OFFICE OF RESEARCH AFFAIRS 9500 GILMAN DRIVETEL: (858) 534-9758 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92093-0043FAX: (858) 534-3868 http://research.ucsd.edu

SUBJECT: ACADEMIC REVIEW CALL LETTER – actions effective JULY 1, 2017 - For All Actions including Merits/Reappointments, Promotions/Career Reviews, and Appraisals

If you are receiving this information, you are eligible for your academic advancement review, effective July 1, 2017.

Because Organized Research Units (ORU’s) collectively have a large number of reviews to process, and because the final deadlines for submission of review files are strictly enforced by the Vice Chancellor, your materials must be returned and received by me, the ORU Academic Personnel Analyst (ORU/APA), no later than the deadline in the attached email.

This document contains a detailed description of the items needed for the preparation of your review file. Submit Your File Documents using the ORU Drop Box: Your completed materials and individual documents (as listed below) are to be downloaded back to me, Catherine Schumacher, the Organized Research Unit, Academic Personnel Analyst (ORU/APA), on or before the deadline in the attached email by using this link: https://ratpcsws.ucsd.edu/dropbox.  

Please be sure to name each uploaded document specifically with your LAST NAME first, then the doc type as follows:

“JONES_BioBibl”“JONES_Research Statement”Etc…

ACADEMIC REVIEW DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST

Review period: Update your documentation from your last review through June 30, 2016 (Please Note: Since we prepare review files 1 year in advance, your Review documents will cover your activity up to and including June 30, 2016, and the action will be effective June 30, 2017.)

The following is a checklist of the review materials you need to submit - Once completed; submit all documents electronically to ORU Academic File Drop Box link indicated above):

1) UCSD Bio-Bibliography Form – DATES MUST BE INCLUDED FOR ALL ENTRIES AND LISTED FROM OLDEST TO NEWEST - The final version of this form from your last review, if it was available, is attached to this email to provide you with a starting point. Please do not remove any historical information from the last review cycle as this document is meant to be comprehensive and cumulative. Please just add on anything new since your last review, leaving all prior documentation intact.

Bibliography - Your bibliography is included in your biography form in section III - please refer to this and update only publications that are new since your last review. Do not remove or renumber any of the previously listed citations. See additional guidelines below for instructions on how to list these items. There has been a new section added recently (B.IV) where Patents and other special works are to

be listed (please describe significance of these items in your Research Statement). You will also need to inform us of the disposition of any publications that were previously “In Press” or were previously listed in Section C, Work in Progress, at the time of your last review.

NOTE: Please upload your updated Bio-Bibl form to the Drop Box a word.doc as I will make edits and format changes as needed, and return it to you at a later time for your final approval and signature.

2) Research Statement – Use the TEMPLATE/Guideline (attached to this email). One of the most important documents for your file review is your written statement regarding your research and service accomplishments since your last review. Please follow the TEMPLATE as provided.

3) Reprints and preprints –Upload PDFs of all NEW Section A & Section C (as applicable) publications added since your last review

4) Updated Curriculum Vitae - If you will be pursuing a Promotion (i.e., advancement to Full Project Scientist/Research Scientist, Career Review to Step VI, or advancement to Project Scientist/Research Scientist, Above-Scale), upload a copy of your most recent CV in the standard format, as a PDF, as this may provide an additional synopsis of your career and/or list some additional items not found in the UCSD file material. Your CV will also be used when requesting referee letters, as applicable. Do not include narratives, personal information, personal addresses, photos, or referees names in your CV.

5) List of Qualified “Candidate-Selected” Referees - If you will be pursuing a Promotion, (i.e., advancement to Full Project Scientist/Research Scientist, Career Review to Step VI, or advancement to Project Scientist/Research Scientist, Above-Scale), there will also be a Career Review conducted on your file and this will additionally require the submission of Referee names from both you and your Department. Please upload a document containing the names of your selected “candidate” external referees as requested if this is your case.

For your convenience, Additional Details for Preparation of Materials needed for all Merit Advancements and Promotions/Career Reviews are provided below:

1) Updated UCSD Biography Form (attached to this email, if available): DATES MUST BE INCLUDED FOR ALL ENTRIES AND LISTED FROM OLDEST TO NEWEST - This form is required to be completed at the time of academic review. This document is in MS Word format. NO PRIOR INFORMATION SHOULD BE DELETED - EXCEPT FOR IN THE GRANTS SECTION. No re-numbering of the Bibliography is allowed. All citations should be listed in date order from Oldest to Newest.

Section I. Please complete, and/or update any changes.

Section II. This section is required to be completed at each review.

Section II (c). All honors and awards you have achieved since taking an academic position (at any institution) should be listed, not just the awards over the past review period. Be sure to include the year of each reward.

Section II, (d). Please work with your fund manager to complete this section on all NEW contracts and grants. Files have been returned due to false information, so please be sure to provide accurate information. Only grants that were/are active during the current review period should be listed. Please be sure to indicate your role and %, as well as that of PI/Co-PIs.

Section III. This is your bibliography, which comprises three sections. See new Instruction sheet included with the new BioBibl form

NEW: Bibliography Formatting Changes and Expectations: For July 1, 2017 Academic Files

For academic review files effective July 1, 2017, and thereafter, the expectation is that candidates will use the newly revised form and that items listed in the Bibliography section (Section III of the form) be re-formatted as follows:

A “summary of work above the line” format. Here, work listed “above the line” and already credited in

the most recently completed academic review, a candidate will summarize the number and type of publication just above where the line begins. In this case the candidate would maintain the previous format for all items “above the line,” and each of these would have descriptors (research article, conference proceeding, etc.; see form instructions). At the very end of the “above the line” section, the candidate would then summarize the numbers of each type of work. See an example of this format below Appendix II:

SUMMARY EXAMPLE Appendix II

A. Primary Published or Creative Work

This section should include original peer-reviewed work that appears in the open literature and can be reasonably expected to be found in libraries outside UCSD, or an appropriately documented listing of creative endeavors such as performances or shows of artistic works.

In addition to published work, this section may include items that are “in press” (i.e., accepted for publication in final form) or formally “accepted” (i.e., the publisher’s binding acceptance of entire corpus has been received). Such items should clearly indicate “in press” or “accepted” somewhere in the citation. Do not include items that have been submitted for consideration but have not yet been accepted. Materials associated with items in this section should be submitted with the file.

Items listed above the line:

…..

A. 23 XXXXXXXXXX RESEARCH ARTICLEA. 24 XXXXXXXXXX BOOKA. 25 XXXXXXXXXX BOOK CHAPTER

20 Refereed Research Articles (A.I.), 2 Review Articles (A.II.), 3 Book Chapters (A.III.), etc.

Then, for new work listed “below the line” and to be considered in the current review period, the candidate would list the work out in subsections. Work in each subsection would be listed in chronological order.

Then, Reset numbering of new work below the line of previous work within each subsection and/or subcategory (see below) or you may resume numbering for each subcategory as summarized above the line. For example, the first number for the new subcategory book chapters would be 4.

I. Original Peer-Reviewed Work or Listing of Creative Endeavors (subsection) 1.2.

II. Review and Invited Articles 1.2.

III. Books and Book Chapters - Do not include encyclopedia entries in this subsection. List these in Section B.

a. Books (subcategory)1.

b. Book Chapters1.

2.

IV. Refereed Conference Proceedings

Widely distributed proceedings of fully refereed conferences may be listed in this subsection. Please include the acceptance rate for each conference, if this information is available.

1.

2.

The same formatting would follow for Sections B and C:

If work has been since published, provide the relevant data. For those works in Section C that will remain in that section, provide a status update even if the status is the same.

IMPORTANT REMINDERS

You are encouraged to take a responsible and active role in the preparation of your academic review file documents by providing the relevant materials in a timely fashion, and by discussing with your Mentor and Director any concerns you may have that pertain to your pending review file.

It is critical that you meet file document submission deadline in the attached email, so that your Director will have sufficient time to act upon your review proposal and also meet the mandatory Research Affairs deadlines, or we will not be able to guarantee your review or advancement for an effective date of July 1, 2017.

Academics eligible for Promotions, Career Reviews, Appraisals, and Above Scale actions will be able to add/include reprints/preprints ONLY up until October 15th, but no other materials, and ONLY if needed to support the file ONLY in MARGINAL cases.

Overview – UCSD Academic File Review Process Policy Links Regarding Appointments and Advancements

http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/ppm/docs/230-20.html (Appointments Policy PPM 230-20)

http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/ppm/docs/230-28.html (Advancements & Reappointments PPM 230-28)

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/Lecturer 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.

UCSD File Review Process – A Brief Overview

Every UCSD Academic member undergoes a periodic formal review by the ORU and campus reviewers at various intervals depending upon their appointed series, rank and step. Files are reviewed every two years until the academic is promoted to Full Project Scientist/Research Scientist, and then every three years until he/she is advanced to Full Project Scientist/Research Scientist, Step IX, or above. The file is then reviewed every four years.

TYPES OF ACTIONS

1. Normal Merit/Reappointment Reviews Focus only on progress made during the last review period. However, all information in the UCSD BioBibliography Form should always remain comprehensive – i.e., listed from oldest to newest, no previously reported/reviewed activity should be deleted from the form, except for that listed in the Grants Section.

2. Promotions These actions require external evaluators (referees names are provided by both the candidate and the Department) to assess the quality of the academic’s progress. These letters provided by external referees help the Unit division and the campus assess each individual’s qualifications for the proposed rank/step when being considered for Promotion to Associate Project Scientist/Research Scientist, or to Full Project Scientist/Research Scientist, and advancement to and through Full Project Scientist/Research Scientist Step VI, and advancement to Project Scientist/Research Scientist Above Scale (which follows Project Scientist/Research Scientist Step IX). These actions are considered as comprehensive Career Reviews, and therefore file materials considered includes everything since the last career review/promotion

Promotion from the Assistant level to the Associate level, regardless of when proposed, is not considered an acceleration. Assistant-level appointees should be proposed for promotion whenever they are deemed ready for such advancement.

3. Accelerated Merits/Promotions Requests due to exemplary performance can be processed at the normal review date and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Acceleration occurs when an individual receives a merit advancement or promotion after serving fewer years at a given step than is normal for that step. It also occurs when, through advancement, an entire step is skipped.

Accelerations should be used to reward extraordinary contributions in research and creative activity, teaching, or other scholarly and educational contributions, or for recalibration purposes at career reviews. The Senate Committee on Academic Personnel discourages one-year accelerations unless there are extraordinary reasons for them. Further, 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.

It should be noted that acceleration requires demonstration of unusual achievement and exceptional promise of continued growth. The degree of achievement required for acceleration is greater than that expected for normal advancement; the character of achievement required for acceleration is identical to that expected for normal advancement. The departmental recommendation letter should state that the advancement is accelerated, and the academic review file must be documented accordingly. 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.

The departmental recommendation letter must specifically describe the impact on the discipline of the work that is being used as a justification for acceleration. Acceleration proposed on the grounds of unpublished work or work that has not yet been evaluated by a scholarly public is not appropriate. An acceleration proposal based primarily on the quality and quantity of contributions other than research and other creative activity must contain documentation and evidence of these extraordinary achievements.

4. Cross-over step Merits – these steps are no longer called “Cross-Over” for the 2017 filesAssistant level – Steps 5 & 6Advancement to these steps is recommended when a file contains evidence demonstrating that the candidate is making timely progress on the kind of substantial research and creative projects that are likely, when completed, to justify promotion at a later time.

Associate level – Steps 4 & 5Steps IV and V may be used in exceptional situations and with proper justification when a file contains evidence demonstrating that the candidate is making timely progress on the kind of substantial research and creative projects that are likely, when completed, to justify promotion at a later time. The normal period of service at Steps IV and V is three years. In case of subsequent promotion to Full level, previous service at Steps IV or V at the Associate Professor level and the conclusions of a career review determine the entry step in the Professor rank. Service at Associate Professor, Step IV, may be in lieu of service at Professor, Step I; service at Associate Professor, Step V, may be in lieu of service at Professor, Step II

5. Career Reviews In addition to Referee Letters, all Promotions, and advancements to Full Project Scientist/Research Scientist, Step VI, and Project Scientist/Research Scientist, Above-Scale, require a full Career Review. If you are currently in the Assistant Rank, a 4th or 6th year appraisal may also be due. These actions are also considered as comprehensive Career Reviews, and therefore file materials considered includes everything since the last career review/promotion.

Full LevelMerit to Step VI (Career Review): Advancement to Step VI usually will not occur after less than three years of service at Step V and will be granted on evidence of highly distinguished scholarship, highly meritorious service, and excellent University teaching. There must be evidence of continuing achievement in all areas at the prescribed level. Continuing great distinction in scholarly and creative achievement should be recognized nationally or internationally. The file must reflect a critical career review. Service at Full level, Step VI, may be of indefinite duration.

Merit to Above Scale – Distinguished Researcher: Advancement to Full level, Above Scale, is reserved for scholars and teachers of the highest distinction, whose work has been internationally recognized and acclaimed and whose teaching performance and service are excellent. Except in rare and compelling cases, advancement will not occur after less than four years at Step IX. Moreover, mere length of service and continued good performance at Step IX are not a justification for further salary advancement. There must be demonstration of additional merit and distinction beyond the performance on which advancement to Step IX was based. The file must reflect a critical career review.

6. 4th and 6th Year Appraisals Assistant-level academics are normally reviewed for progress in years 4 and 6 as follows: - A formal “4th Year Progress Appraisal” is conducted for Assistant Research Scientists only.- A formal “6th Year Promotion Readiness Assessment” is conducted for both Assistant Project

and Assistant Research Scientists.

- These appraisals should provide an appointee with a careful, considered, analytical evaluation of his or her performance to date in the areas of research and creative work, professional competence and activity and University and public service (Research Scientist series only), as well as a candid assessment of his or her potential for promotion, based upon the evidence presented in the current file materials

- Reviews of Research Scientists for which activity is expected at the ladder-rank level, are strongly

weighted toward academic research achievements. Additionally, a lack of activity/participation in the Service component in the Research Scientist series can result in advancements being denied. In fact, for accelerations, exceptional achievement in all components of academic performance is required.

- In your best interest, it is imperative that we have complete and up-to-date records that reflect your performance and achievements since your last academic review. The main performance criteria at UCSD are Research and Creative Activity, Professional Competence and activity, and additionally, University and Public Service (for the Research Scientist series). Evidence of achievement in each of the criteria specified for your series, as well as other performance-related information, should be reflected in the various documents required for your review

7. No Change Reappointments - Appointee is Not Recommended for Advancement at this time (No Change)

An academic review file must be prepared and submitted for review for an appointee serving in the final year of the normal period, even if the appointee is not recommended for advancement. A department should propose a no-change action if productivity is not sufficient to justify advancement, or if the appointee is unresponsive to departmental requests to submit updated file materials. For appointees subject to APM 137, Non-Senate Appointees/Term Appointment, the department may allow the appointment to expire instead of recommending a no-change action.

If the appointee has an off-scale salary, its disposition should be discussed in the departmental letter. For instance, if a market off-scale salary is due to be rejustified at the time of a no-change action, and no argument is included in the file to reset the market off-scale salary, the letter should state that the market off-scale salary will be tapered in accordance with PPM 230-28 VII.B.5.

After a no-change action takes effect, the appointee’s review cycle will be reset for the normal two-, three-, or four-year cycle, at the same rank, step, and salary.

The Campus Review ProcessPromotions, career reviews, appraisals, accelerations, crossover merit advancements, and no change actions of appointees in the Project Scientist and Specialist series are reviewed by the Project Scientist/Specialist Review Panel (PSSRP).

The Academic Senate Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) reviews the following proposed actions for appointees in the Professional Research (Research Scientist) series: • Appraisals • Merits as, Above Scale • Accelerations • New bonus or reset market off-scale salary components • Career reviews (promotions and advancements to Step VI and Above Scale) • Career equity reviews • Crossover merit advancements to Assistant Professor, Steps V and VI, and Associate Professor, Steps IV and V • Terminations • Reconsideration of termination decisions • Initial Continuing Appointments (Unit 18)

Merit proposals and no change actions will be reviewed by CAP at the request of any concerned party, or if any reviewer disagrees with the proposed action.

Your Rights and ResponsibilitiesThe review process and your rights during the review are described in the UC-wide Academic Personnel Manual (APM), Sections 160, 210-1, and 220. You have access to and may review at any time the relevant sections of the APM available on the Web at: http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel/academic-personnel-policy/appointment-and-promotion/index.html . Local policies are also available in the UCSD Policy and Procedure Manual (PPM) at: http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/PPM/docs/230-28.pdf. We also recommend becoming familiar with PPM 230-29 (Policies and Procedures to Assure the Fairness in the Academic Personnel Review Process), located here: http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/PPM/docs/230-29.pdf.

Please prepare written statements describing your research, teaching, and University and public service, in accordance with the attached guidelines. These statements will greatly assist us in preparing your file.

Salary IncreasesAdvancements are usually accompanied by a designated salary increase in accordance with the UC Salary Scale and budgetary constraints.