Research Faculty Appointments
The information found on this website serves as the University’s base guidelines for research faculty appointments and promotions. Appointing units may adopt more restrictive criteria. When the approved, unit specific guidelines include more restrictive criteria, these criteria govern appointments and promotions made in the unit.
Appointment Authority Contingent on the approval of guidelines for the appointment of research faculty consistent with Regents Bylaw 5.24 Research Scientists and Research Professors, the delegation of authority to appoint and promote research faculty is described below.
- Track Changes
- Dry Research Faculty Appointments
- Adjunct Research Faculty Appointments
- Visiting Research Faculty Appointments
- Joint Appointments
- Termination of Appointment
Research Scientist Track vs Research Professor Track
The criteria for appointment and promotion to research faculty ranks are defined using four fundamental characteristics of all faculty positions: scholarship, independence, service, and teaching. The Research Scientist Track is differentiated from the Research Professor Track on the basis of all four criteria. The level of and potential for scholarship and independence differs between the tracks. Teaching and service are not required activities for any rank in the Research Scientist Track.
In addition to the criteria listed below, candidates for all research faculty appointments must have demonstrated personal characteristics consistent with good scholarship and professionalism.
Units must develop specific criteria to determine the appropriate track for newly hired individuals or Research Investigators seeking promotion.
Individuals appointed as Assistant Research Scientists should:
- Have the potential for scholarly development, possibly as part of a research program.
- Have an academic record of peer-reviewed publications, and
- Provide evidence of participation in relevant academic or professional meetings.
Additional criteria for individuals appointed as Research Assistant Professors are described below:
- Have responsibilities through which they will develop a substantial record of non-didactic teaching,
- Be considered by the appointing unit as having the potential to develop a scholarly reputation at a rate that is consistent with that of an assistant professor on the tenure track, and
- Be considered by the appointing unit as having the potential to develop a substantial independent research program, which is required for promotion to Research Associate Professor.
More details about the expectations of Assistant Research Scientists and Research Assistant Professors are provided in this document. Units are discouraged from appointing candidates as Research Assistant Professors who do not meet all of the required criteria described above.
Research Faculty Rank Specific Criteria for Appointment and Promotion to the Research Scientist and Research Professor Tracks can be found in the Research Faculty Track Criteria Grid.
Expectations
Research and Scholarly Contributions
The basic expressions of a research faculty member’s scholarly work are found in peer-reviewed publications authored and/or co-authored by the research faculty member.
In evaluating the scholarly merit of publications, a major consideration is the level of the researcher’s participation in, and contributions to, the work, especially multi-authored contributions.
Peer-reviewed publications are generally expected and preferred. If non peer-reviewed work is offered as part of the portfolio, the appointing unit should seek an assessment of its academic contribution from external reviewers.
It is expected that nominees for the senior ranks (associate and above) will have achieved a level of national or international recognition in their fields. “National and international recognition” means that leaders in the field are able to recognize excellence in the nominee’s published work, and to identify contributions he/she has made to the field. National and international recognition is judged primarily from the responses provided by external “arms-length” reviewers. Additional information may also be obtained based on the frequency of citations of an individual’s publications in the appropriate citation indexes for the field of study.
A record of research funding as a principal investigator from outside sources does not, by itself, guarantee research competence, just as inability to attract research funding does not necessarily demonstrate a lack of research competence. On balance, however, a record of peer-reviewed research funding reflects well on the nominee’s standing in the scientific community, and funded research of various types provides evidence that the nominee has satisfied the first two criteria for advancement. Having secured research funding reflects particular credit on the nominee when he/she has obtained it through a competitive, peer-reviewed process at the national level, such as that required by NIH and NSF.
Recognition of Scholarly Activities for Research Scientists
The University recognizes the vital role that Research Scientists play in advancing our research mission. When evaluating performance for annual review, promotion, and reappointment, it is important to acknowledge the broad range of scholarly activities that extend beyond conventional research products (e.g., publications, grants, and conference presentations).
Research Scientist faculty contribute to the academic and research community through diverse forms of engagement and leadership. These activities strengthen the University, help to advance their fields of study, and are related in some way to the faculty member’s research (i.e., contributing to “reputation”). Below are Suggested Scholarly Contributions that should be considered when evaluating Research Track faculty (this is not an exhaustive list and we anticipate additions to this list as this change in the promotion criteria is implemented)*
- Conference peer review
- Organizing a panel/workshop – local, regional, national
- Invited panel presenter
- Leadership role in a professional society
- Mentorship of trainees (esp outside the immediate lab setting)
- Journal peer review
- Editorial position
- National committee
- Community engagement (e.g., research translation)
- Policy contributions
- Study section/ grant peer review
- Guideline committees, advisory boards
- Leading data training and dissemination
Service activities that do not represent scholarly contributions:
- Serving on a promotion committee
- Serving on a space committee
Activities like these both strengthen the University’s research enterprise and our scientific communities, and should be considered as meaningful components of evaluation for Research Scientist faculty, both in annual reviews and in promotion considerations.
Independence
The scholarly independence of a faculty member is evidenced when he/she undertakes leadership in the conception, execution, and dissemination through publication of important scholarly work. Candidates can demonstrate this by serving as the Principal Investigator on research projects, by serving as the sole author, lead author, or primary author on a fair proportion of publications, by demonstrating other major contributions to the preparation of manuscripts, and by achieving recognition from their peer group through invited lectures, awards, etc. Comments from external reviewers are also used as a measure of the nominee’s creativity, initiative and productivity that can reveal the level and growth of a faculty’s scholarly independence.
Service
Nominees will have demonstrated a reasonable level of contribution to service at various levels including diversity and climate activities, within their departments, the school/college, or the University as a whole, as well as in various activities at community, state, national, or international levels.
Teaching
Research Scientist faculty appointments are intended for individuals whose primary activity is research. Faculty appointed on the Research Professor Track are expected to participate in significant levels of non-didactic teaching.
If a research faculty member takes part in instructional track teaching while holding a research faculty appointment, it is expected that the unit for which the research faculty member is teaching will establish a fractional instructional appointment for the teaching. Appointments to non-tenure track instructional titles covered by the collective bargaining agreement between the University and the Lecturers’ Employee Organization (LEO) are governed by the terms of that agreement. If a research faculty member accepts a fractional instructional teaching appointment, the appointing unit for his/her research appointment must make arrangements to reduce the percentage of the faculty member’s research appointment to the appropriate fractional level, with a corresponding reduction in his/her compensation.
When units evaluate the teaching done by a research faculty member, as described above, they should apply the same criteria the unit uses in evaluating the teaching of instructional faculty.