, state, national, or international organizations in which professional standing is a prime consideration for appointment.

NOTE: Teaching/Mentoring - Teaching, although technically not required in the Research/Project Series, can count somewhat as service. Also, describe if they are teaching a

formal course for UCSD?  If so, a Joint Lecturer appointment is required with the Lecturer Department.  Please indicate.

Similarly, contributions to student welfare through service on student–faculty committees and as advisors to student organizations should be recognized as evidence, as should contributions furthering diversity and equal opportunity within the University through participation in such activities as recruitment, retention, and mentoring of scholars and students.

Describe roles and significance/impact of any new External Service, Presentations, and National/International Organizations/Committee Service

Service to the community, state, and nation, when the work done is at a sufficiently high level and of sufficiently high quality, as provided as part of the special capacities as a scholar and in areas beyond those special capacities, should likewise be recognized as evidence for advancement. Academic service activities related to the improvement of elementary and secondary education represent one example of this kind of service. Please indicate whether they hold an appointed or elective office in professional organizations, on professional publications, or within community, state, national, or international organizations in which professional standing is a prime consideration for appointment.

12. Publicity and Other National and/or International Recognition

Describe any roles and significance/impact of any new Publicity and Other National and/or International Recognition. Please provide any evidence/documentation of this activity to accompany this document.

13. Contributions to diversity

From “Where CAP Stood 12-13”:

Contributions to diversity can show up in all areas of a candidate’s file – research, teaching, and service. CAP pays particular attention to contributions that are ‘over and above’. This is a bit tricky – in some fields research and teaching contributions to diversity are part of what is expected; some service areas also are inherently dedicated to increasing campus diversity. The University is currently engaged in on-going discussions regarding the evolution of contributions in this area. In the meantime, most contributions are credited in the area of service.

14. Visa Status

Dr. IQ currently has an H1B Visa valid until December 6, 2014, which will allow him to remain in the US and work on all of the training activities and research projects as proposed. Currently, the Department of XXXXXXX is planning on submitting and an H-1B extension for Dr. IQ at the appropriate time.

15. Summary of Referee Letters – for new appointment/promotion files only

From “Where CAP Stood 12-13”:

External Referee Letters

An insufficient number of independent external letters can cause a file to be returned for additional letters, causing unnecessary delays. Appointment and promotion files require three or five independent letters from external referees (five for promotion to the Associate level or when an appointment is at the Associate level or above). As has been noted in previous versions of this document, independence is a scalar predicate, but it is best to err on the side of caution, avoiding scholars who have collaborated, been colleagues, mentors, etc. with the candidate. The letters should generally be from senior faculty from highly-ranked institutions, and who are able to evaluate the significance and impact of the candidate’s work. In some cases, particularly in the Arts, letters are solicited from non-academics; these can provide a useful perspective, but should be balanced with letters from academics who understand the criteria used in academic files.

Beginning in Academic Year 2013–2014, external letters are no longer required for the Step VI career review. Some departments wonder whether letters should be included nevertheless. Similarly, some departments solicit external referee letters when not needed (e.g., for accelerated merits), while others solicit a large number of external letters. Please bear in mind that reviewing external letters is time consuming, so unnecessary letters, particularly when they do not provide added value, represent a burden to the committee. While CAP members are careful not to let such factors influence recommendations, there is little to gain from adding to the workload.

Excessive quoting of external referees should be avoided.

16. Justification for Acceleration / Promotion / AS / 4th-Year Appraisal Summary / 6 th -Year Readiness Assessment Summary, etc.

From “Where CAP Stood 12-13”:

Pre-emptive retention

Chairs are committed to the quality of their faculty and are painfully aware that high- performing faculty may be potential flight risks. Thus, an accelerated merit is sometimes viewed as a means of retention. This strategy might work if the acceleration is clearly warranted, independent of retention; when it is not (or is borderline) the department risks raising and dashing expectations in a way that is counter-productive. There are other means of pre-emptive retention, but it is crucial that retention not be a factor in evaluating rank and step. Departmental recommendation letters that argue for an action involving rank or step based on retention raise red flags.

Faculty who request accelerations

Some faculty will request to be put up for acceleration. Often this is well justified, but not always. One common problem comes from high-performing researchers who show weakness in teaching and/or service. PPM 230-28-VII-B-4 says that “… acceleration cases should not be proposed if there is a weakness in the appointee’s performance in any area of responsibility specified in the review criteria.”1 While the path of least resistance might be to put such faculty up for the acceleration and let CAP do the dirty work, the outcome might involve faculty who are much more unhappy than they might have been. We realize that there may be political and personal issues that make honest conversations about problems with files difficult, but a chair’s job is not easy.

Aggressive accelerations

A related problem might not originate with the candidate, but comes up when departments push the envelope to see what they can get (“you don’t get what you don’t ask for”). The

idea is to ask for a lot and see how much comes back. Again, this relegates departmental responsibility to CAP, damages the department’s credibility, and risks disgruntlement (once an action is proposed by the department, it is natural for candidates to believe it is well justified). Finally, in the interest of consistency and fairness, CAP, in several instances, has recommended advancements that were greater than the departmental proposal. Thus, it is possible to “get what you don’t ask for.”

Above Scale files

The Above Scale level is reserved for the best of the best. Advancement to Above Scale requires excellence in all areas under review. Thus, any weakness should preclude advancement. Furthermore, the degree of productivity to get to Above Scale needs to be greater than that which led to Step IX. Again, this level is reserved for those who continue to be extraordinarily productive and who are excellent teachers and university citizens. To quote Professor Nicholas Christenfeld again: “resting at Step IX can be done without shame.”

GUIDELINES for 4 th -Year APPRAISALS for Assistant Research Scientists

Committee’s appraisal letter - should recommend and detail the reasoning for only ONE of the following possible ratings:

FAVORABLE Indicates that promotion is likely either now or at the next review cycle, contingent on maintaining the current trajectory of excellence and on appropriate external validation.

FAVORABLE WITH Indicates that promotion is likely at the next review cycle, if identified RESERVATIONS weaknesses or imbalances in the present period are corrected.

PROBLEMATIC Indicates that promotion is possible at the next review if substantial deficiencies in the present record are remedied.

UNFAVORABLE Indicates that substantial deficiencies are present; promotion is unlikely at any time in the future – move to “terminal” status.

D.8. What does CAP look for in a 4th year appraisal?

The purpose of the 4th year appraisal is to inform an assistant professor in a thorough and formal way about her or his prospects for tenure. The appraisal thus serves a very different function from the departmental letter for a merit increase. Of utmost importance are rigorous evaluation and complete candor. If there are weaknesses in the candidate's record, a department's natural reluctance to cause pain can do much more harm than good to the candidate and the university.

The most common weakness in an assistant professor's early career is a lack of progress with regard to research publications. The University of California is a research university, and provides generous resources and time for research. A relatively thin publication record (or its equivalent in the arts) cannot be lightly passed over.

Fields vary in their expectations for tenure, and 4th year appraisals reflect this. In the sciences, positive mid-career accomplishments show evidence of research independent from doctoral work (and any mentored postdoctoral work), of research projects that promise leadership in the field, and evidence that research will continue once tenure is granted. The award of competitive grants for

research to a candidate as principal investigator can help validate an independent research program, although grants do not in themselves substitute for published scholarship.

Collaboration of a junior faculty member with senior colleagues can present a problem with regard to evaluation for tenure. This is especially true when a junior candidate publishes frequently or exclusively with a small number of more senior collaborators who are always in senior authorship positions. In such cases, establishing the intellectual independence or leadership to warrant promotion above the assistant level in the professorial or research scientist series can be difficult. The assessment of consortium publications can also present a challenge; if most or all of a candidate’s scholarly activity is through large-scale consortiums, the department should expend special effort documenting a candidate’s intellectual contributions to such activities.

CAP will recommend a Favorable appraisal only if it seems clear that maintenance of the trajectory will result in a recommendation for tenure within two years. CAP is likely to judge prospects as Favorable with Reservations in the many cases where reviewers note that there is room for improvement but the candidate is basically on the right trajectory. CAP will recommend a Problematic appraisal when there is a significant obstacle to timely promotion. The most common such problem is the demonstration of research independence: publications that all include a senior mentor or that comprise almost exclusively middle authorships will make tenure unlikely. An Unfavorable appraisal is indicated only in the most extreme cases in which promotion is highly unlikely to be recommended. Poor teaching can also cause concern at the 4th year appraisal and, if not remedied, provide an obstacle to promotion.

GUIDELINES for 6 th -Year Readiness Assessments (for Assistant Project and Assistant Research Scientists)

The department Committee must determine whether an appointee should be: 1) recommended for a promotion now, 2) recommended for delay of promotion (postponed) for 1 year, or 3) recommended that the appointee should not be reappointed.

1. Promotion is Recommended Now

If the department is convinced that an appointee’s record meets or exceeds the University’s expectations for promotion, the department may recommend a promotion to the Associate or Full level, effective the following July 1st .

2. Postponement of Promotion (for 1 year, can be with or without a merit increase now) Review

If the department believes there is significant work in progress that cannot be completed in time to justify promotion at this time, but which should be completed within the reappointment period (one more year) and, when completed, would likely suffice for promotion, the department may propose postponement of the promotion review. The department must demonstrate that the appointee’s academic record is strong, and that he or she is making active and timely progress on substantial work that: • should be completed prior to the promotion review (the anticipated completion date must be indicated); and

• would likely suffice for promotion

If the department proposes postponement of the promotion (for 1 year) review, a reappointment file must be submitted in accordance with the campus deadline for submission of reappointment and merit advancement files. Please note: if the candidate fails to complete the requirements required for Promotion in 1 year, the file will be considered Terminal as the candidate will be in their 8th year.

3. Non-reappointment

If the department believes that an appointee’s overall career achievements do not justify promotion, and that a postponement of the promotion review is not warranted, no promotion file is prepared and the appointee will not be reappointed. In accordance with APM 137, Non-Senate

Appointees/Term Appointment, the appointment will expire on the established ending date. In cases of non-reappointment, the department chair should consult with the dean.

17. Future work and goals to support the requested action

Describe future work, goals and expectations for the next reappointment/promotion cycle.

Note: WORK IN PROGRESS (Section C) of the UCSD Bio-Bibl Form - Section C will now ONLY officially be used for 4th-Year Appraisals and 6th-Year Readiness Assessment actions.

You can discuss WIP (submitted) items if you wish from the Research Statement here along with brief comments that update work and identify any collaborators that are involved.

Summarize plans and timing for additional publications, if additional support is needed for this proposed action. Reiterate the significance of these future works and any National/International significance.

18. Statement regarding any comments from PSSRP or CAP committee letters from last review needing to be addressed this time.

When preparing the documents for submission, please focus on documentation regarding any prior committee comments here from the prior letters provided. Please add a paragraph that clearly addresses any progress resulting from PSSRP or CAP Review Committee comments from the last Review.

19. Summary

In summary, I would like to strongly recommend Dr. IQ’s normal merit advancement and reappointment to Assistant Project Scientist, Step II, due to his outstanding contributions in ………Dr. Jones is unique in the world with his combination of skills and abilities regarding…and makes him fundamentally critical to our programs…. During the upcoming 2 years, we will also focus to prepare him for his 6th-Year Readiness Assessment in consideration of a possible promotion at the next review cycle.

From “Where CAP Stood 13-14”:

1) “…The problem of assessing candidates’ contributions to team science has also been a subject of concern this year. These should be clearly defined in the file, in particular in departmental letters.

D ocu m en t a t i on

There has been some misunderstanding in the past regarding CAP’s stance on team science. The assertion that CAP is hostile to team science is simply not true, though it can be difficult to assess a candidate as an individual researcher if his/her contributions to collaborative projects are unclear. Some candidates describe their contribution to co-authored papers (some Health Science departments require this for the five most important papers). This is extremely helpful for papers with long author lists. The issue of understanding a candidate’s contribution works both ways: CAP does not want to penalize either candidates who work in large teams or candidates who work alone. In the former case, it can be easy to undervalue the candidate’s contribution and argue that his or her role is merely superficial. In the latter case, the candidate’s productivity can be overshadowed by the sheer number of papers authored by large teams even within the same discipline. Therefore all candidates should take the opportunity to explain their specific contribution to papers. This can be done in a “candidate’s self assessment,” which some departments routinely

submit. The self assessment is also a good place in which to document the candidate’s teaching and service contributions in his/her own words. The candidate’s contributions should also be clearly explained in the departmental and dean’s letters: these are in a position to put the contributions in a broader context…

2) Interpretation

Independence

The question of independence has been mentioned previously in terms of documenting a candidate’s contributions. CAP relies on the conventions of the candidate’s field to interpret bibliographies. Problems arise when the evidence from funding and from the bibliography is inconsistent: a candidate with independent funding continues to publish as junior or non- corresponding author (courtesy publications are a particular case of a more general problem)…

3) Standards/Conventions

… by situations where the candidate expects something that was unlikely to happen and this was not made clear by the Department Chair. The question of expectations is most important in the case of standards.

In the case of accelerations, the PPM is particularly clear about the need to document the standards of research/creative activity (encompassing quality and quantity of productivity) for a normal merit increase. As noted earlier in this document, a file may be sent back if it is missing an essential part of the file, such as external referee letters. The absence of standards for a normal merit increase in an acceleration file would also constitute grounds for a returned file.  The establishment of standards for normal merit increases is often troubling for chairs, some of whose departments are very broad, with different modes of publication and scholarship in different areas.

Nevertheless, CAP argues that it is possible to establish standards, and that the standards should be set by each department rather than by CAP. Some departments have a document that is put together by their Executive Committee or equivalent body; others have a more-or-less set statement in all letters articulating the standards. In any case, the department itself is able to recognize what is viewed as an acceptable performance for a merit. This standard may vary within the department across groups, but it cannot be so fine-grained as to be individual-specific. Standards should be transparent and stable over time within (and possibly across) departments. CAP realizes that there is a range of performance that could justify a proposed action, and because of this, departments may be hesitant to adopt specific numerical standards for publication. If a faculty member does not clearly surpass the standards for normal merit increase, but the department still believes that acceleration is warranted, the departmental recommendation letter should clearly state the reasons for its recommendation. CAP does worry about standards changing from year to year; it also worries about standards that seem so low that in terms of quantification, candidates can beat them by a factor of 4, 5, or more. CAP audits regular merit files each year; as of this year it will ask for the statistics on all files to understand the differences between the rates of proposal and of success for accelerations of departments.

4) Accelerations

A major source of unhappiness is failed accelerations. It should be noted once again that a normal merit increase is not a penalty. Accelerations should be used to reward extraordinary contributions in research and creative activity, teaching, or other scholarly and educational contributions…Extraordinary research is usually taken to mean productivity of around twice the standard, although particularly impactful publications may lower the absolute number, and less impactful publications may not warrantacceleration even if the absolute number is met. The PPM is clear that weakness in any area of evaluation would preclude acceleration. All areas of academic endeavor are evaluated for quantity and quality, and should be addressed in the file as meritorious for acceleration and should not be deficient…

5) Leaves

…Candidates on extended leave for professional reasons such as service at a national institute may end up with essentially no research, teaching or university service during a review period. In the case of career reviews in particular, this can lead to “no change” recommendations… CAP appreciates the candidate’s contributions at a national level as a scholar…unfortunately extended leaves may hamper a candidate’s progress in one or more of those categories, and constitute a weakness in the file. Chairs and candidates should be clear about the potential implications of extended absences from campus.

6) Final thoughts

The previous paragraphs discussing file preparation and interpretation have mostly treated issues of standards. Questions of equity and salary have also concerned CAP, and the Administration has worked together with the Senate to create several programs to address salary compression and retention. These programs will be discussed as a part of CAP’s annual report. However, it is worth mentioning in passing that while CAP’s judgment of files is based on academic criteria, the disparity between demonstrated academic achievement and “market-based” remuneration was a troubling one for committee members. The administration’s efforts to provide mechanisms to overcome inequity among faculty were judged to be critical by CAP. More remains to be done…”

___________________________________________________________________________The End - Note - UCSD Policy Reappointment criteria for the Project Scientist and the Research Scientist Series’ are below - Any language you can use from those criteria to talk about what you do would be great!

The Professional Research (Research Scientist) SeriesThe performance criteria for the Professional Research (Research Scientist) series (hereafter referred to as the Research Scientist series) are the same as for the Professor (Ladder-Rank) series in the area of research and creative activity.

The appointee must be continuously and effectively engaged in independent research and creative activity of high quality and significance, equivalent to that expected of the Professor series.

Associate and Full Research Scientists are expected to engage in University and/or Professional service, such as service on research review boards.

Assistant Research Scientists are recommended to participate in service activities and should document activities in the UCSD Bio-Bibl Form.

Appointees in the Research Scientist series at UCSD) function as independent investigators, have complete responsibility for their research programs, and are leaders or have the potential for leadership in their fields. The ability to sustain an independent research program is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for appointment as a Research Scientist.

Research Scientists normally are fully self-funded Principal Investigators. Occasionally, Research Scientist appointments will be given to candidates who meet the criteria for research quality and independence, but who are not Principal Investigators. Typically these individuals will be funded by large center or program project grants that support many independent investigators.

Assistant Research Scientists also may be funded as Co-Principal Investigators on grants. They should demonstrate strong potential to become independent and distinguished researchers and should work independently on grants.

The Project Scientist SeriesCriteria for advancement and reappointment in this series are demonstrated significant, original contributions to a research project or creative program. Appointees in this series need not demonstrate the same leadership ability, independence, or scholarly breadth as members of the Research Scientist or Professor Series. University and public service are recommended.

At the time of academic review, the Project Scientist’s supervisor (normally the principal investigator) should evaluate the Project Scientist and submit his or her written evaluation and recommendation to the department Director.

Project Scientists may serve as Principal Investigators only with PI Exception, but may serve as Co-Principal Investigators with members of the Professor or Research Scientist series.

An appointee in this series who carries a significant teaching load must concurrently hold an appropriate instructional title, following campus review procedures for such appointments.

For Project Scientists who demonstrate strong potential for independent research, the Vice Chancellor for Research Affairs will consider requests from department chairs for exceptions to the Principal Investigator eligibility policy. The award of Principal Investigator status does not in itself justify a change in series to the Research Scientist series