Overview of Faculty Promotions BUSM CV Bootcamp Kitt
Overview of Faculty Promotions, BUSM - CV Bootcamp Kitt Shaffer, MD Ph. D Chair, FAP Committee Boston University School of Medicine
• Promotion process • Letters of Recommendation • Bibliography • Historic data
1 -Process • administration: Trang Tran Manager of Faculty Actions 617 -638 -5301 ttran 16@bu. edu Committee meets monthly throughout the year
Committee • Chair, Kitt Shaffer MD Ph. D FACR, Professor Radiology • Vice-Chair, Harold Lazar MD, Professor Surgery • • • Karen Antman MD, Provost and Dean Christopher Akey Ph. D, Professor Physiol/Biophysics Susan Fisher Ph. D, Professor of Microbiology James Feldman MD, Professor Emergency Medicine Elizabeth Barnett MD, Professor Pediatrics Amelia Benjamin MD, Professor Cardiovascular Medicine Robert Stern Ph. D, Professor Neurology Jennifer Vasterling Ph. D, Professor Psychiatry (VA) Mieke Verfaellie Ph. D, Professor Psychiatry (VA, Alternate)
Committee process • A committee member is assigned to provide detailed review of each Associate and Professor candidate—lead a discussion during committee meetings • Vote is held and recorded • Chair reviews ALL applicants at all levels – most Assistant and Instructor applications are voted on as a group
Change in review process • since 1/1/12, after FAP vote, all unmodified Associate and Professor applicants are sent to President Brown for final review – Since this additional step, only 4 have been rejected and all have ultimately been approved after modifications of CV or new letters
Commonest causes for rejection • Insufficient publications • Insufficient evidence of national (Associate) or international (Professor) reputation • Problems with letters
What happens after rejection? • Chair sends a detailed email with specifics of what was felt to be deficient, and what could be done to improve • Meetings can be set up with faculty to go over their CV in detail and plan future actions • Meetings can also be set up with department chairs to address more general issues
2 -Letters • need to be demonstrably unbiased • “arm’s length” • letters should NOT read like a job recommendation (know them well, enjoy working with them, etc)
examples • “While I know very well of Dr. X's work, she and I have not published together in the past. She did recently contribute a chapter to a book I am co-editing, as did many other leaders in the field. ”
examples • “I have known Dr. XX since 2003. I have continued to have an enjoyable and productive collaboration with her since that time. ”
examples • “We do not have an ongoing collaborative relationship although we worked together during her fellowship. My area of specialty puts me in a good position to evaluate Dr. XX's record as our interests overlap significantly. ”
examples • “Dr. XX had superb training prior to joining our lab. She collaborated on XXXX projects with great success. She is a wonderful person. I know her well and can comment on her personal qualities in some detail. ”
examples • “By way of background, I have spoken to Dr. XX only once several years ago at a XX conference. Although I know much of her research quite well, I barely know her and have never collaborated with her. ”
good sources for unbiased letters • Chairs of national committees on which the applicant has served • Editors or section editors of journals for which the applicant has done reviewing • Chairs of review boards or study sections on which the applicant has served • Organizers of conferences at which the applicant has spoken
too much at ‘arm’s length’ • soliciting letters from people who know nothing about the applicant or their work • soliciting letters from very highly regarded leaders who may be too busy to write a long or detailed letter • may end up with luke-warm letters
example • “I believe he has proven to be a successful academic faculty member. ” • “If she were put up for promotion to XX at our institution, I believe she would be looked on favorably” • “Among her peers, she is regarded as collegial… In short, Dr. XX has proven herself to be a reliable colleague and has used her time to mentor others”
special difficulties with letters • small pool of people in highly specialized fields • applicant is participant in large multicenter grants with most of the leaders of the field
Reputation • letters need to EMPHASIZE concrete evidence of extent of reputation – national, for Associate Professor – international (or extensive national leadership), for Professor • simply a rehash of CV, or detailed descriptions of research outcomes are insufficient
inside vs outside letters • for Instructor or Assistant, 3 total, can be either inside or outside • NEW for Associate and Professor— – 6 total, ALL from outside –the only inside letter is the Chair’s letter!
3 -Bibliography • publications need to be in the right categories – esp. Original Peer-reviewed Publications
things that do NOT belong in this section • • editorials abstracts chapters reviews
other things that do NOT belong • papers that are submitted, not yet accepted • papers that are in progress • papers that do not yet exist
be sure each citation is COMPLETE • publication date • volume and page numbers • complete listing of authors – BOLDFACE the applicant’s name in each citation
publications should be current • expectation is for CONTINUED productivity • committee looks in particular for RECENT publications • trend should include publications in the past 1 -3 years • sufficient publications should be evident SINCE LAST promotion (for promotion as opposed to initial appointments)
authorship • if co-first-author, indicate with * and explanation • expectation is for a SHIFT from Assistant to Associate from first to last author • from Associate to Professor, some continued first-authorship but mostly LAST author
publication impact • particularly if numbers of publications are LOW – consider indicating particular honors or impact – again, use * to show articles that were selected for cover of journal, given awards, or have particularly high impact factor
what about non-traditional work? • mostly for EDUCATORS • if primarily written curricula, – make a separate section for this, with complete listings and any numeric data (number of sites using, number of total students, etc) • if primarily websites, – make a separate section for this, again with any numeric data (online hits, sites using, feedback)
4 type Historic Initial data level Professor 8 5 11 9 Associate 6 11 28 14 Assistant 63 87 139 90 Instructor 59 63 230 71 136 166 *408 184 Professor 10 8 21 12 Associate 15 14 26 20 Assistant 31 23 23 20 Instructor 0 1 0 0 TOTAL 56 46 *70 52 Tabled 4 6 8 7 Denied 16 (7%) 8 (3%) 5 (1%) 5 (2%) Approved 222 212 471 231 TOTAL 242 226 *484 236 TOTAL Promotion since late 2010 AY 2013 AY 2012 AY 2011 AY 2010
details, Assistant total number avg publications avg presentations avg grants time at rank promotions initial appointments denied 28 101 1 8 8 1 (none since 6 (3 national) 9 (5 national) 1 national 1 1 0 4 years - 2 coming to BMC)
details, Associate promotions initial appointments denied total number 18 9 13 avg publications 23 34 13 20 (8 national) 20 (9 national) 29 (9 national) 7 8 5 6 years - 5 years avg presentations avg grants time at rank
details, Professor promotions initial appointments denied total number 13 4 3 avg publications 55 70 22 73 (33 national) 57 (35 national) 70 (21 national) 16 21 <1 9 years - 5 years avg presentations avg grants time at rank
questions?
- Slides: 33