Guidelines for Making Promotion Recommendations for Research Scientists

Research Faculty Home

Office of the Vice President for Research
Effective September, 1999; Updated September 6, 2011

This material was initially distributed via a September 2011 memo from the Vice President for Research to Deans, Directors and Department Heads.

This memorandum summarizes the procedures that need to be followed for promotion recommendations for individuals appointed to the Research Scientist (RS) track. The RS track includes individuals holding the following ranks:

  • Research Investigator (Note 1)
  • Assistant Research Scientist
  • Associate Research Scientist
  • Research Scientist

The Office of the Vice President for Research is responsible for oversight and administration of promotions for the RS track. All promotions to the ranks of Associate Research Scientist and Research Scientist must be reviewed and approved by the Vice President for Research. As a reminder, Schools, Colleges, Dearborn, Flint, LSI and ISR have the authority delegated to them by the Vice President for Research to make promotions to the Assistant Research Scientist rank. Units that report to OVPR must submit their recommendations to the Vice President for Research.

OVPR asks for your cooperation to ensure that the promotion review process for our Research Scientists is thorough, equitable, and timely. The specific dossier requirements are published below and we encourage you to pay very close attention to all of the required elements which include but are not limited to: 1) copies of all correspondence to potential reviewers (including those individuals who are unable to provide a letter); 2) a current and complete curriculum vitae that must include a listing of all current sponsored research and an accurate and updated publications listing; and 3) a thorough and comprehensive report from the Promotion Review Committee that accurately summarizes the outcome of the committee’s deliberations. Please note that we are unable to accept incomplete dossiers so please be very thorough as you assemble the dossier.

As a general guideline, please keep in mind that putting the proper effort into preparing the promotions casebook is crucial to this process. This includes establishing a Promotions Review Committee to review each candidate. The Committee membership should include peers at an equal or higher rank than the proposed rank for the candidate, and should have at least one member from outside the department or unit. Please take care in selecting arms length non-UM reviewers of the candidate’s work to get the most objective view. We do not consider former teachers, advisers, mentors, or current or former colleagues to be “arm’s length.” Co-authors or major research collaborators are also not “arm’s length” unless the most recent shared work occurred over 10 years prior to promotion.

Note 1: Entry level position appointed directly by the individual school, colleges, Dearborn, LSI and ISR. There is no promotional path to this rank.

Recommendations for Research Scientist Promotions to Associate Research Scientist and Research Scientist

OVPR considers Research Scientist (RS) promotions just once a year (as is true for all faculty appointments). This ensures that a common frame of reference is used in making these decisions and enables OVPR to review the total research faculty promotional pattern within the University. Accordingly, recommendations for all RS promotions, the effective date of which would be September 1, 2012, are due:

Deadline: Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Please note that the schedule for the RS promotion review process is the same as that of all faculty promotions. Also, consistent with the process for all other faculty promotions, casebooks are to be submitted electronically.

Promotions of Research Faculty holding Multiple Appointments

If a research faculty member holds appointments in more than one unit (whether as research, clinical or instructional faculty), the units involved are strongly urged to collaboratively and simultaneously conduct the promotion review process. Use the same letters of recommendation for both instructional, clinical and research faculty promotion processes, and be certain to include a statement in your letter of solicitation indicating that the letter of recommendation will be shared with the Promotions Committee, Dean/Director, Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Vice President for Research. Please note that separate casebooks are not necessary, but if the research and instructional faculty appointments do not report to the same Dean/Director, then both Dean(s)/Director(s) should sign the appropriate forms and submit their respective letters addressed to both the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and to the Vice President for Research.

Affirmative Action Responsibilities

In reviewing Research Scientists for promotion, units are reminded of their affirmative action responsibilities and are encouraged to consider carefully the promotions to ensure that they are not affected negatively by considerations of gender, race, age, or other irrelevant characteristics.

Notification

The Office of the Vice President for Research will complete the review of all Research Scientist promotion dossiers and notify Deans and Departments of the decisions no later than June 1, 2012. It is the Dean’s/Director’s responsibility to contact individual faculty regarding a negative decision for promotion.

Please contact the Office of the Vice President for Research at 763-6048 with any questions about the RS promotion process.

Office of the Vice President for Research
Research Scientist Promotion Recommendations

Instructions for Assembly of the Promotion Dossier

Oversight and administration of the Research Scientist (RS) Track is the responsibility of the Office of the Vice President for Research. The Vice President for Research has delegated to units the authority to make promotions to the rank of Assistant Research Scientist without review or approval by OVPR. 9Units that report to OVPR must submit recommendations for promotions to the Vice President for Research for the ranks of Assistant Research Scientist or higher.) Promotion recommendations to ranks of Associate Research Scientist and Research Scientist must be submitted to the Office of the Vice President for Research according to instructions below. (Promotion recommendations to the Research Professor Track must be submitted to both the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and to the Vice President for Research.)

The deadline for submission of promotion recommendations to be effective September 1, 2012 is:

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

The Process

Consistent with the process for all other faculty promotions, casebooks are to be submitted electronically. Please upload a PDF file for each casebook to the Ctools website. For further information, contact Coyote Windsong in OVPR, godsdog@umich.edu or 763-6048.

Form RS-1 is the cover page/signature form for recommending RS promotions to the Vice President for Research. Form RS-2 is used to acknowledge Bridging Support commitments associated with the RS appointment. You can download these PDFs and open in Acrobat for versions with fields that can be typed in. [rs-1.pdf] [rs-2.pdf].

PLEASE NOTE: The approval and signature of the Dean or Director of the appropriate school or unit is required on RS-1, which signifies that the Dean or Director has reviewed and approved the promotion dossier being forwarded for consideration. If the research faculty member under consideration holds appointments in multiple units, please contact all of the units to determine whether the promotion process can be consolidated. No promotion requests from an additional unit will be considered after the February deadline.

Documents Required for all promotions submitted to OVPR. (Promotion packets will not be acted on until all required documents are present.

  1. Form RS-1 (Cover Page/Signature Form).
  2. Form RS-2 (Statement of Understanding Regarding Responsibility for Bridging Support).
  3. A current curriculum vitae (which should include all current sponsored project funding and a current publications list).
  4. A copy of the letter used to solicit candid assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate for promotion in light of his/her role and functions. Please see sample solicitation letters (Attachments F-1 and F-2) available at the Office of the Provost web site. For legal reasons, it is strongly encouraged that you use these sample letters.
  5. A brief explanation of the choice and qualifications of peer reviewers. For promotions to Associate Research Scientist and Research Scientist at least 5 external evaluations are required; reviewers must be at or above the rank of the candidate being considered. Please take care in selecting arms-length non-UM reviewers of the candidate’s work to get the most objective view. We do not consider former teachers, advisers, mentors, or current or former colleagues to be arm’s length. Co-authors or major research collaborators are also not arm’s length unless the most recent shared work occurred over 10 years prior to the promotion. External reviewers should only be contacted by the school/college/department. The candidate should not have contact with the external reviewers.
  6. All evaluation letters received must be submitted regardless of whether or not a letter is supportive of the candidate’s promotion.
  7. A transmittal letter from the Dean or Director to the Vice President for Research in support of the nomination, including the following:
    • Provide a subject line with the candidate’s name, all current titles, and Employee ID number.
    • If the candidate holds joint appointments, please indicate the fraction of effort for each title – for example, Associate Professor, without tenure (100%), and Research Associate Professor (0%).
    • Indicate both the total years in rank for the current appointment and the years in rank at Michigan. Please note that to be consistent among all schools/colleges/units, the years in rank should include the year of the promotion review.
    • Indicate whether any of the candidate’s years of service have been excluded for childbirth, dependent care, medical or other reasons. For privacy reasons (HIPAA – the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996), please do not provide details of the reason behind a medical leave.
    • The assessment should be written from an evaluative, not an advocacy, perspective and should present a balanced summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the case. Be sure to discuss any negative reports or reviews included in the casebook.
    • It is important that non-traditional forms of scholarly production are given as much scrutiny as the more traditional/disciplinary work. It is important to ensure that individuals receive full credit for their contributions to interdisciplinary and/or collaborative scholarly projects.
    • Describe the outcome of the promotion review at each stage of evaluation in the unit(s) in which the candidate holds an appointment. We understand that all cases require careful consideration of strengths and weaknesses; please summarize the evaluative comments of each unit’s promotion review committee and/or executive committee and include the final vote tally (such as 4-2 – no names) of any faculty group (department review, promotion advisory committee, and/or executive committee) that voted on the promotion recommendation. If a departmental decision is reversed or a recommendation rejected by the school/college, explain the reversal or rejection in detail.
    • Explain your reasons for recommending or not recommending promotion.
    • Highlight and discuss in detail any special circumstances concerning this individual (e.g., early promotion request).
    • The cover letter should be signed by the Dean(s)/Director(s) from all units in which the candidate is being promoted.
  8. Please provide any letters from department or division chairs to the Dean/Director or school/college recommending a decision for or against promotion. If the recommendation is at odds with the decision of a sub-unit or a review committee, that should be explained.
  9. A letter from the Review Committee summarizing its rationale for recommending the promotion, signed by all of the committee members.
  10. (Optional) Individual letters from members of the Review Committee.
  11. Documentation of Research (if appropriate) or Creative Work (if appropriate).
    • Please provide a brief description of the candidate’s most significant research or creative contributions. Keep in mind that this will be read by non-specialists and needs to be accessible to a broad audience. Convey a sense of the candidate’s subfield of scholarship or artistic expression and of the candidate’s place within that subfield. This discussion should enable the reader to understand the substance of the work and its importance. Potentially relevant topics include conventions of publication in the field, sources of external funding, expectations about co-authorship in research teams, norms about work with doctoral and post-doctoral mentors, significance of awards, and other topics as appropriate.
    • For faculty with interdisciplinary appointments, please comment on his/her contributions to interdisciplinary activities with regard to research.
    • Please include the candidate’s own research statement.
    • Include reviews of the candidate’s research or creative work by internal or departmental committees (e.g., ad hoc committee, casebook committee, and/or promotion and tenure committee) and the candidate’s response to the reviews, if any.
    • Do not include copies of portfolios of drawings and photos, journal articles, other manuscripts, CDs, or DVDs (note: copies of any reviews of the candidate’s books are acceptable).

Completed promotion packets are to be uploaded to the CTools website For access to CTools, please contact Lesley Bull at lesleyb@umich.edu