Guidelines for the Appointment of Research Faculty

• Effective date of the appointment.
• Candidate’s current title(s) and whether tenured or not.
• Description of the candidate’s experience and quality of teaching (RP Track Only)
• Description of the appointment in the context of the field and the specific needs of the school, college, or department. Please also describe the relevance to the vision and mission of your unit and the university.
• Clear description of the search process and long-term hiring plans (i.e., description of the search).
• Substantive description of the candidate’s work and significant contributions to the field – this should be more than a listing of titles.
• Please summarize the evaluative comments of each unit’s executive committee and include the final vote tally without names, such as 4-2-0 (i.e., # of positive votes-# of negative votes-# of abstentions/recusals) of any faculty group (department review and/or executive committee) that voted on the requested potential hire.
  1. For any abstentions, the reason must be given if known (ex: departmental affiliation, lack of knowledge) especially if there is a concern (state concern) or if unknown (ex: anonymous voting – reasons unknown).
  2. When quoting from an external reviewer, identify as Reviewer A, B, or C, etc.
• If the regular (not adjunct) track appointment is offered in more than one unit, it should be handled simultaneously by all units. The endorsement letter requires the signatures of the Deans/Directors from all schools/colleges/research units/academic units where the individual will hold the appointments, even if those are “dry” (0% fraction) appointments. Please indicate the fraction of effort for each title.
• The cover letter should address any concerns raised by reviewers and summarize committee discussion surrounding those issues.

• Provide an explanation of the teaching evaluation system and where the candidate ranks in the system (quantitative evaluations on teaching).
• Teaching evaluations should be summarized in this section. Please do not include individual student feedback, though we reserve the right to request individual evaluations by students, if needed.
• Include a teaching statement from the candidate.
• For an appointment on the research track: if the candidate has not taught formal classes and teaching evaluations are unavailable, provide 3-5 letters from mentees not currently under the candidate’s supervision (e.g., former doctoral students or post-doctoral fellows) who can provide feedback on the candidate’s teaching and mentoring.

• Provide a copy of the letter template (Solicitation Letter) to the reviewers asking for their evaluations. See templates provided.
• Schools and colleges may add text to the language of the template; however, for legal reasons, they cannot delete any existing language.
• It is the responsibility of the dean/director to ensure that department chairs, or the appropriate equivalent, follow the templates provided.
• Also include, as an attachment with each solicitation letter, a description of the particular track(s) on which the faculty member is being hired.

In this section of the AEO, include a cover sheet that includes the following:

• A list of reviewers who provided letters.
• (RS track only – At least five letters must be included, with a minimum of two from external reviewers. None of these letters need to be arm’s-length. While arm’s-length reviewers are not required, their inclusion would strengthen the case.)
• A list of reviewers who were asked to write a letter but declined and the reason for declining.

In this section of the AEO, include a cover sheet that includes the following:

• A listing of “arms-length” external reviewers who provided letters. (RP track only – minimum five external, arm’s-length required)
• A list of external reviewers who were asked to write a letter but declined and the reason for declining.
• A listing of any internal U-M reviewers.

• Please list external reviewers alphabetically by last name, grouped by arm’s length (if applicable), non-arm’s length, and no response/declined.
• Identify all reviewers (external if applicable) in sequence as Reviewer A, Reviewer B, or C, etc. (including reviewers who did not respond). Note: List separately any internal (University of Michigan) reviewers.
• Include a brief bio on each reviewer (confirm rank):
  • An abridged version (one short paragraph) on each reviewer should indicate the reviewer’s position, fields of expertise, important contributions and standing in the discipline, appropriateness of the reviewer to provide input, as well as any close professional associations with the candidate. Additionally, please insert the short paragraph of the reviewer’s biography in front of each external (if applicable) review letter, including designation of “arm’s length” or “non arm’s length” and whether the reviewer was suggested by the candidate or by the department.
  • Designate each reviewer in the bio paragraph as “arm’s length” or “non arm’s length”.
  • Indicate whether the reviewer was suggested by the candidate or by the department.

• RP track only – A minimum of five letters from “arm’s-length” external reviewers are required.
• The five required “arm’s length” letters must include at least two from reviewers suggested only by the school or department and no more than two from the same institution.
• The “arm’s length” letters should be from persons who are outside the present institution of the candidate and who did not work or train with the candidate at other institutions.
• External reviewers who are tenured faculty can review a candidate being appointed to the RP track.
• “Non arm’s length” letters provide value and can be especially helpful because the letter writers generally have a good sense of both the candidate and their work. If such letters are included, they must be in addition to the minimum requirement of five “arm’s length” letters. Examples are:
  • Teachers, advisors, mentors, and current faculty colleagues
  • Co-authors and major research collaborators, or former faculty colleagues are also not “arm’s length” unless the most recent collaboration occurred over 10 years prior to the appointment.
  • We do not consider letters from persons who have served on a candidate’s thesis or dissertation committee to be “arm’s length”.
  • Please note that when both an outside reviewer and the candidate are members of the same large cooperative/research group that publishes abstracts and manuscripts with an expanded number of co-authors, the outside reviewer can be considered an “arm’s length” reviewer if he/she and the candidate have not personally interacted in the research effort. In these cases, we ask that the dean provide a statement noting the absence of a direct collaboration.
  • Non-academic reviewers (e.g., employed at the NIH or a major research institute) may be included in the five required “arm’s length” letters but only if it is stated that, for those individuals who do not typically hold an academic title, their rank is equivalent or higher to the academic rank for which the candidate is being considered.
  • An external letter from an emeritus/a faculty member could be considered one of the five required “arm’s length” letters if it meets “arm’s length” criteria and if the faculty member is still academically active (e.g., still publishing) and is relatively recently retired. Internal review letters (University of Michigan) are not required however, if letters were solicited, they must be included but will be considered “not at arm’s length.”