FAQs and Other Resources

No, external review letters are not required for the third year review. The guidelines will be revised to clarify that the result of the third year review should indicate whether the candidate is “on track for promotion,” not that they should be promoted during the third year. If promotion is recommended based on the third year review, the full promotion review—including external evaluations—would begin in a later year, consistent with the standard promotion timeline for each track.

The promotion and review process on the research track is intended to mirror the tenure track in its general structure. However, on the tenure track, promotion is not an outcome of the third year review, nor are external review letters collected at this stage. Similarly, on the research track, promotion is not an outcome of the third year review.

Yes, a unit can decide that promotion is not an outcome of the third year review. However, if a candidate feels ready and wishes to pursue promotion, they may discuss this with the associate dean and submit materials for a promotion review instead of participating in the standard third year review.

No, there is no sixth year review for research track faculty. While the tenure track utilizes a sixth year review, this is not part of the research track process.

The five-page maximum applies to the entire documentation of research section. This includes both the committee’s evaluation and the candidate’s research statement. Please ensure that all materials combined do not exceed five pages in total for this section, so candidates and committees are guided properly from the start.

Yes, a unit can specify that only the Research Scientist track is available for promotion from Research Investigator. It is permissible to set this policy, especially if the unit’s circumstances—such as funding requirements or differing appointment processes—justify the restriction. For example, if the Research Professor track requires the unit to cover more than just service effort (including non-didactic teaching), the unit may decide to only offer promotion into the Research Scientist track.

Yes, Research Investigators can hire postdoctoral fellows. Research Investigators are considered PI-eligible and are included in the term “research faculty” for this purpose.

Yes, units are allowed to set a minimum effort requirement for Research Scientist positions. As a standard example, some units require 1.0 FTE or the demonstration of two years of funding (which can be from external or internal sources).

Yes, the individual can be rehired if funding is secured again. The timing and nature of their review/promotion “clock” are more complicated and depend on agreement between the faculty member and the hiring unit. If the faculty member had worked at the University for at least three years before termination, they may apply to reinstate “continuous employment” within one year. However, even in this case, the time-in-rank clock should be mutually determined by the faculty member and the unit upon rehiring.

Yes, a research faculty member can be rehired by another unit at the University in the same title. However, their review clock does not restart at zero; their prior time in rank remains in effect.

The maximum time in rank (TIR) for RIs is 6 years, regardless of effort percentage. All RIs must be reviewed at the 4-year mark, and, if needed, up to two one-year extensions can be requested, with notification made to the appropriate office. Review must occur in year 6 at the latest. Appointments cannot be extended proportionally based on effort to create ranks longer than 6 years.

Yes, it is possible to extend a RI’s time in rank commensurate with their fractional FTE, but this is an unusual situation. There have been instances of appointments being extended beyond the standard time-in-rank based on partial FTE. These extensions should be based on the average annual effort—not calculated month-to-month. Extensions and their rationale must be clearly documented at the time when the appointment is set to exceed 4 years.

No, there is no requirement to send documentation to a central office. It is sufficient to keep clear records showing communication of the extension to the RI and to maintain documentation within the school.

Yes, the review can be deferred if a RI has 0% effort for a full year—the year with no effort does not count toward their time in rank. This deferral should be documented, ideally with a letter from the Faculty Affairs Dean to the faculty member.

For Assistant Research Scientist promotion, external letters do not need to be arm’s length. However, there is a limit of two letters per external institution. While there is no formal rule regarding multiple letters from the same unit at U-M, it is recommended to follow the same guideline—no more than two letters from any single unit. This practice strengthens the case by ensuring diversity of perspectives.

Yes, if they have PI status and are at the same level or above. Clinical faculty without PI status are not equivalent to tenure or research track faculty for letter purposes.

Yes. Research Professors are considered tenure-track equivalent and are eligible to submit NSF CAREER proposals (assuming the NSF tenure-track equivalency conditions are met and documented as required).

OVPR does not limit how many times a research track faculty member can come up for promotion review. A school/unit could choose to impose its own limit (similar to adopting more stringent criteria than university-level standards), but that would be a unit policy choice, not a university requirement. If your school keeps a local limit, it should be clearly documented (e.g., via an FAQ) because it would differ from university policy.