FAQs and Other Resources

No, external review letters are not required for the standard third-year review. The review should assess whether the candidate is making sufficient progress toward meeting the criteria for promotion. Promotion at the third-year checkpoint may be considered only in exceptional cases. If promotion is pursued, the unit must conduct the full promotion review process, including external evaluations and all required approvals.

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.

• Reviewers cannot have co-authored with the individual within a ten-year period.
• People who are NOT currently working with the individual
• While letters from industry / think-tank, etc. are allowable, it is important to keep in mind that that individual is at the rank that the faculty member is being promoted to or higher. Promotion pathways are often quite different in other countries, even at similar types of universities. If you invite someone, it may be important for them to have more background on our promotions and ranks.  If someone recently moved from university to think-tank, that would be very reasonable to include.

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.

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, 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.

No, the decision to discontinue this funding was due to low utilization – this responsibility is now at the unit level.

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.

RIs that are appointed at less than 1 FTE can be extended proportionately, but they not have to be. This can be determined on a case by case basis for unusual circumstances. Contact OVPR for additional questions.

Yes, please email a copy of the extension approval from your unit to OVPR, however you do not need OVPR approval.

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.

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.

Yes. In limited circumstances, any individual with a fractional (less than 1.0 FTE) appointment as a Research Investigator may remain in the title beyond four years. Since this falls outside conventional promotion time-in-rank guidelines, the appointing unit should consult with the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR), provide a justification for the extension, and request formal approval from OVPR before extending the appointment beyond four years.

Salaries are set at the unit level. Salary ranges vary widely for all faculty tracks across disciplines and units, not just for the research track. If there is a specific concern regarding salary equity, this should be raised at the school/college level – for example, the OFA at the Medical School has a formal process for equity reviews. Ombuds are also available to research track faculty.