Mid-Course Review Of Clinical Tenure Candidates
Each tenure stream faculty member with clinical responsibilities will have a mid-course peer review of his/her progress towards tenure. This must occur by the end of the faculty member’s fifth year in the tenure stream. This review is intended to supplement the process of annual review required of all full time faculty at UPSOM by providing external opinions.
The goal of this review is to provide information to both the candidate and his/her chair that the candidate is adjudged to be making satisfactory progress or may need to remediate in specific ways to increase the probability of meeting the University’s criteria for conferral of tenure by the end of the eighth year (or sooner) in the tenure stream.
Two options are available to accomplish the mid-course review.
The implementation of the review procedure will be the responsibility of the candidate’s chair’s office. At some point during year 3 through 5 (the exact timing is up to the judgment of the chair), the chair will send letters (together with CV, reprints and tenure criteria) to three referees working in the candidate’s field and familiar with the candidate’s scholarly contributions in investigation and/or teaching (external to the University for investigator-educators; external and/or internal for clinician-educators and clinician-investigators). The letters will solicit the opinions of the referees as to whether the candidate is on track and, if not, what specifically needs to be done to ensure the candidate’s success. The chair may choose to have a site visit which would include face to face discussions between the visitors and candidate, based upon a presentation by the candidate to the site review team. In cases when written comments only are submitted, these may be redacted to ensure the confidentiality of the reviewer and presented in a format similar to that of an NIH summary statement.
The chair will submit a summary report of the evaluation to the candidate, which should include an appraisal of the faculty member’s strengths and the quality of his/her contributions in research, teaching, and service. The report should include an analytic review of the faculty member’s research, particularly in cases where there is minimal or no grant support. The subsequent required annual evaluations will take the recommendations of the peer review into account, benchmarking the candidate’s progress against them.
Upon completion of each faculty member’s mid-course review, the Chair is required to submit the following materials to the Office of Faculty Affairs: 1) summary report; 2) reference letters; and 3) the faculty member’s curriculum vitae.
It is anticipated that some MDs with clinical responsibilities will be promoted in the tenure stream to the rank of associate professor at about the same time that the mid-course review would be required. In such cases, the external peer review may be directed at assessing both the candidate’s suitability for promotion and progress towards tenure. Such proposals will be reviewed by the Standing Committee for Tenured Faculty Promotions and Appointments (TFPA). The TFPA will submit its recommendation on the suitability of the candidate for promotion to associate professor in the tenure stream. Positive recommendations will be submitted to the Executive Committee for approval as per established procedures. The TFPA also will render an opinion on the faculty member’s progress towards tenure, including specific recommendations which may be necessary to increase the faculty member’s probability of meeting the criteria for conferral of tenure. This review by the TFPA will meet the requirements for a mid-course review.
Approved by the Executive Committee 2/12/02