|
Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs) Concerning the Academic Personnel
Review Process at UC Davis
FAQ
AIMS: The personnel review process
described herein applies to all Senate faculty, but the main purpose
of this FAQ document is to clarify the review process for new Senate
faculty, and to give them basic information related to concepts
discussed at the fall New Faculty Workshop. The answers to these FAQs
reflect not only APM information about the review process, but also
'best practices', traditions, and culture regarding that process at
UC Davis.
What are the guiding
principles for advancement in the UC
system?
UC policy
states: "Superior intellectual
attainment, as evidenced both in teaching and in research or other
creative achievement, is an indispensable criterion for appointment
or promotion in an academic position. Merit increases will be
awarded only on the basis of continuing excellence in teaching,
research and university and public service in the rank at which the
candidate is presently serving."
I. TERMS/DEFINITIONS
Preface: In the APM, as well as this
document, the faculty member being reviewed is referred to as the
'candidate'. 'Reviewer
' refers to all who participate in the review process: department
members, Chair, Dean, Ad Hoc Committee, Committee on Academic
Personnel-Oversight Committee (CAP-OC) and Committee on Academic
Personnel-Appellate Committee (CAP-AC), extramural referees, and the
Vice Provost-Academic Personnel.
The APM is the
University of California Academic Personnel Manual ('the rules of
the game'), which encodes all university policies regarding academic
employment. There are
two components of the APM, one containing UC systemwide policies,
and the other containing the UC Davis guidelines implementing those
policies. There are hard copies of both manuals in all
departments. The
Internet address for both components of the APM is: http://manuals.ucdavis.edu/apm/apm-toc.htm
Under Appointment and
Promotion, the following APM sections may be helpful as
references:
Who
are the members of the Academic Senate?
Within the university,
the Regents have given the Academic Senate faculty responsibility
for Admissions, Degree Requirements, and Curriculum. The Academic Senate faculty
are those who hold a position in one of the following title
series:
FTE = Full Time
Equivalent. A 1.0 FTE
is a 100% appointment in a tenure track position (Professorial
series) or Lecturer SOE, funded by the state of California. A certain number of FTEs are
allotted to each Dean to fulfill the teaching and research
obligations of his/her unit.
What are the roles of Department Chair, Deans and Vice Provost-Academic Personnel in the personnel process?
The Chair is
responsible for overseeing the departmental review of the
candidate's record and for writing the recommendation letter, which
presents the department's evaluation (including the vote) of the
candidate's teaching, research/creative activity, and service for
all personnel actions (APM
245 and UCD
APM 245).
The Dean (in some
colleges an Associate Dean has responsibility for academic personnel
matters) is the administrator responsible for reviewing the
following actions within the school, college, or
division:
Appointments Merits Promotions
Accelerations
Deferrals
Appraisals
Dean's personnel actions,
which need no further review by the Vice Provost are called
redelegated actions. Currently these include:
all normal merits (excluding Professor VI and Above
Scale), and appointments at or below the Assistant Professor
III level (http://academicpersonnel.ucdavis.edu/delegations/cfm).
See Delegation of Authority
at: http://academicpersonnel.ucdavis.edu/delegations/cfm
What personnel committees have responsibility for reviewing Academic Senate faculty? How are they appointed?
The Committee on
Academic Personnel (CAP) has been recently reconstituted as two
subcommittees:
CAP-OC (CAP Oversight Committee), an Academic Senate standing committee which advises the Vice Provost-Academic Personnel by reviewing files and making recommendations on non-redelegated personnel actions. CAP-OC consists of 9
senior faculty from across the campus appointed by the Committee on
Committees.
CAP-AC (CAP Appellate
Committee), an Academic Senate standing committee of 5 faculty
appointed by the Committee on Committees, advises the Deans and Vice
Provost concerning appeals of all merit and promotion
decisions.
The FPCs are the 'local level' Faculty Personnel Committees in each school/college/division (formerly called the School or College Personnel Committees), which advise the various Deans by reviewing redelegated personnel actions. FPCs are considered subcommittees of CAP-OC and their members are nominated by the school, college, or division Executive Committee and approved by CAP-OC.
What
are series, ranks, and steps?
Series are the various
job titles described above, i.e., Professorial, In Residence,
Lecturer SOE, etc. The
Dean, the CAP-OC, and the Vice Provost must approve a faculty
request for a change in series.
Ranks are the various
levels within a series, such as Assistant Professor, Associate
Professor, and Professor within the Professorial series. Rank and salary are
increased by promotion.
Steps are the various
levels within a rank, e.g., Assistant Professor, Step II, III, IV,
or V. Each successful
merit review results in an increase in both step and salary. The number of steps at each
rank and the usual step at which faculty apply for promotion are as
follows:
Within the Assistant
and Associate Professor ranks there are steps above the ones where
most faculty apply for promotion, and they are considered to overlap
with the first steps of the next rank. Within the Assistant
Professor rank, Steps V and VI overlap with Associate Professor
Steps I and II, respectively.
Within the Associate Professor rank, Steps IV and V overlap
with Professor Steps I and II, respectively.
When are overlapping steps
used?
Overlapping steps at
the Assistant Professor level
(V and VI) are most commonly used when the individual is
hired at Step III or above and although making good progress toward
tenure, he/she has not achieved a record commensurate with
promotion. Overlapping
steps at the Associate Professor level (IV and V) are most commonly
used when the individual is initially promoted to Associate
Professor at Step II or higher and again reflects the need for more
time to achieve promotion.
Only individuals who are making good progress toward
promotion are eligible for overlapping steps.
Each Ad Hoc Committee
has three members nominated by CAP-OC and appointed by the Vice
Provost to review the teaching, research/creative activity, and
service performance of a particular candidate. One member is from the
candidate's department and the other two have expertise in the
candidate's field of research.
Although the candidate does not know the composition of the
Ad Hoc committee, he/she has the right to request that certain
individuals not be appointed to the committee; this is accomplished
by way of a letter to the Vice Provost. Ad Hoc committees are
normally appointed for all promotions, as well as for high-level
merits at Professor Steps VI and Above Scale. Streamlined Processes
however, allow CAP-OC the discretion to waive an Ad Hoc review when
it deems appropriate (APM
210-1 and 220-80e).
A merit review is an
evaluation by the department, FPC, and the Dean of a faculty
member's record of teaching, research/creative activity, and
service. A positive
review will result in advancement in step within rank.
What is the period of review for a merit
increase?
Merit reviews normally
occur at two year intervals at the Assistant, I-IV levels) and
Associate Professor, I-III levels, every three years at the
Associate Professor, IV and V and full Professor levels I-IX, and
every four years at the Above Scale level (APM
220-18b). Merit
increases from Professor V to VI and from Professor IX to
For Professor VI, the
merit review covers the period since promotion or appointment to
full professor (i.e., Steps I-V).
For Professor Above
Scale, the review period is the period since promotion or
appointment to full professor, i.e., Steps I-IX. Subsequent Above Scale
merits do not normally occur more frequently than once every four
years.
A promotion review is
an evaluation for advancement in rank; i.e., from Assistant to
Associate Professor, or Associate to full Professor. At both of these levels, there
is a mandatory extensive review, which includes peer review of
teaching, solicited extramural letters, Ad Hoc committee review,
and CAP-OC review (APM
220-85, UCD APM Procedure
1).
What is the period of review for
promotion?
The length of the
review period may vary slightly among faculty. For promotion from Assistant
to Associate Professor, the review includes all teaching, research,
and service accomplished during the period since the date of the
terminal degree. The
period of appointment at UCD in the rank of Assistant Professor
(including Acting or Visiting Assistant Professor) cannot exceed
eight years. Since an
Assistant Professor must be given one year of notice if there is to
be a termination, the candidate must be reviewed no later than the
seventh year (APM
220-20c).
For promotion from
Associate Professor to full Professor the review covers the whole
period since promotion to Associate Professor.
What is the Eight Year Limit ("Seven Year
Rule") regarding tenure?
Tenure is the
University of California's guarantee of continued employment and is
granted with promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate
Professor. A tenured
faculty member's appointment can be terminated for such reasons as
violation of UC ethical principles, unacceptable conduct, or
incompetence. The
department, the Dean, the Ad Hoc Committee, CAP-OC, the Vice
Provost, the Provost and the Chancellor, conducts the tenure
review. A final
decision on whether tenure is to be granted must be made by the end
of the seventh year of service. Those who do not receive
tenure, are given a final year notice, during which they may pursue
an appeal of the decision.
In the 2001-2002 academic year, 95.5% of the tenure requests
at UCD were approved (APM
015, UCD
220 IV. D).
Under what circumstances can the normative time for tenure be extended to more than seven years?
The tenure clock may be
extended for major illness, and parental responsibilities associated
with the birth or adoption of a child (APM
133-17h). The
Chancellor also has the authority to extend the tenure clock in
other extraordinary circumstances, but maximum extension for all
circumstances is two years (APM
133 and APM
715).
A faculty member has
the right to appeal his/her denied personnel action within 30 days
of notification of denial, by submitting an appeal letter via the
Chair and the Dean or to the Vice Provost, addressing each of the
specific criticisms of the reviewers (see APM UCD 220,
Procedure 5).
Before deciding whether to appeal a decision, a candidate can
consult with a Faculty Privilege/Academic Personnel Advisor (see Senate website for a list). The Vice Provost will refer
the appeal letter and the file to CAP-AC for its review. The CAP-AC recommendation is
sent back to the Vice Provost who will forward it to the Dean for
final decision if it is a redelegated action (APM UCD 220,
Procedure 5).
At the Assistant
Professor level, an appraisal of teaching, research/creative
activity and service, is performed in the faculty member's fourth
year to determine if he/she is 'on track' for promotion. The dossier
is submitted in the fall and the FPC (acting as the ad hoc committee
doing the appraisal) forwards their report and the dossier to the
Vice Provost's office.
After review of the file by CAP-OC and the Vice Provost, an
appraisal letter is sent to the candidate with reviewer's comments
on performance in teaching, research/creative activity and
service. The intent of
the appraisal is to provide feedback on the areas of satisfactory
performance, as well as collegial advice as to how the candidate can
improve those areas where there are problems (APM
220-83, APM UCD
Procedure 1 A.).
An acceleration is a
merit or promotion review, which occurs prior to eligibility for
normal advancement.
Thus, it is a more rapid movement through the ranks and steps
than the norm due to the extraordinary record of the candidate. One-year accelerations for
Assistant and Associate Professors and one or two year accelerations
for Professors are normally reviewed by FPC and submitted to the
Dean for final decision.
Requests of one step or more are reviewed by CAP-OC, with
final decision by the Vice Provost. Accelerations are usually
sought when there has been unusually high academic achievement in at
least one category (teaching, research, or service) since the last
advancement, and at least normal progress in the other categories,
i.e., accelerations are not granted if any component of the record
is below par. CAP-OC
normally conducts an equity review of each case that comes before it
to assure that faculty are at an appropriate level, commensurate
with the entire record.
A deferral occurs when
an academic employee who is eligible for normal advancement
is not considered for this advancement. ( Refer to
UCD 220 and UCD
220AF for a list of those employees for which written
deferral requests must be submitted to the Dean/Vice Provost-Academic
Personnel). What
is an “Acting” title and how is it changed to a regular
title?
With the exception of
the Law School, 'Acting' is placed before the title, under the
following circumstances: 1) when individuals are appointed before
their Ph.D. thesis is completed/accepted by the degree granting
university (i.e., Acting Assistant Professor). There is a two year limit on
the use of the 'Acting' designation for Assistant Professors, and it
can be removed when there is documentation that the degree has been
granted; 2) for Associate and full Professors with exemplary
backgrounds in research (usually from industry or government), but
who have little or no teaching experience. There is a four year
limit on the 'Acting' title for Associate and full Professors and
the candidate can apply to have the 'Acting' removed from the title
after he/she has taught and had the courses reviewed as
satisfactory. Removal
requires review by the Dean, CAP-OC, and the Vice Provost (APM
235).
In the Law School, the
'Acting Professor' title is used for all new untenured Professorial
appointees, in lieu of Assistant or Associate Professor titles. When those faculty become
tenured, the 'Acting' is removed and they are given the full
Professor title.
What is the five-year review
policy?
To ensure that faculty
standards are being met, UC policy requires that the performance of
every Senate member must be evaluated at least once every five
years.
II. DOSSIER
The dossier, or
'packet', is the file compiled to describe a faculty member's
teaching, research/creative activity, and service activities for a
specific review period.
It is prepared by the department and forwarded to the
appropriate administrators and faculty personnel committees for
review.
The Annual Call is a
document issued in the spring by the Vice Provost's office
that describes current changes in the APM, the UCD APM, and
personnel procedures along with dates of submission of dossiers.
When are faculty members notified that they are up for a merit or promotion action and are expected to submit a dossier?
In the spring or early
summer the Dean's office prepares an eligibility list of individuals
in each department who should be reviewed for merit and promotion
during the next academic year and the Chair notifies each
individual. Dossiers
are usually due in the fall quarter, and the specific due dates for
submission of the file for various types of merit and promotion
actions are listed in the Annual Call.
Specifically, what is in the dossier and
who puts it together?
The department usually
has a designated staff member who works with the Chair and the
candidate in assembling his/her dossier. The following documentation
for the review period must be assembled for each dossier: the
teaching record (course numbers/titles/credits, class sizes),
summaries of student and peer evaluations of teaching; descriptions
of any teaching or training grants; numbers of undergraduate and
graduate students; and number of postdoctoral fellows being trained
in research. The
research record includes a list of publications in a
standardized format; letters of acceptance of articles, which have
been submitted but not yet published (i.e., items in press);
description of research or creative activity presentations; reviews
of the publications or presentations; list or description of any
grants supporting the research. The service record includes a
list of committees and other forms of service to the campus, the
candidate's discipline, and to the public.
The Annual Report of Professional Activities is a
form which each faculty member fills out annually in the department,
reporting such activities as invited research presentations,
participation in scholarly societies and off-campus activities
(e.g., reviewing grants or manuscripts, holding office in
professional societies, serving on government panels, etc). These forms can be referred
to when the dossier is being assembled.
In addition, the
Candidate's Statement and the Departmental Letter are included in
the dossier. In the case of promotions and high level merits at
Professor VI and Above Scale, a list of extramural reviewers who
have been contacted (with notation as to whether they were suggested
by the candidate or the department) and their confidential letters
in response are added to the file by the Chair. There is a Candidate's
Disclosure Certificate
for the candidate to review and sign, verifying that he/she has
seen the non-confidential content of the file and that it is
complete and error-free, and also that a summary or redacted copy of
confidential materials has been provided.
The following supporting documents are submitted in a separate envelope or box with the dossier:
What is the Candidate's
Statement?
Each candidate has the
right to include a personal statement in the file (up to 5 pages),
describing the teaching, research/creative activity, and service
accomplishments in his/her own words. Although it is optional,
this is the opportunity for the candidate to describe: how his/her
research fits together; what his/her teaching approach is; as well
as to explain unusual circumstances, both good and bad, which have
affected performance in the various areas. For
example:
What is included in the Departmental
Letter?
The Departmental Letter
is an evaluation of the faculty member's record as presented in the
dossier. It reflects
the views of the departmental Senate faculty, not just those of the
Chair. It usually
discusses if the candidate meets departmental standards and goals
with regard to teaching, research/creative activity, service and
professional competence.
The letter also states the vote, i.e. yes, no, or abstention,
as well as any reasons for the no or abstention votes, (APM UCD 220
Procedure 1 and Checklist
1).
What can the candidate do if he/she doesn't agree
with the Departmental Letter?
The candidate must be
provided an opportunity to review the redacted (names deleted)
Departmental Letter before the file goes forward for review. Although the content of the
letter is not negotiable, the candidate should alert the Chair to
factual errors. After
these errors are corrected, if the candidate still disagrees with
the department's recommendation or wants to clarify statements made
in the letter, he/she can write a rebuttal. Any rebuttal letter must be
submitted within 10 calendar days from the candidate's receipt of
the departmental letter and his/her signature on the disclosure form
(indicating that he/she has read the file and certifies that it is
complete and factually correct). A rebuttal may be sent
directly to the Dean or Vice Provost-Academic Personnel if the
candidate does not want to submit it to the Departmental
Chair.
Who
votes on personnel actions within a
department?
UCD Academic Senate
Bylaw 55 defines the rights of Senate faculty to vote on personnel
actions of their departmental Senate: Voting is confidential, and
all Senate faculty at or above the rank of the candidate have the
right to vote on an action.
The bylaw also allows departments to extend the vote to
Senate faculty below rank, as well as emeritae/i, by following the
process described in Bylaw 55.
If the vote is extended, the new voting procedures must be
sent to the Senate office for evaluation by CAP-OC. Thus, in some departments
all Senate faculty can vote on all Senate candidates. Although departments may
consult with non-Senate faculty on Senate faculty personnel actions,
non-Senate faculty may not vote on their Senate colleagues.
When
a candidate has an appointment split between two different
departments, which one prepares the dossier? Do they both
vote?
When there is a split
appointment, the home department of the candidate prepares the
dossier; the Chair of the secondary department may also supply a
letter. Senate faculty
in both departments vote on the action according to their individual
departmental voting procedures.
After the dossier
leaves the department, it goes to the Dean's office. For actions that are not
redelegated, the Dean/Associate Dean reviews the whole file and
writes a letter of support or non-support of the action. This letter becomes part of
the file, which then goes forward for further review by the Ad Hoc
Committee, CAP-OC, and the Vice Provost.
What are Extramural Letters? How many are
needed? What is meant
by 'arm's length reviewers?
Extramural letters
reviewing the candidate's qualifications for promotion, or
advancement to Professor, Step VI and Above Scale, are requested by
the Chair (faculty should not request them directly from
reviewers). The
candidate submits a list of outstanding researchers in his/her field
who could write such letters and the Chair, in consultation with the
departmental faculty, makes up a second list of potential extramural
reviewers (not revealing the names to the candidate). The Chair then solicits
letters from reviewers on each list, asking for an evaluation of
teaching, research, and service, and an opinion as to whether the
candidate would likely be considered for promotion at the reviewer's
institution. Many reviewers do not feel that they can knowledgeably
comment on any area other than the research record, and they
restrict their remarks to that activity. These letters are considered
to be confidential.
'Extramural' means
outside the UCD campus.
Thus, letters can be requested from faculty on other UC
campuses. [These are
particularly useful when faculty are being evaluated for Professor
VI and Above Scale, because many universities outside the UC system
do not have comparable steps in the Professor rank and are thus
unfamiliar with them].
'Arm's length' means
reviewers who are qualified to evaluate the work, but have no
connection with the candidate, e.g., they are not a recent mentor,
collaborator, or advisor.
This assures that reviewers do not have a conflict of
interest (See UCD APM 220
Exhibit B).
Between 5-8 letters are
usually expected in the review dossier. Regardless of number
however, reviewers find that detailed, informative, evaluative,
arm's length letters are the most valuable. Reviewers will look to see
if the extramural referees:
What is the process by which dossiers are reviewed, how long does it take, and who does it?
Redelegated
Merits: The file is sent by the
department to the Dean's office, where the FPC reviews it; the
committee writes a report and the Dean makes a final
decision.
Non-Redelegated
Merits: High level merits at
Professor VI and Above Scale, two or more year accelerations in the
Assistant or Associate ranks and three or more year accelerations at
the Professor rank, are all reviewed by the Dean/Associate Dean, who
writes a letter, and sends the file on to be reviewed by CAP-OC and
the Vice Provost, who makes the final
decision.
Promotions: The department sends the
file to the Dean for comment (i.e., Dean's Letter); from there it
goes to the Vice Provost and then to CAP-OC where it is read. CAP recommends a slate of
faculty who could serve on the candidate's Ad Hoc Committee. These are faculty who are
familiar with the research area. The slate is sent to the
Vice Provost, who makes the final selection and appoints the
committee. It meets and
writes a report, which includes a recommendation for or against the
action. The whole file
then goes to CAP-OC for review; CAP-OC makes a recommendation to the
Vice Provost, who makes the final decision, in consultation with the
Provost and the Chancellor if it is a tenure decision.
The length of time the
process takes varies with the complexity of the review. At each step, knowledgeable
staff review the dossier to ensure adherence to policy and
process. While merit
actions may take only a few months, promotion actions take
longer. Dossiers are
due at some specific date in the fall quarter, and the first
announcements of the promotion actions are made in the spring,
starting in mid-March.
Most merits/promotions are effective as of July 1.
Appraisals: The file goes from the
department to the Dean's office, where it is reviewed by the FPC,
acting as the ad hoc committee. Detailed collegial advice is
given to the candidate via a written report, which goes to the Dean
for signature. It then
goes to CAP-OC and the Vice Provost for additional review and
comment.
Are
awards, prizes, and commendations considered in the merit/promotion
review?
Yes. They should be fully
described in the Departmental Letter and the Candidate's
Statement. Letters of
thanks/appreciation for service to the university, the government, a
research society, etc., while not included in the dossier, can be
discussed in the Departmental Letter as reflecting the impact of the
candidate's service. Prizes, commendations, honors for research, as
well as awards given to students/fellows working with the candidate,
should be described under the Research category. Awards for teaching should
be described under the Teaching category.
III. EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR MERIT/PROMOTION
Senate members (except Lecturers SOE and Senior
Lecturers SOE who have no responsibility to engage in research, but
who are assigned a heavier instructional load than faculty in the
Professorial series) who are candidates for merit or promotion are
to be judged by the following criteria (APM
220-10 and 210-1):
IV. TEACHING
How is teaching evaluated in the personnel
review process?
The file should contain
a complete record of all teaching during the review period:
lectures, labs, discussion sessions, one-on-one teaching, etc. The department should
already have student evaluations for all courses as well as the
official DESII list of undergraduate courses (titles/hours/credits)
taught by all departmental faculty each year. The candidate, however, may
need to supply information on courses taught outside the department,
-- e.g., Graduate Group courses or guest lectures in other
departments; he/she may need to request evaluations from those
Instructors of Record.
For all promotions, peer evaluation of teaching is also
required. If there is
no departmental teaching committee that routinely reviews teaching
for the department, the Chair may designate certain faculty members
to evaluate the lectures, labs and teaching materials of the
candidate.
What are reviewers' particular concerns when
evaluating the teaching record?
What is considered
appropriate quantity (minimum number of courses/credit hours) and
quality of teaching, as well as the appropriate balance between
upper and lower division courses and graduate and undergraduate
courses, will vary by department and school/college. It is important that the
candidate understand what is considered an average load and
distribution, as well as what is considered acceptable student
evaluation scores, in his/her own department and college. New faculty should discuss
these departmental expectations with the Chair or a senior faculty
member.
In evaluating the teaching record, reviewers consider the following points to be important:
With regard to quantity
of teaching, they want to know if it is within the norm for the
department:
With regard to quality,
reviewers want to determine if the candidate demonstrates excellence
in teaching:
With regard to quality, what documents are usually submitted to indicate quality of teaching?
Confidential student
evaluations should be sought for all courses. The department usually
arranges to have courses evaluated, numerical results tallied, and
comments recorded.
Sometimes the department uses a standard form, which doesn't
specifically include guest lecturers, so the Instructor of Record
should do that separately.
Student evaluations are required for all merit and promotion
actions; peer evaluations are required for all promotions. Faculty who evaluate those
courses for the department usually include an assessment of the
effectiveness of teaching materials, such as syllabi, slides,
PowerPoints, overheads, textbook assignments, as well as the lecture
or lab presentations themselves. If original teaching
materials such as a textbook, videotape, CD, or website have been
developed by the candidate, copies should be submitted with the
packet as part of the supporting documentation for the teaching
record.
What kinds of teaching assignments are included, outside of lecture, lab, and conference/discussion sessions? Is off-campus teaching included?
All teaching should be
reported (even if there is no course number), including one-on-one
teaching, demonstrations, teaching of other faculty, discussion
sessions in the dormitories, etc. Off-campus teaching, (e.g.,
courses or lectures for the government, community groups, hospital
groups, research societies, other colleges and universities, etc.)
should also be reported.
If these lectures are evaluated, the evaluations should also
be included for assessment of teaching
quality.
When the candidate is located in a specific department largely because of the nature of his/her research program, how does he/she amass teaching credits, a problem faced by many basic scientists in clinical departments of the medical school?
All Senate faculty are expected to teach, perform research, and provide service, regardless of their home department. Under circumstances where they are unlikely to be assigned courses in the home department, they should actively seek teaching opportunities elsewhere, which might include the following:
V. RESEARCH/CREATIVE ACTIVITY
What is meant by 'research or creative
activity'?
In the APM, 'research'
usually refers to scholarly investigative endeavors, while creative
activity usually describes activities in areas of the humanities and
the arts, such as music composition/performance, theater and dance,
creative writing, etc.
Evidence submitted to document achievements in this category
include published articles, books, recordings, works of art, videos,
etc.
How does Research/Creative Activity differ among Senate members of the medical school faculty in the Professorial and Clinical__series?
Research activities of
the Professorial faculty of the medical school, including those in
the In Residence series, are similar in many respects to those of
Professorial faculty on the rest of the campus, i.e., discovery-type
research which tends to be characterized by a focus on
hypothesis-driven questions and laboratory or other investigative
techniques requiring significant grant support; investigative
results are usually published in peer-reviewed journal articles,
monographs, and reviews.
Creative Activities of the Clinical__faculty tend to fall
into the following four categories:
Creative activities of
the Clinical__faculty must be documented by peer-reviewed
publication and/or by dissemination in the medical community and
documentation of their use at other institutions, (UCD APM
275).
Does the publication list have to be arranged in
any particular format?
Yes. The categories of the
bibliography are prescribed in the APM, and it generally separates
items into published, in-press, submitted, and in preparation. Abstracts, reviews, and
reports having limited distribution are listed separately. It also prescribes the
format of the bibliographic entries. Faculty who co-author
publications are required to describe their role in each publication
(idea, development, benchwork, data analysis, writing, etc.) as well
as give a description of co-authors, i.e., are they undergraduate,
or graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, staff, faculty
colleagues (APM UCD 220
Exhibit C).
Although work that is submitted and in preparation may be
listed, only work that is published or in-press is generally
considered.
How do reviewers evaluate your contribution to a project when there are many authors on the papers?
The Departmental Letter
should explain the details of the research, who participated in it,
and the candidate's specific role. As stated above, the
candidate should include a statement with the publication list,
explaining his/her role in each study, who the co-authors are, and
who the primary (or corresponding) author is on each paper, if it is
not the first author.
How does a reviewer evaluate the research/creativity category? Are both quality and quantity evaluated?
All reviewers consider
both quality and quantity important. Quantity during the review
period, i.e., productivity, is evaluated, but the specific minimum
level of productivity expected will vary by department and
discipline, and the Departmental Letter should discuss whether
productivity meets the departmental norm. Quality is judged by the
importance and the impact of the work. Some of the factors used to
judge impact are:
How do reviewers evaluate
independence?
Independence in
research/creative activity is an important criterion for merit and
promotion. A candidate
must show that he/she has established a productive research program
at UC Davis, as opposed to simply a continuation of research
associations with previous training programs or colleagues. The candidate must also show
that he/she has a cohesive program of research, rather than a mere
collection of unrelated papers. Collaboration with colleagues is
strongly encouraged, but reviewers will look to see
if:
How does a reviewer evaluate the quality of the journals in which you publish? Are online publications acceptable?
Journal quality is
important, and it is definitely considered by reviewers. In some departments, the
Departmental Letter lists the most important journals in their field
('top tier') or discusses the relative qualities of the most common
journals in their field. There are also rating services which assign
'impact factors' to journals, which some reviewers use (however
impact factors refer to the journals, not the individual papers and
thus have limited value); others refer to publications like Citation
Index to determine the frequency of reference to the candidate's
work.
In a number of fields, online publication is becoming as important as print journal publication and research societies are rapidly establishing competitive online journa |