Promotion Policies

Appointment Procedures for Professors, Full Time, Without Limit of Time or Of Indefinite Duration

Appointment Procedure for Clinical Professors, Academic Part Time (APT), Of Unspecified Duration (OUD) Evaluation Process

Financial Support of Professorships at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Dental Medicine

Procedures for Term Appointments (Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Lecturer or Senior Lecturer [Three Years])

Evaluation Process for Appointment as Professor

Term Appointment Process


For more about Appointments and Promotions:
Appointment Policies
Faculty Recruitment
Reappointment Policies
Forms, Guidelines and Tools

For guidelines on general conduct and integrity, please visit our Faculty Policies page.


Appointment Procedures for Professors, Full Time, Without Limit of Time or Of Indefinite Duration

(Last update February 2011)

This section describes the process of promotion to professor at Harvard Medical School.  The following links provide supporting documents and templates:

1)      Information for candidates and department leaders
2)      Academic criteria for promotion to professor can be found at: http://facultypromotions.hms.harvard.edu/index.php?page=metrics_prof
3)      Flowchart of Professorial Promotions Process
4)      Report of the Task Force on Streamlining the Promotion Process at Harvard Medical School, December, 2010
5)      Slides:  Professorial Promotions at Harvard Medical School, 2011
6)      Podcast:  Conversation about the process of promotion to professor
7)       Sample Forms:

a)       Template Department Head Letter for Promotion Proposal
b)      Template for submission of lists of evaluators, comparands and potential ad hoc committee members
c)       Guidelines for preparation of the Harvard CV (http://www.fa.hms.harvard.edu/curriculum-vitae-cv-for-academic-achievement/)
d)       Guidelines for preparation of annotated summary of ten most significant scholarly works
e)        Checklist of materials to be submitted to Harvard Medical School
f)       Promotion milestones documented on the HMS website

8)      For a listing of OFA Program Directors for Professorial Appointment/Promotion Contacts (listed according to HMS appointing departments) please click here.    


Information for candidates and department leaders

An appointing department head’s decision to propose a current associate professor for promotion to the rank of professor is a critical moment in a faculty member’s academic career.  Harvard Medical School is deeply committed to conducting a fair, thorough and timely evaluation of candidates for promotion to professor and has revised its procedures, effective February, 2011, to create mechanisms for facilitating professorial reviews.  The following narrative describes the process.

Preliminary Phase (Steps 1, 2):
Academic department heads are the only individuals who can propose candidates for promotion to professor.  A review of the academic criteria for promotion (http://facultypromotions.hms.harvard.edu/index.php?page=metrics_prof) and development of a rationale for advancement in the candidate’s Area of Excellence is a first step in establishing a case for promotion.

Critical factors which inform a decision to propose promotion include:

1)       Substantial academic accomplishments since the candidate’s promotion to associate professor
2)      High impact scholarship that has advanced the candidate’s field
3)      Evidence of a national, and often international, independent reputation in the Area of Excellence
4)      A track record of successful mentorship of trainees
5)       Contributions to teaching at Harvard and evidence of citizenship as demonstrated through service and/or administrative leadership within a candidate’s department, affiliated institution, or the larger Harvard community

For faculty appointed in the pre-clinical departments for which the 11 year rule applies, the time since first appointment as assistant professor is a factor in deciding when to propose a candidate for promotion.  For all other members of the faculty, there is no required time by which a promotion must be considered.

The department head must complete the following five activities before a candidate’s proposal is advanced to the Dean:

1)       Based on preliminary conversations with the candidate and review of the CV in the Harvard format (for instructions, see: http://www.fa.hms.harvard.edu/curriculum-vitae-cv-for-academic-achievement/) a department head will prepare a letter of nomination to the Dean.  The letter of nomination (for template, see: Department Head Letter for Promotion Proposal) outlines the candidate’s accomplishments and contributions, attests to the candidate’s integrity, and establishes the case for promotion.  After letters of evaluation are obtained later in the process, the department head will have the opportunity to update this nominating letter and incorporate feedback from the evaluations.

2)      The department head must propose the candidate to the Department Executive Committee.  In the case of our basic science preclinical faculty, the Pre-Clinical Chairs serve as the reviewing Executive Committee.  In the case of our social science preclinical faculty, the Social Science Council serves as the reviewing Executive Committee.  The members of these committees provide feedback to the department head on the proposed candidate and may recommend that the department head obtain additional information, that the department delay consideration pending achievement of other academic accomplishments by the candidate, or may recommend moving forward with the promotion.

3)       If the Executive Committee recommends proceeding with the promotion, the department head, with input from members of the Executive Committee, will prepare lists of individuals who would be appropriate to write letters of evaluation, individuals to whom the candidate could be compared in the letters of evaluation (known as comparands) and individuals who would be eligible to serve on a potential ad hoc evaluation committee invited by the Dean later in the promotion process. (Template for submission of lists of evaluators, comparands and potential ad hoc committee members)

4)      In the cases for which there is an institutional senior appointments committee, the department head must send a copy of the promotion proposal to the Academic Dean and the Head of the institutional Senior Promotions Committee.

5)       The department will submit the following documents by email to the Office for Faculty Affairs (professorial.materials@hms.harvard.edu)

Solicitation of Letters of Evaluation (Steps 3, 4):

Once the department head submits the candidate’s CV, the candidate’s annotated summary of the ten most significant scholarly works, electronic links to or PDFs of each of the ten selected scholarly works, the department head nominating letter, and the lists of potential letter writers, comparands, and ad hoc committee member, the Office for Faculty Affairs will complete the following steps:

1)       Write to the candidate to inform him/her that materials have been received in the Office for Faculty Affairs.
2)      Activate the Professorial Milestone Status Website, providing access to the candidate and department leadership.  (https://hms.harvard.edu/ProfPromotions/login.aspx).  The site tracks the key milestones in the promotion process and provides contact information for the Dean’s office representative responsible for managing the candidate’s evaluation.
3)      Review the CV to confirm that all required elements are included and correct.
4)      Review the lists submitted by the department head.  Identify consultants who can advise the Dean’s office regarding the appropriateness and completeness of the lists.  Propose final lists to the department.
5)       Solicit letters of evaluation from the following:

8-12 leaders in the candidate’s field whose appointments are outside Harvard

4-8 senior faculty at Harvard who would be familiar with the candidate’s achievements

Letters solicited from individuals outside Harvard will include a request that the candidate be compared to 3-5 leaders in the field who are at a similar stage of their careers (usually professors at their home institutions).   Requests for letters are solicited by email and follow up with letter writers occurs on regularly scheduled intervals so that a complete dossier can be assembled in as short a timeframe as possible.

6)      Once the anticipated letters are received, the Office for Faculty Affairs prepares a confidential dossier to be shared with the candidate’s department head and senior appointments committee.

Local Review of Candidate Dossier  (Steps 5,6)

The letters of evaluation are shared confidentially with the candidate’s department head.  In the case of the pre-clinical departments, the letters will be reviewed by the senior faculty members in the department.  Based on review of the evidence, the department leadership will make a recommendation to HMS as to whether it supports moving forward with formation of an ad hoc committee.  The department head will have the opportunity to revise and update the original nominating letter.

All candidates’ dossiers will also be reviewed by a Senior Appointments Committee.  In the case of faculty in preclinical departments, the dossiers will be reviewed by either the Pre-Clinical Chairs or the Social Science Council, depending on the candidate’s discipline.  In clinical departments associated with hospitals which have Senior Appointments Committees, those Committees will evaluate the dossier and make a recommendation to HMS as to whether they support moving forward with formation of an ad hoc committee.  For departments which do not have senior appointment committees (Departments of Population Medicine, Otology and Laryngology, Ophthalmology, and Departments of Psychiatry at Cambridge Health Alliance and Boston VA Medical Center as well as the academic departments of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine) the Council of Academic Deans will serve as the senior appointments committee.  Approval by the senior appointments committee is an absolute requirement before a case advances to an ad hoc committee.

Evaluation by ad hoc Committee (Steps 7, 8)

Based on recommendations received from the department and the Executive Committee, HMS will appoint an ad hoc committee to review all evidence assembled and to make a recommendation to the Dean.  The ad hoc committee will typically consist of the following members:

1)       Chair, who is a professor at HMS and a member of the Subcommittee of Professors

2)      Two additional members of the senior faculty at Harvard, not from the candidate’s home institution or department, who have not already provided letters of evaluation

3)      Three professors from institutions other than Harvard who are experts in the candidate’s field and who have not already provided letters of evaluation

Prior to the meeting of the ad hoc committee, the Dean’s office will notify the entire Committee of Professors by email of the candidate’s proposed promotion to professor.  Members of the Committee of Professors will have the opportunity to provide confidential comment to the Dean and the ad hoc committee.  This confidential commenary will not be shared with department leadership.

The ad hoc committee will meet in a single session. The department head will be invited to testify as will any other leaders in the field whom the ad hoc committee chair believes will be in a position to provide helpful commentary to the committee.  Following all testimony, the committee will meet in executive session to review the qualifications for promotion.  If the ad hoc committee requires additional evidence before it can come to conclusion, including additional letters, the committee will be empowered to recommend that additional data be solicited by the Dean’s office. At the conclusion of the meeting, the members will vote on the proposal.  All proceedings of the committee are confidential.

HMS and University Review (Step 9)

The chair of the ad hoc committee will prepare a report of the deliberations and present the findings to the Dean and the Subcommittee of Professors.  Members of the Subcommittee of Professors provide a confidential vote and commentary which is advisory to the Dean.  The Dean proposes candidates to the President and Provost of the University and the final decision is subsequently communicated to the Dean who informs the candidate’s department head.  A formal letter from the University is sent directly to the candidate at the conclusion of the process.

Appointment Procedure for Clinical Professors, Academic Part Time (APT), Of Unspecified Duration (OUD) Evaluation Process

(Last update August 2004)

1. Initiation of Promotion

a. Department head, after consultation with senior members of the department and the HMS departmental executive committee, prepares a letter to the dean recommending the promotion to clinical professor in the academic part-time category or the first appointment of an academic part-time professor from another institution. The letter should include:

1) Description of the job and the qualifications needed

2) Documentation of the candidate’s accomplishments with regard to

a) Teaching
b) Clinical activities
c) Research
d) Administrative role (if appropriate)

3) Estimate of his/her academic stature compared with others in the field

4) Implications of the appointment for the hospital and the Medical School

b. Department head attaches to her/his letter the following items:

1) Letters from faculty members inside and outside the department and the Medical School assessing the candidate’s accomplishments in teaching, clinical, and research activities (as appropriate). Usually no more than 8-10 letters should be solicited. Copies of letters of requests and replies should be submitted. (Click HERE for sample letter.)

2) Candidate’s curriculum vitae and bibliography using the format described in section XV. Included with the curriculum vitae should be a list of all of the candidate’s trainees with relevant years of training and current positions noted. In keeping with Harvard Medical School guidelines, which recommend a maximum number of publications on which appointments should be judged, the appointee, in consultation with the department head, should list on a separate sheet up to ten publications from her/his bibliography, annotated to indicate the significance of each. The candidate’s C.V. should be seen as a dossier of the individual’s activity; the publications listed should be those considered as having a significant impact on the candidate’s field.

3) Letter from the representative of the affiliated institution, on behalf of the board of trustees, indicating their approval of the recommendation.

2. Preliminary Review

a. Council of Academic Deans reviews the proposal from perspective of academic and institutional needs

1.Council suggests members for an ad hoc committee or
2.Council recommends that the proposal be forwarded to the Subcommittee of Professors

b. Dean submits initiating letter, if recommended by the Council of Academic Deans, to the Subcommittee of Professors.

1) One member of the Subcommittee of Professors is assigned to review the proposal. Consideration is given to whether or not the ladder (APT) is appropriate, whether or not there is a sufficient case to request an academic review, and whether or not there is sufficient documentation to inform the Subcommittee of Professors.

2) Department head who is submitting the proposal responds.

3) Subcommittee of Professors discusses the proposal and recommends an appropriate action: formation of an ad hoc committee or consideration as a committee of the whole.

4) If formation of an ad hoc committee is voted, the Subcommittee of Professors recommends members for the ad hoc committee.

5) If approval of the appointment is voted as a committee of the whole, the recommendation goes directly to the Dean for final consideration.

c. Notice of all actions by the Subcommittee of Professors is mailed to members of the Committee of Professors.

3. Review Process

a. Ad hoc committee is named by the Dean after consultation with the Subcommittee of Professors, the department head, and others. Ad hoc committee includes:

1) Persons from the field in which the candidate works; may include persons outside the Medical School and Harvard University
2) Persons from related fields

b. Ad hoc evaluators are provided with:

1) Initial letter from the department head
2) Curriculum vitae, bibliography, list of trainees, and copies of up to ten self-selected reprints/scholarly communications from the candidate

c. Ad hoc committee holds initial meeting to

1) Review the accomplishments of the candidate as described by the department head and other evaluators
2) Develop a list of other individuals from whom assessments of the candidate are requested
3) Call witnesses, if needed

d. Ad hoc committee reconvenes, when information from the above is available, to

1) Review new evaluations
2) Hear witnesses (as appropriate)
3) Decide whether or not any additional information is needed

e. Ad hoc committee prepares a report of the above process and makes a recommendation to the Dean. All the letters received in the process are attached to the report. The report should comment on any significant issues raised by the letters of evaluation or the witnesses.

f. Report and the supporting documents are forwarded to the Dean.

g. Dean reviews the committee report and forwards it to the Subcommittee of Professors.

4. Final consideration proceeds

a. Report of the ad hoc committee is reviewed by the Subcommittee of Professors. One member of the subcommittee will act as the reviewer. The chair of the ad hoc committee will be present to respond. The subcommittee reviews the report, votes on the recommendation of the reviewer, and suggests appropriate action to the Dean.

b. Report of the subcommittee actions, when approved by the Dean, is mailed to the Committee of Professors. Any member of the Committee of Professors may review the report in the Dean’s Office. If a petition with signatures of ten members of the Committee of Professors is received within two weeks of the announcement of the subcommittee action, a meeting of the full Committee of Professors will be called to review the recommendation.

c. Dean makes a final recommendation and transmits it to the President of Harvard University in a summary letter appended to the documentation of the appointment process.

d. Recommendation is considered by the President and Provost of Harvard University on behalf of the Governing Boards of Harvard University. Final approval is rendered by the President and Provost.

Top

Financial Support of Professorships at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Dental Medicine

(Last update August 2004)

 
A. There are two categories of financial support for full professors, full time, and permanent associate professors, full time, appointed at Harvard Medical School: without limit of time (WLT) and of indefinite duration (OID). These two categories have both common features and differences.

B. Common to both is the understanding that professors in either category are not subject to further academic review in the continuation of their appointments. Moreover, in keeping with the traditional concepts of academic freedom, persons appointed without limit of time or of indefinite duration cannot be separated from their appointments for disciplinary reasons other than for grave misconduct or neglect of duty. As is the case with other members of the faculty, they cannot be dismissed for holding controversial opinions, for proposing heretical viewpoints, or for espousing unpopular causes. They are all entitled to the classical protection of the academy in the pursuit of knowledge, in their teaching, and in the publication of findings and opinions.

C. The two categories differ in the financial commitment that the university has made with regard to continuous support.

1. For appointments without limit of time (WLT), the university guarantees to the faculty member academic salary and its associated fringe benefits in the way that such a guarantee traditionally exists for tenure appointments. This guarantee is backed by (a) university resources including endowments and other funds, or (b) commitments to the university from other institutions including affiliated institutions, government, and private foundations.

Even when there is a guarantee of support by the university (with or without the backing of another institution), salary support for professors appointed without limit of time may come from several sources in addition to university or affiliated institution endowments, such as general funds, grants and contracts, patient-care payments. The proportions from these sources are decided by availability of specific funds and by negotiation, for example, among the department, the affiliated institution, and the Medical School, and may vary from time to time.

2. For appointments of indefinite duration (OID), the university has no obligation to provide continuing support of the faculty member’s salary. Instead, the hospital or other affiliated institution assumes responsibility for the stability of support. This limitation in the university’s financial commitment is characterized by the phrase “subject to the Third Statute of the University . . . , and to such terms, conditions and policies as are stipulated by the Faculty of Medicine, as these may be amended from time to time, and to the right of the Corporation to set a terminal date in the event that funds to support the appointment from sources outside the University are not available.” Appointments of indefinite duration will be made only when there is a high likelihood of continuing stable support from outside the university as determined by consultation among the department head, the director of the affiliated institution, and the Dean. This academic appointment will require a concomitant appointment to the staff of an affiliated institution.

3. For appointments of unspecified duration (OUD) to the rank of clinical professor on the Academic Part Time ladder, no commitment of continuous institutional support from the hospital or other affiliated institution is required or expected. Professors of unspecified duration (OUD) do not require reappointment. Although they will be reviewed by the department every five years their appointments automatically continue unless the determination is made that they have not demonstrated continuing contributions.

Top

Procedures for Term Appointments (Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Lecturer or Senior Lecturer [Three Years])

Procedures for Promotion to Assistant or Associate Professor by Investigator Criteria

(Last update August 2004)

    1. Candidate must complete her/his curriculum vitae and bibliography using the format described in section XV.

    Note: In keeping with Harvard Medical School guidelines, which recommend a maximum number of publications or scholarly communications on which appointments should be judged, the department head, in consultation with the appointee, should circle on a candidate’s bibliography two to five items for assistant professor and five to seven for associate professor. The candidate’s curriculum vitae should be seen as a dossier of the individual’s activity; the items highlighted should be those considered as having a significant impact on the candidate’s field.
    2. Department head prepares a letter of recommendation that includes the following items:

a. Description of the position that the individual would occupy if promoted and the relationship of the position to the rest of the department. This description should allow subsequent readers of the recommendation to understand the major responsibilities of the department or division and the role of the candidate in that group.

b. Description of the individual’s experience and accomplishments in the following areas (as appropriate):

1) Teaching. Include an account of specific teaching and supervisory responsibilities (e.g., medical student, graduate student, postgraduate student, or continuing education) along with any summaries of evaluation reports available. Original evaluations should be retained in Department Head’s office. Indicate the candidate’s role (e.g., course organizer, lecturer, section leader).

2) Research activities. Describe the candidate’s research with specific attention to contributions to the field. Is s/he leader of the team, originator of the ideas, principal investigator of funded research, or a member but not leader of the team? Note membership in organizations emphasizing excellence in research and any awards. Comment on the quality of the candidate’s publications. Do they make a significant addition to the knowledge in the field? Do they summarize the state of the art? Do they analyze existing data to provide new insights? Do they describe current knowledge to make it available to a wider audience?

3) Clinical activities. Comment on the candidate’s clinical skills and responsibilities in the department. Cite any evidence for the recognition of clinical strengths inside and outside the Boston medical community (e.g., invitations to participate in clinical activities in other medical schools and hospitals, membership in professional organizations emphasizing excellence in clinical specialties).

4) Administration. Indicate any leadership role in the department, affiliated institution, or medical/dental school programs and committees. Does the candidate participate in any national organizations, professional societies, study sections, or policy-making/advisory groups?

    3. Letter from the executive committee of the department is prepared if there are any dissents or abstentions. This letter includes the reasons for either dissents or abstentions. If there are none, signature of the chairperson or the secretary of the executive committee on the Form for Initiation of First Term Appointments and Promotions will be sufficient.

    4. Documentation is provided of the initial search and affirmative action in cases of promotion to assistant professor from a first HMS or HSDM appointment as instructor in order to assure that the intent of searches for all first appointments is met. This request applies only to instances where the first appointment was at the instructor level. It does not apply to persons initially appointed as a resident, clinical fellow, or research fellow (postdoctoral fellow).

    5. Letters of evaluation are requested by the department head or the departmental search committee, not by the candidate. The department head comments on any significant issues raised in the letters of evaluation. (Click HERE for sample letter.)

a. Assistant professor. At least two letters of recommendation are required from faculty members inside the department and two letters from outside the department and discipline (inside or outside HMS). At least one of the four letters should be from outside HMS, and at least one outside letter should come from someone who is not a former colleague, mentor, collaborator, or co-author of the candidate.

b. Associate professor. At least two letters of recommendation are required from inside the department as well as four from outside the department, including at least two from outside the University. At least one outside letter should come from someone who is not a former colleague, mentor, collaborator, or co-author of the candidate. For basic scientists in clinical departments, letters should be sought from basic scientists knowledgeable about the research field, as well as from clinicians who can assess contributions to the clinical specialty.

    6. Copies of publications/scholarly communications on which the proposed appointment should be judged are provided.a. Two copies each of two items for appointment to assistant professor b. Two copies each of five items for appointment to associate professor Attribution of credit on multiauthored papers: In those cases where the candidate has selected (as one of the two best papers to be reviewed for assistant professor or one of the five best papers to be reviewed for associate professor) a paper in which s/he is a middle author, the candidate must describe to the department head her/his contribution in the following terms cited in the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals”: conception, or design, or analysis and interpretation of datadrafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual contentfinal approval of the version to be publishedcontributions to collaborative research in a given field (as reflected in a set of up to three pages)The candidate’s description may be included in the letter of the department head or attached as a separate submission. If possible, the candidate should also annotate all the selected papers to indicate why the work is important and what impact it has had on the field. 7. Letter from the department head, addressed to the Dean, and accompanying documentation should be sent to: Office for Faculty Services, Gordon Hall, Room 010, Harvard Medical School. 8. Documents are checked in the Dean’s Office and distributed to members of the Promotions, Reappointments, and Appointments Committee. Two members of this committee review the documentation for appointment to assistant/associate professor. A departmental representative is present to respond. The committee deliberates and renders a recommendation to the Dean.9. Dean makes a final recommendation and transmits it to the President of Harvard University. 10. Recommendation is considered by the President and Provost on behalf of the Governing Boards of Harvard University. Final approval is rendered by the President and Provost.

Procedures for Promotion to Assistant or Associate Professor by Clinician Teacher Criteria

(Last update August 2004)

    The criteria defined for this track are not in themselves sufficient to guarantee excellence. It is the responsibility of the academic departments and the departmental executive committees to recommend for appointment on this ladder those clinicians and teachers who are, or have the potential to be, among the very best practitioners, who bring a scholarly approach to the practice of medicine, and who are dedicated to the transmission of their clinical knowledge, attitudes, and skills to others. 1. Candidate must complete her/his curriculum vitae and bibliography using the format described in section XV.

    Note: In keeping with Harvard Medical School guidelines, which recommend a maximum number of publications or scholarly communications on which appointments should be judged, the department head, in consultation with the appointee, should circle on a candidate’s bibliography two to five items for assistant professor and five to seven for associate professor. The candidate’s C.V. should be seen as a dossier of the individual’s activity; the items highlighted should be those considered as having a significant impact on the candidate’s field.

    2. Department head prepares a letter of recommendation that includes the following items:

a. Description of the position that the individual occupies and its relationship to the rest of the department, particularly in clinical and teaching programs. This description should allow subsequent readers of the recommendation to understand the principal clinical and teaching activities of the department or division and the role of the candidate in this group.

b. Description of the candidate¹s experience and accomplishments in the following areas. Attributes of an associate professor, as distinct from an assistant professor, are noted in italics in brackets [ ].

  • conception, or design, or analysis and interpretation of data
  • drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content
  • final approval of the version to be published

1) Organization and delivery of clinical care.

Comment on the candidate’s clinical skills and responsibilities in your department. Does the candidate introduce [develop] innovative methods for clinical diagnosis, prevention, treatment, health care delivery? Cite any evidence for the recognition of clinical competence inside [and outside] the Boston medical community (e.g., invitations to participate in clinical activities at other medical schools and health care institutions, membership in professional organizations emphasizing excellence in clinical specialties).

2) Teaching
Comment on the teaching responsibilities of the candidate (e.g., for medical students, residents, fellows, continuing education, or other health professionals). Report on any evaluations available from students, residents, peers, and on the influence of the candidate on her/his learners. Comment on the content and the quality of teaching materials developed by the candidate. Do they make a significant addition to the field? Do they summarize the state of the art? Do they analyze existing data to provide new insights? Do they describe current knowledge to make it available to a wider audience? Does the candidate attempt to explain/explicate modalities of diagnosis/treatment in her/his clinical practice? Note if the candidate has won any teaching awards. Also comment on regional or national teaching.

3) Administration and leadership.
Describe the roles and activities in the department, health care institution, or medical school programs and committees. Does the candidate participate in [and provide leadership to] local or national organizations or professional societies, particularly those involved in the delivery of clinical care, study sections/or policy making advisory groups?

4) Research activities (as appropriate).
Does the candidate participate in [provide leadership in] clinical trials or any other kind of clinical investigation?

    3. Letter from the executive committee of the department is prepared if there are any dissents or abstentions. This letter includes the reasons for either dissents or abstentions. If there are none, signature of the chairperson or the secretary of the executive committee on the Form for Initiation of First Term Appointments and Promotions will be sufficient. 4. Documentation is provided of the initial search and affirmative action in cases of promotion to assistant professor from a first HMS or HSDM appointment as instructor in order to assure that the intent of searches for all first appointments is met. This request applies only to instances where the first appointment was at the instructor level. It does not apply to persons initially appointed as a resident, clinical fellow, or research fellow (postdoctoral fellow). (Click HERE for sample letter.) 5. Letters of evaluation are requested by the department head, not by the candidate. The department head should comment on any significant issues raised in the letters of evaluation.

a. Assistant professor. Four to six letters of evaluation are required, two to four letters from senior clinicians in the candidate’s clinical areas and/or in adjacent fields (including referring physicians if appropriate) and two to four letters from persons who can address teaching skills (co-teacher, course director, chief resident, etc). At least one of the letters should be from outside HMS, if possible from someone who is not a former colleague, mentor, collaborator, or co-author of the candidate.

b. Associate professor. Six to eight letters of evaluation are required, two to four letters from senior clinicians in the candidate’s clinical areas and/or in adjacent fields (including referring physicians if appropriate), two to four letters from persons who can address her/his teaching skills (co-teacher, course director, chief resident, etc), and two letters from national figures in her/his clinical area. At least one outside letter should come from someone who is not a former colleague, mentor, collaborator, or co-author of the candidate.

    6. Copies of publications/scholarly communications/teaching materials on which the proposed appointment should be judged are provided.

a. Two copies each of two items for appointment to assistant professor

b. Two copies each of five items for appointment to associate professor

Attribution of credit on multiauthored papers: In those cases where the candidate has selected (as one of the two best papers to be reviewed for assistant professor or one of the five best papers to be reviewed for associate professor) a paper in which s/he is a middle author, the candidate must describe to the department head her/his contribution in the following terms cited in the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals”:

The candidate’s description may be included in the letter of the department head or attached as a separate submission.

If possible, the candidate should also annotate all the selected papers to indicate why the work is important and what impact it has had on the field.

    7. Letter from the department head, addressed to the Dean, and accompanying documentation should be sent to: Office for Faculty Services, Gordon Hall, Room 010, Harvard Medical School. 8. Documents are checked in the Dean’s Office and distributed to members of the Promotions, Reappointments, and Appointments Committee. Two members of this committee review the documentation for appointment to assistant/associate professor. A departmental representative is present to respond. The committee deliberates and renders a recommendation to the Dean. 9. Dean makes a final recommendation and transmits it to the President and Provost of Harvard University in a summary letter appended to the documentation of the appointment process.10. Recommendation is considered by the President and Provost on behalf of the Governing Boards of Harvard University. Final approval is rendered by the President and Provost.

Procedures for Promotion to Assistant or Associate Professor by Academic Part Time Criteria

(Last update August 2004)

1. Candidate must complete her/his curriculum vitae and bibliography using the format described in section XV.

Note: In keeping with Harvard Medical School guidelines, which recommend a maximum number of publications or scholarly communications on which appointments should be judged, the department head, in consultation with the appointee, should circle on a candidate¹s bibliography two to five items for assistant professor and five to seven for associate professor. The candidate¹s C.V. should be seen as a dossier of the individual¹s activity; the items highlighted should be those considered as having a significant impact on the candidate¹s field.

2. Department head prepares a letter of recommendation that includes the following items:

a. Description of the position that the individual would occupy if promoted and its relationship to the rest of the department. This description should allow subsequent readers of the recommendation to understand the major responsibilities of the department or division, the role of the candidate in this group, and the professional responsibilities of the group outside the academic setting.
 

b. Description of the candidate’s experience and accomplishments in the following areas (as appropriate)

1) Teaching. Include an account of specific teaching responsibilities (e.g., medical student, graduate student, postgraduate student, or continuing education) along with any evaluation reports available. Indicate the candidate¹s specific role (e.g., course organizer, lecturer, section leader).

2) Clinical activities. Comment on the candidate’s clinical skills and responsibilities in your department. Cite any evidence for the recognition of clinical excellence inside and outside the Boston medical community, e.g., invitations to participate in clinical activities at other medical schools and health care institutions, membership in professional organizations emphasizing excellence in clinical specialties.

3) Research activities (as appropriate). Describe the candidate’s research, with specific attention to contributions to the field. Note membership in organizations emphasizing excellence in research and any awards.

4) Administration. Indicate any leadership role in health care systems or medical school programs and committees. Does the candidate participate in any national organizations, professional societies, study sections, or policy making/advisory groups?

3. Letter from the executive committee of the department is prepared if there are any dissents or abstentions. This letter includes the reasons for either dissents or abstentions. If there are none, signature of the chairperson or the secretary of the executive committee on the Form for Initiation of First Term Appointments and Promotions will be sufficient.

4. Letters of evaluation are requested by the department head, not by the candidate . The department head should comment in her/his letter on any significant issues raised in the letters of evaluation. (Click HERE for sample letter.)

a. Assistant professor. At least two letters of recommendation are required from faculty members inside the department and two from outside the department and discipline (inside or outside HMS). At least one of the letters should be from outside HMS, if possible from someone who is not a former colleague, mentor, co-worker, or co-author of the candidate.

b. Associate professor. Six to eight letters of recommendation are required, two to four letters from senior clinicians in the candidate’s clinical areas and/or in adjacent fields (including referring physicians if appropriate), two letters from persons who can address teaching skills (co-teacher, course director, chief resident, etc), and two letters from national figures in her/his clinical area. At least one outside letter should come from someone who is not a former colleague, mentor, collaborator, or co-author of the candidate.

5. Copies of publications/scholarly communications/teaching materials on which the proposed appointment should be judged are provided.

a. Two copies each of two items for appointment to assistant clinical professor

b. Two copies each of five items for appointment to associate clinical professor

Attribution of credit on multiauthored papers: In those cases where the candidate has selected (as one of the two best papers to be reviewed for assistant professor or one of the five best papers to be reviewed for associate professor) a paper in which s/he is a middle author, the candidate must describe to the department head her/his contribution in the following terms cited in the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals”:

  • conception, or design, or analysis and interpretation of data
  • drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content
  • final approval of the version to be published

The candidate’s description may be included in the letter of the department head or attached as a separate submission.

If possible, the candidate should also annotate all the selected papers to indicate why the work is important and what impact it has had on the field.

6. Letter from the department head, addressed to the Dean, and accompanying documentation should be sent to: Office for Faculty Services, Gordon Hall, Room 010, Harvard Medical School.

7. Documents are checked in the Dean’s Office and distributed to members of the Promotions, Reappointments, and Appointments Committee. Two members of this committee review the documentation for appointment to assistant/associate professor. A departmental representative is present to respond. The committee deliberates and renders a recommendation to the Dean.

8. Dean makes a final recommendation and transmits it to the President and Provost of Harvard University.

9. Recommendation is considered by the President and Provost on behalf of the Governing Boards of Harvard University. Final approval is rendered by the President and Provost.

Procedures for Promotion to Assistant Professor by Clinician Teacher (Longer Service) Criteria

(Last update August 2004)

    The Conference of Department Heads, at their meeting of February 11, 1999, approved the appointment of a new Promotions Committee at Harvard Medical School, and recommended that it be constituted as the Clinician Teacher (Longer Service) Subcommittee of the current Promotions, Reappointments and Appointments Committee. This new committee, to be chaired by Dr. Frederick Lovejoy, will meet on a monthly basis. It will consider the promotion of full time and part time Instructors with a doctoral degree, who have been in rank for ten years or more, and who have given meritorious service through teaching and clinical care to Harvard Medical School and its affiliated institutions.
    Appointment Titles Appointments of Instructor, full time, will be to Assistant Professor, full time; appointments of Clinical Instructor, part time, will be to Assistant Clinical Professor, part time.
    Procedures for Promotion

    1. Candidate must complete her/his curriculum vitae and bibliography using the format described in section XV. Care should be taken to report in detail teaching and clinical contributions; refer to section XV, part II, of the Purple Book for assistance. Because of the dispersion of faculty among multiple sites, and the possibility the Department Heads are not aware of all teaching or clinical contributions, the C.V. becomes the tool that allows faculty members to report in detail their own contributions. Bibliography should be attached if one exists.

    2. Department Head prepares a letter of recommendation that includes the following items:

a. Description of the position that the individual occupies, and its relationship to the rest of the department. This description should allow subsequent readers of the recommendation to understand the major role and responsibilities of the candidate, especially in teaching, clinical care and leadership in the department or division.

b. Description of the candidate’s experience and accomplishments in the following areas (as appropriate):

Teaching. Include a detailed account of specific teaching responsibilities (e.g., for medical students, graduate students, residents, clinical fellows, and postdoctoral fellows, or in continuing medical education). Any teaching evaluations that are available should be summarized and commented on. The length of time over which a candidate has been teaching and the changes effected by the candidate over that time might also be discussed. Efforts to improve her/his teaching skills and any leadership role in teaching programs should be reported.

Clinical Activities. Comment on the candidate’s clinical skills and responsibilities in the department. Cite any evidence for recognition of clinical excellence inside and outside the Boston medical community, e.g., invitations to participate in clinical activities at other medical schools and health care institutions, membership in professional organizations emphasizing excellence in clinical specialties.

Research Activities. Not required, but if there is any involvement in research projects, for example in clinical trials or in education, such activities should be described.

Community Service and Administration. Indicate any role in health care system, medical school programs and committees, and departmental committees. Does the candidate participate in any state or national organizations, professional societies, study sections, or policy making/advisory group?

    3. Letter from the executive committee of the department should be prepared if there are any dissents or abstentions. This letter includes the reasons for either dissents or abstentions. If there are none, signature of the chairperson or secretary of the executive committee on the Form for Initiation of First Term Appointments and Promotions will be sufficient.

    4. Letters of evaluation are requested by the department head, not by the candidate. (Click HERE for sample letter.)

    The department head should comment in her/his letter on any significant issues raised in the letters of evaluation. Up to three letters should be requested from clinical, teaching or administrative colleagues who are most familiar with the candidate’s contributions, inside or outside the department.

    5. Letter from the department head, addressed to the Dean, and accompanying documentation should be sent to: Office for Faculty Services, Gordon Hall, Room 010, Harvard Medical School.

    6. Documents are checked in the Dean’s Office and distributed to members of the Clinician Teacher (Longer Service) Subcommittee. At this committee meeting, one member of the Committee reviews the documentation, and a department representative is present to respond. The committee deliberates and renders a recommendation to the Dean.

    7. Dean makes a final recommendation and transmits it to the President and Provost of Harvard University.

    8. The President and Provost on behalf of the Governing Boards of Harvard University consider the recommendation and give it final approval.

    Procedures for Reappointment

    Reappointments will follow the procedure outlined above.

    Promotion to Associate Professor can occur if the candidate meets the already established criteria for Associate Professor by Investigator, Clinician Teacher, or Academic Part Time faculty. Promotion to Associate Professor or Associate Clinical Professor cannot occur by longer service criteria.

    Criteria and Examples

    Click HERE for criteria and examples for Promotion to Assistant Professor by Clinician Teacher (Longer Service) Criteria.

    Top

Evaluation Process for Appointment as Professor

(Last update August 2004)

http://www.fa.hms.harvard.edu/docs/promotion_policies/evalprocessprof.pdf

Top

Term Appointment Process

(Last update November 2010)

http://www.fa.hms.harvard.edu/docs/promotion_policies/termapptprocess.pdf

Top

Comments are closed.