Relationship of
Scholarship to Track Choice, Promotion, and Tenure
This document
attempts to provide guidelines and advice regarding scholarship and its
relationship to track choice, promotion, and tenure. For definitive statements of criteria and procedures, please
see the Statutes of the University, the Shils Report, and the Gewertz
Report. It should be recognized
that the Provost and President, as informed by the recommendation of the
Divisional Dean, are the final judges of whether criteria have been
satisfied. Note also that
the various faculty tracks have additional criteria for promotion, which are
not discussed here.
> Scholarship
is the creation of new knowledge. The category/kind/variety of the scholarly
accomplishment (bench research vs. clinical trials vs. translational research vs. theoretical activity vs. "the scholarship of
integration" vs.
research in natural environments vs. educational/administrative scholarship) is irrelevant.
> Faculty in
the Division of Biological Sciences vary in the time that is
"protected" for scholarly activity. No single requirement for scholarship is appropriate for all
faculty members. Thus, the expectation is that the quality and quantity of
scholarly accomplishment will be consistent with that of leading peer group
members, adjusted for career stage and protected time.
At promotion to associate professor, for example, a physician-scientist
who is a vascular surgeon with 40% of time protected for research would have
his/her scholarly accomplishment compared to that of faculty here with similar
amounts of protected time and that of leading figures in his/her field at a
similar career stage – but not with that of a faculty member with 80%
protected time. Obviously,
however, the less the protected time, the more difficult it becomes to
distinguish between appropriate and unacceptable progress.
>In terms of
scholarship, promotion and tenure recognize two distinct aspects, and are often
not linked. Promotion recognizes progress relative to that of
leading peer group members, the quality of the scholarship that has been
accomplished, and the trajectory for future accomplishment. Tenure recognizes whether the candidate's scholarship has had sufficient impact on
a field or specialization [or on science or medicine in general]. Thus, promotion without tenure might be
justified when, for example, a candidate has made excellent progress equivalent
to that of leading peer group members with the promise of similar progress in
the future, but has not yet amassed the body of impactful scholarship (and
accompanying recognition) that would justify tenure or whose scholarship has
not yet sufficiently differentiated from that of others. "Progress",
"quality", and "sufficient impact" are qualitative
judgments, based in part on the advice of leading figures in one's field.
>Scholarly
expectations vary with faculty track and clinical responsibilities [where
clinical responsibilities = the care of human patients, veterinary care,
operation/management of clinical laboratories]. Faculty without clinical responsibilities are ordinarily*
appointed in the Research Scholar track, and are ordinarily* expected to
qualify for tenure within 6.5 years as an assistant professor. Faculty with clinical responsibilities
ordinarily* should be appointed in the Research Scholar track only when they
are expected to qualify for tenure within 6.5 years as an assistant professor,
or when qualification for tenure shortly thereafter will be a foregone
conclusion. Ordinarily* such
faculty will have clinical responsibilities of < 20% of effort, which
is consistent with achieving tenure within these time limits. The Clinical Scholar track is
ordinarily* for physician-scientists who will be promoted in part on the basis
of scholarship but whose clinical load and/or the nature of the research is
expected to delay or preclude qualification for tenure. Ordinarily* Clinical Scholars will have
clinical responsibilities of >20% effort. The Clinician-Educator track is ordinarily* for faculty who
are not required to
be promoted on the basis of their scholarship [although they can be promoted on this basis as well as
others]. Tenure is an option for
Clinical Scholars and Clinician-Educators if/when their scholarship merits it.
Qualities of
scholarship that ordinarily* meets criteria for promotion in the RS and CS
tracks, and/or tenure
[In the CE track, any scholarship that helps establish
recognition outside the institution is valued.]
Note that the
following is not intended as a checklist, with every candidate needing to
satisfy each item. Note also the
use of "ordinarily" in the title of this section; exceptions are
expected. In the final analysis,
the key attribute is that the quality and quantity of scholarly accomplishment
is consistent with that of leading peer group members, adjusted for career
stage and protected time.
1. The
scholarship is part of a program of scholarship organized about or focusing on a central problem,
issue, disease, or idea, leading to a body of original work. That is, individual findings or
publications are thematically related to one another. The candidate will have initiated the scholarship and
carried through the process from beginning to end. The body of work should tell a story that reflects the
longitudinal process leading to the outcome.
2. The
scholarship is published in journals of high quality [which implies positive evaluations
by high-quality peers]. "Journals of high quality" does not refer exclusively to Science, Nature, Cell, JAMA, and NEJM (although publication in these journals
should not be avoided), but to rigorously peer-reviewed journals with high
standards appropriate for each field and specialization according to the
opinion of the leading figures in that field or specialization.
3. Ordinarily
the scholarship is supported by peer-reviewed funding. The number of dollars is less important
than the positive peer review itself.
Such funding ordinarily signifies that the candidate has persuaded
leading peers of past accomplishment and the capacity to function as a PI in
the future. NIH R01 funding is a
good example of such funding, but it is neither the only example of
peer-reviewed funding nor does it automatically qualify a candidate for
approval. Funding by other
mechanisms (or no funding at all) means simply that the quality of the
scholarship will need to be established by other means.
Note,
however, that any proposed promotion is based in part on the promise of future
accomplishment, and for many scholars future accomplishment requires
funding. There should be evidence
that future research is likely to be fundable.
4. The
scholarship regularly includes, for example:
-the
proposition of an idea, theory, or hypothesis to be tested or a goal to be
achieved
-explanation
of how this idea/theory/hypothesis/goal has been developed [by a deep
understanding of biology, chemistry, medical practice, educational practice,
administrative practice, etc., a logical next step from prior understanding, or
the equivalent]
-deep
and nuanced analysis of the pre-existing literature
-a
rigorous protocol and statistical analysis if appropriate
- state-of-the-art methodology
-explanation
and analysis [as opposed to simple description of raw data]
-progress,
as evidenced by the generation of additional hypothesis and/or follow-up work
by the investigator and/or others
-the
generation of new knowledge [as opposed to only the generation of new data]
-in
scholarly reviews, textbooks, etc., significant synthesis and integration that
goes well beyond summary of the material
Whether
the scholarship is collaborative (or not) is irrelevant as long as, in
collaborative scholarship, the contributions of the candidate and other
collaborators can be documented.
5. Clinical
trials: Faculty who perform
clinical trials should play a key role in originating and developing the
trials. They should be
intellectual originators of the trials and be responsible for their
implementation and publication. In
collaborative or multi-center trials, they should ordinarily be leaders of the collaborative
effort.
6. The
scholarship regularly goes beyond, for example:
-reviews
of the published literature that simply summarize and do not criticize,
synthesize, integrate, and advance an area
-case
studies without significant synthesis and integration
-participation
in clinical trials, where the role is limited to examination of patients and
does not include leadership/design of the trial and/or analysis of the
resultant data
-participation
in industry-sponsored trials of drugs, reagents, or appliances not involving
rigorous peer review beforehand or peer-reviewed publication in high quality
journals afterwards
-execution
of protocols in whose design or analysis the candidate has played little or no
part
-minor
modifications of well-established assays, tests, or procedures
[In the CE
track, any
scholarship or activity that promotes recognition outside the institution is
valued.]
7. Significant
external corroboration of peer valuation as a scholar, including for example
-Service
on study sections or review panels for scholarship
-Service
as a peer reviewer for published scholarship
-Invitations
to present one's own scholarship [but ordinarily not including
industry-sponsored lectures]
-Election
to honorary societies that recognize scholarship
-Invitations
to prepare published reviews of the scholarship of others, or to serve as a
commentator/discussant of scholarship at major meetings
Note
that honors, awards, invitations, and service that primarily reflect the
candidate's achievements as a clinician, educator, and/or administrator may
provide little corroboration of peer evaluation as a scholar.
Note that this
is not intended as a checklist, with every candidate needing to satisfy each
item. Note also the use of
"ordinarily" in the title of this section; exceptions are
expected. In the final analysis,
the key attribute is that the quality and quantity of scholarly accomplishment
is consistent with that of leading peer group members, adjusted for career
stage and protected time.
Additional Advice to
Faculty and Departments
The burden of
proof is on the candidate and/or Department to establish that the candidate's
achievement as a scholar (i.e., not as a clinician, educator, and/or administrator)
compares favorably with that of leading peer group members. That is, if a candidate is an excellent
scholar but the promotion/appointment case does not establish this, the
Department should expect it not to be approved (or to be approved in another track).
The primary obligation of
the candidate is to produce the actual scholarship that will support
appointment at the rank of associate professor or professor. Candidates should recognize that this
activity is subject to deadlines dictated by the University Statutes, and
adjust their choice of research foci/methodology and timing of their activity
accordingly. Candidates should
understand the characteristics of scholarship that will support promotion (see
above), take care to deliver such scholarship while fulfilling educational,
clinical, and administrative responsibilities, and postpone scholarship that
does not contribute to promotion.
Candidates should take care to avoid or decline responsibilities that
will upset an appropriate balance of scholarship, education, clinical care, and
administration – OR switch to a track that is appropriate for a changed
balance of these activities.
Although
it is primarily the responsibility of the Department (not the candidate) to
assess the quality, creativity, and impact of the scholarship, the candidate should
assist the Department in this task when requested.
The Department has several
obligations:
>To
recognize that promotion in the Research Scholar and Clinical Scholar tracks
requires a balancing of scholarship, education, clinical care, and administration,
and to restrain from assigning duties that will upset this balance. If it nonetheless must assign such
duties, it should assist the candidate in switching to an appropriate track.
>To
provide mentorship to faculty.
>To
provide its own independent assessment of the quality, creativity, and impact
of the scholarship, and whether the scholarly productivity is commensurate with
the time available for scholarship.
It is allowed to request the candidate's opinion as "raw
material" for this assessment, but the assessment should be the
department's own.
>To
obtain external references' letters that fully assess the quality, creativity,
and impact of the scholarship, and whether the scholarly productivity is
commensurate with the time available for scholarship.
External
reviewers of clinical scholarship: In our experience, a major challenge is to convince such external
reviewers to analyze the clinical scholarship of candidates. External reviewers will sometimes
analyze candidate's acumen as physicians, their skill at public speaking, their
teaching, their character, the quality of their clinical training –
everything BUT the quality and significance of their scholarship, which is key
to promotion in this track. This
problem is exacerbated by the fact that those best-suited to analyze quality
and significance of a candidate's scholarship – i.e., current and former
mentors, collaborators, and colleagues – should ordinarily* not be named
as external reviewers.
It
is the department's obligation to obtain letters from external reviewers that
fully and critically analyze a candidate's scholarship.
It is suggested that departments begin by identifying the leading scholars in a candidate's field (i.e., not the
leading physicians or most eminent department chairs), send them exemplary
publications of the candidate, and ask them solely to analyze the quality and significance
of this published work. Ask them
to do only this, and not comment on training, educational
quality, clinical quality, leadership, whether they would be promoted at the
reviewer's institution, etc. A
second group – eminent department chairs and physicians and educators
– could be asked to comment on training, educational quality, clinical
quality, leadership, whether the candidate would be promoted at the reviewer's
institution, etc. It might be
prudent to solicit half of the letters via the first method and half via the
second.