Appointments, Promotion & Tenure

2020-2021

February 6, 2020| Rosenstiel Medical Science Building Conference Room 4139

Welcome!

How are Criteria for Promotion and Tenure Established?

• Faculty Senate is responsible for the policies and procedures as outlined in the Faculty Manual (miami.edu/facultysenate)

• Requirements for faculty promotion and tenure in the Miller School of Medicine are determined by the Faculty Council (medicalcouncil.miami.edu)

2

How Did the New APT Processes Come About?

• The MSOM Faculty Council initiated a revision process for the MSOM Council Bylaws

• A working group of approximately 40 faculty from across the MSOM (all tracks, all ranks) reviewed existing criteria and developed a novel way to objectively establish promotion criteria

3

Bylaws Revision• Promotion and Tenure Task Force presented revised

promotion and tenure criteria to the Bylaws Revision Committee.

• The Bylaws Revision Committee sought input from the full Faculty Council and made additional revisions.

• Faculty Council gave initial approval in May, 2019.• Faculty Senate reviewed for consistency with the

Faculty Manual; minor changes made.• Faculty Council approved final Bylaws, accepted by

Dean Ford in August, 20194

What is the process?

5

Faculty member asks to be considered

Faculty member discussed with division chief or

department chair

Some departments have internal

advisory committee review

Packet prepared with outside letters,

Departmental Review and Vote

MSOM Appointment, Promotion, & Tenure

(APT) Committee Reviews and Votes

Chair’s have opportunity for

appeal of negative or split APT votes

Dean reviews APT recommendation and

makes Dean’s recommendation

University Academic Personnel Board

(APB) Reviews and Votes

Provost Reviews Recommendations,

makes Final Decisions

University Board of Trustees Reviews and Makes Final

Decisions on Tenure

Individual/Department

Miller School of Medicine

University

APT Process Overview/TimelineAPT process Time-Line Supporting documents

Survey Faculty for Promotion Jan-2020Information Sessions Feb-2020APT Committee Meeting - Initial Appts and Mid-Point Mar-May-2020

Collect surveys and prepare faculty list by Department Feb-2020

Faculty Affairs works with Departments to compile information and solicit letters

Feb -April 2020

Faculty members need to provide suggestions for reviewers' name, CV, Personal Statement, 3 Publications and/or Edu portfolio

Vetting list of reviewers with Chair / designee Feb -April 2020 Initial list of reviewers

and Curriculum Vitae

APT Process Overview/TimelineSolicitation letters sent to external reviewers March-May 2020

APT solicitation letters, CV, APT guidelines, clinical summary form, teaching evaluation

Receive and review external reviewer letters April-June 2020 External reviewer letters

Bio-Sketch preparation for external reviewers June-July 2020

External reviewer biosketch and cover page with arm's length review questions

Compile information; the departments coordinate and schedule voting meetings with the faculty

May-July 2020

Copies of P and T files (e.g., Personal Statement, CV, Reviewer letters with cover sheets, publications, teaching evaluation)

APT Process Overview/TimelineFinal Curriculum Vitae for package Jun-2020 Curriculum Vitae UM

templateScholarly Material Review form Jun-2020 3 Publications

Department Faculty Meeting for voting Jun-2020 Copies of P and T files

Departments give final vetting list of faculty candidates for August-November Promotion meetings to faculty affairs

Jun-2020

DF-15s Due 1-Jun-2020

Letter of support from the Chair 1-Jun-2020

Memo to APT Committee specifically highlighting faculty portfolio summary and noting chair recommendation.

APT Process Overview/TimelineSummary of recommendation of the voting faculty 1-Jun-2020

Memo to APT Committee specifically noting discussion of meeting.

Files to Faculty Affairs 1-Jun-2020 Final APT File

Faculty Affairs uploads files to Share Point June-July, 2020 Final APT file

School of Medicine APT Committee Meetings August-November, 2020 Final APT file

School of Medicine APT Committee Appeals Meeting

August-November, 2020 Final APT file

APT Files with committee summary for Dean's input and recommendation 1-Nov-2020 Final APT file + Committee

Recommendations

APT Process Overview/TimelineAPT Files, including Dean's recommendation, to Coral Gables 1-Dec-2020 Final APT file + Dean

review

Gables Appointment and Promotion Board Jan -Feb 2021 Final APT file + Dean review

All files to the Provost Feb-2021 Final APT file + Dean review

Board of Trustee Review Feb-2021 Final APT file + Provost

Announcement of Results by Provost and Gables May-2021

Table 1 Approvalof Dean & Provost

Vote ofEligible Faculty

Chair Review

Committee Review

DeanReview

APBReview

ProvostApproval

PresidentApproval

Trustees Approval

Instructor, CE

TrackX X

Assistant,Professor, all Tracks

X X

Associate, Professor, Professor,

all non-tenuretracks

X X X X X X

Tenure-Earning

(Assistant & AssociateProfessor)

X X X X X X X X X

Award of Tenure

(Associate Professor &Professor)

X X X X X X X X X

Review Steps for Each Track and Rank

Faculty Tracks and RanksAppointments and Promotions

• Instructor: – Only for individuals who have not completed training (e.g., Fellows) or allied

health professionals involved in clinical training (e.g., some ARNPs)• Assistant Professor

– Tenure-earning appointment requires Dean, Provost prior approval– All other tracks require department vote, chair support, Dean support

• Associate Professor– Tenure-earning must be promoted to Associate Professor no later than 5th year– All tracks require department vote, APT review, Dean support, APB review,

Provost decision; Tenure-related cases required President and Board of Trustees review and approval

• Professor– All tracks require department vote, APT review, Dean support, APB review,

Provost decision; Tenure-related cases required President and Board of Trustees review and approval

Getting Started: Seek Advice and Feedback from Others

• Meet with your chair or division chief early in the process to gain his/her support and perspective

• Share materials with a colleague, preferably one who has already successful gone through the process, and who doesn’t know you or your area well to be sure it is clear and interpretable

13

Summary ofAchievements

CV inUM

Format

PersonalStatement

Five (5) External

Letters (at least 2

recommended by Chair)

EducatorPortfolio

ClinicalPortfolio

Scholarship, Funding, Clinical,

Teaching, & Administrative

Matrices

Research X X X X X NA X

Clinical Educator X X X X X X X

EducatorX X X X X N/A X

Tenure-Earning or Award ofTenure

X X X X X Clinical FacultyOnly

X

Promotion Packet Components

Personal Statement/Career Assessment

• Recommended length: 2-3 pages (2 is preferred)• Illustrate progressive advancement and impact: Tell your story, but do so

concisely• Suggested outline:

– Paragraph 1 – Early career and roots in science and teaching– Paragraph 2 – Development of your particular expertise (in research,

education, administration, clinical care)– Paragraph 3 – Recognition of expertise by others (papers, panels,

journal reviews, advisory and editorial boards)– Paragraph 4 – Comment on other areas (e.g. teaching, administration,

service)– Paragraph 5 – Vision for your future – how will you continue to grow,

excel, and increase scope of impact

15

External Reviewers• You will be asked to provide 8-10 reviewer names that may be contacted by

your Chair for a letter of evaluation. You are required to have 5 “arm’s length” letters for your promotion package. At least 2 must be from individuals identified by your chair and not by you.

• Reviewers should be:– academic leaders who can provide neutral expert opinions on your accomplishments,

stature, and potential for future success.– at a rank at least equal to that which you aspire. Letters from Senior Leaders in non-

academic institutions will be included in your file, but will NOT be considered as one of the 5 core letters.

– neutral to you (should NOT be former mentors, preceptors, colleagues or collaborators).• Confidentiality is imperative. Once the reviewer list has been submitted, the candidate cannot

be informed as to who has responded or what response was received.• Faculty Affairs will email the solicitation requests, once approved by the candidate’s chairman,

unless the Department indicates that they will handle the solicitation process themselves. If this is the case, the Department is required to follow-up with Faculty Affairs and provide weekly updates.

• You may have letters of support from internal colleagues and/or collaborators at other institutions but they will not count towards the required 5 letters for your packet.

16

External LettersExclusions

• The following are NOT considered arm’s length– Previously or currently employed by the University of Miami– Former or current mentors, supervisors, or preceptors– Former students, fellows, residents, classmates, or other trainees, including

those for whom you have served on a masters or doctoral committee– Colleagues from the same division or department at a prior or current

institution.– Collaborators on grants, contracts, publications, abstracts, conference

presentations, posters, or symposia. An exception includes individuals who are site PIs on multi-center trials, grants, or publications and the investigators are not part of a steering committee and interaction is limited to editing or reviewing project outcomes and/or manuscripts

– Individuals who have interacted substantially with the candidate on regional, national, or international panels, task forces, study sections, or professional organization leadership teams

– Individuals who regularly refer patient directly to you– Individuals on corporate boards or in business relationship with you

17

MSOM Promotion and Tenure CriteriaFaculty Council Bylaw Revision August, 2019

• Considerations for promotion– Evidence of trajectory of contribution– Evidence of Scholarship for all tracks– Evidence of Research funding for tenure-earning, research

tracks– Evidence of Clinical Innovation (clinical-educator track)– Evidence of Teaching excellence– Evidence of Reputation – Evidence of Service – Meets Citizenship Requirements

Scholarship

• Emphasis is on:– Quantity and Quality– Impact – Trajectory (increasing) over time

19

ScholarshipAssistant to Associate Professor

Track Minimum Matrix Score (since last appointment or last 5 years

Minimum # Peer-reviewed Publications in past 5 years

# Publications as First or Senior Author in past 5 years

H Index (Qualitative Measure- state source- Google Scholar preferred)

Tenure-Earning 6.0 5 4 (impact >3.0)

Research 8 Minimum average 1/year

2 (Impact > 3.0)

Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)

5 4 2 (n peer-reviewed, indexed journal)

Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)

3 3 1 (in peer-reviewed, indexed journal)

Educator 6 Minimum average 1/yr1

NA NA

Award of Tenure 12 Minimum average 2/year

7 (Impact >3.0)

20

1Paper, book/book chapter, or published curriculum

ScholarshipAssociate Professor to Professor

Track Minimum Matrix Score (since last appointment or last 5 years

Minimum # Peer-reviewed Publications past 5 years

# Publications as First or Senior Author in past 5 years

H Index(Qualitative Measure of Impact-state source- Google Scholar Preferred)

Tenure-Earning NA NA NA

Research 10 Minimum average 2/year

4 (Impact > 3.0)

Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)

7 8 4 (in peer-reviewed, indexed journal)

Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)

5 5 2 (in peer-reviewed, indexed journal)

Educator 8 Minimum average 2/year1

Award of Tenure Career 22, Last 5 years 12

10 8 (impact >3.0)

211Papers must be on education research or published curriculum

Clinical Impact

• Clinical Portfolio Components– Scope of Clinical Practice

• Clinical Narrative• Productivity (wRVU)• Supervisor evaluation of clinical performance• Peer evaluations of clinical performance

– Patient experience and satisfaction

22

Clinical Impact (continued)

– Commitment to ongoing growth• Self Improvement• New Skills Acquired• Role in new models of patient care• Role in efficiency and quality of practice

patterns• Create work and activities related to patient

care– Meeting quality of care metrics

23

Clinical Impact (continued)

– Clinical Leadership– Professional contributions– Clinical publications and presentations– Clinical honors and awards

• Emphasis is on– Clinical leadership– Clinical innovation

24

Clinical Impact and InnovationAssistant to Associate Professor

Track Exceeds Clinical Target for cfte

Exceeds Patient Satisfaction Benchmarks

Provides Clinical Administrative Leadership

Tenure-Earning Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical)

Research NA NA NA

Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)

Yes Yes Yes

Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)

Yes Yes Yes

Educator NA NA NA

Award of Tenure Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical)

25

Clinical Impact and InnovationAssociate Professor to Professor

Track Exceeds Clinical Target for cfte

Exceeds Patient Satisfaction Benchmarks

Provides Clinical Administrative Leadership

Provides Evidence of Innovation in Clinical Care

Tenure-Earning Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical)

Research NA NA NA NA

Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Educator NA NA NA NA

Award of Tenure Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical) Yes (if clinical)

26

Education and Teaching

• Teaching is what defines someone as a faculty member

• Emphasis is on – Engagement with learners– Quality of teaching and progress of

learners

27

The Educator Portfolio(Educator, Clinical-Educator, Tenure-Earning)

Teaching

Patient Care

Research

TeachingAssistant to Associate Professor

Track Evidence of Active Teaching

Average learner teaching evaluation score

Peer-evaluations (3) rated excellent, outstanding, or exemplary

Served on Educational Committee or holds Educational Leadership position

Evidence of innovation in teaching

Tenure-Earning Clinical, formal teaching, mentor

>3.6/5.0 Yes

Research Clinical, formal teaching, mentor

>3.6/5.0 Yes

Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)

Clinical, formal teaching, mentor

>3.6/5.0 Yes Yes

Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)

Clinical, formal teaching, mentor

>3.6/5.0 Yes Yes

Educator Formal Teaching Program or

Mentor

>3.6/5.0 Yes Curriculum development or

educational administration

Award of Tenure Clinical, formal teaching, mentor

>3.6/5.0 Yes

30

TeachingAssociate Professor to Professor

Track Evidence of Active Teaching

Average learner teaching evaluation score

Peer-evaluations (3) rated excellent, outstanding, or exemplary

Served on Educational Committee or Educational Leadership position

Evidence of innovation in teaching

Tenure-Earning Clinical, formal teaching, mentor

>3.6/5.0 Yes

Research Clinical, formal teaching, mentor

>3.6/5.0 Yes

Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)

Clinical, formal teaching, mentor

>3.6/5.0 Yes Yes

Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)

Clinical, formal teaching, mentor

>3.6/5.0 Yes Yes

Educator Formal Teaching Program or

Mentor

>3.6/5.0 Yes Significant Curriculum

development or ed administration

Award of Tenure Clinical, formal teaching, mentor

>3.6/5.0 Yes31

Reputation

• Emphasis is on – Recognition outside UM for

• Clinical contributions and excellence• Research contributions• Advocacy Contributions• Professional contributions

32

ReputationAssistant to Associate Professor

Track Regional National International

Tenure-Earning X

Research X

Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)

X

Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)

X

Educator X

Award of Tenure X

33

ReputationAssociate Professor to Professor

Track Regional National International

Tenure-Earning

Research X

Clinical Educator (cfte<70%)

X

Clinical Educator(cfte>70%)

X

Educator X

Award of Tenure X

34

Regional Reputation Examples

• Participation on local, state, or regional research boards

• Leadership in regional professional society• Invited platform presentations, symposia, or

workshops at regional meetings• Participation as author on regional policy • Participation in at least one local or regional

advocacy initiative resulting in measurable change

35

National Reputation Examples• Participation on federal, state, or foundation

research study sections• Leadership in a national professional society• Invited platform presentations, symposia, or

workshops at national meetings• Participation as author on national practice

guidelines• Participation in at least one national advocacy

initiative that results in measurable policy change

36

International Reputation Examples

• Participation on international research or policy panels

• Leadership in international professional society• Invited platform presentations, symposia, or

workshops at international meetings• Participation as an author on international practice

guidelines• Participation in at least one international advocacy

initiative resulting in measurable policy change37

Service

• Evidence of service to the University, local community, regional community, national community, or international community by at least one of the following:– Active, documented participation on at least one Department,

School, or University Committee– Active documented participation on a local, state, regional,

national, or international policy board– Active documented participation on a local, regional, or national

not-for-profit foundation or agency board

38

Citizenship

• Individuals eligible for promotion or award of tenure are expected to be role models for citizenship in the Division, Department, School, and University.

• Faculty on any track who are in violation of the Zero Tolerance Policy for Mistreatment of Learners or found to be in violation of Department, School, or University standards of professional behavior will not be considered for promotion.

39

Weighting of ContributionsScholarship Funding Education Clinical

ImpactReputation Service

Tenure-Earning-Research

25% 25% 20% NA 20% 10%

Tenure-Earning-Clinical Component

20% 20% 20% 10% 20% 10%

Educator 20% 0% 60% NA 10% 10%Research 30% 30% 10% NA 20% 10%Clinical Educator 10% 0% 30% 30% 20% 10%

Special Considerations• Track Changes

– Requests for track changes must be made before annual department vote, and require department vote and chair support

– Track changes involving tenure-earning track require department vote, Dean approval, and Provost approval, and may require APT & APB review

– Individuals at the rank of Professor on any track may be considered for the Award of Tenure at any point (no time clock) with the prior approval of the Dean and Provost. In this case, there is no terminal notice if the Award of Tenure is not approved.

• Time at Rank– Time at rank is not a criterion for promotion

• Rank or Tenure at Another Institution– Rank or tenure at another institution does not guarantee the same rank or tenure at UM.

Each case must undergo the standard review process.• Early Consideration for Promotion or Tenure

– Candidate must exceed the minimum requirements that would be expected for someone 5 years at rank

• Clinical Productivity or Administration– Clinical productivity and administration are significant contributions to the MSOM, but are not

by themselves sufficient for academic promotion. Promotion is based on evidence of clinical innovation, scholarship, teaching excellence, reputation, and service.

Faculty Assessment Forms

43

44

45

46

47

48

Thank You!

Faculty Affairs Contacts:Joan St. Onge, MD, MPH, Senior Dean for Faculty Affairs-(305)243-9638Preston Pugh, Executive Director-(305) 243-7106Mitzi Wilkinson, Director, Faculty Affairs-(305) 243-6551Diana Mondesir, Sr. Manager, Business Operations for Faculty Affairs-(305) 243-6461Ann Cata, Programs Manager, Graduate Medical Education-(305) 243-1847Lydia Sanchez, Administrative Assistant for Faculty Affairs-(305) 243-6551