ORU Director’s Letter Template
______
January 16, 2015
TO: Sandra Brown
Vice Chancellor for Research
FROM: Brad Pitt, PhD
Director of XXXX
RE: (Action Requested Normal Merit and Reappointment (or Promotion to, or No Change as, etc)) for XXXXXX Jones, Ph.D.
The Center for XXXX recommends the Reappointment and Normal Merit of Fred JONES, PhD, to Assistant Project Scientist, Step III, salaried at $XX,XXX, (07/01/15 B/E/E salary scale; fiscal year; 0-50% variable effort), effective with a mid-year start date of July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2017. (For new appointments or CIS appointments only: A Waiver of Open Recruitment (W-xxxx was submitted and approved for this appointment.)
Reminders:
From “Where CAP Stood 12-13”:
- If the director is an appointee's mentor, co-author, or collaborator, he or she should be recused from preparing the file.
- Appointees' mentors, co-authors, or collaborators should not chair unit committees. However, they may serve as committee members if their expertise is needed. The unit recommendation letter should explain why they were asked to serve.
- Conflicts of interest should be noted in the file. Any faculty member or director who has a financial or management interest in a company providing support for either an appointee's research or an appointee's salary should avoid contributing to the file. If such a faculty member or director does contribute to the file, his or her relationship to the company and the appointee should be detailed in the unit recommendation letter.
- No academic appointee may participate in any academic review affecting a near relative. (For the definition of "near relative," refer to APM 520. Appointment of Near Relative.) If an academic appointee would have participated in the review if the reviewee were not a near relative, the unit recommendation letter should state that the academic appointee did not participate in the review.
Presenting the departmental recommendation
The departmental letter is one of the most useful parts of an academic file. This letter presents the departmental recommendation, summarizing faculty discussions, and puts the remainder of the file in a context that helps reviewers evaluate the entire file. The best departmental letters say just enough to allow the committee to understand the scope, significance, and impact of the research, the quantity and quality of the teaching, and the extent of service. Letters that are cursory or too long become less useful. Letters should be written for a general audience. Finally, and importantly, letters should provide an objective appraisal of the file.
‘Spin’
While it is natural for chairs to want to advocate for their faculty, the most effective letters are evaluative. Letters that are free of ‘spin’ are the ones with the most force. Most files have potential liabilities and CAP notices them (all committee members read all files). If a departmental letter fails to address these or if the discussion of problematic aspects feels dismissive or disingenuous, the letter ceases to be as effective as it should be. CAP then interprets the file material without the benefit of a reliable departmental context.
Lack of expectations
It is incumbent on the department to make clear what the expectations are for the proposed action. How much research and in what kinds of venues? How much teaching and with what level of evaluation? How much service? Once the expectations are clear, the department can proceed to honestly evaluate the file against these yardsticks. A lack of these measures might result in files being returned for additional information or may result in CAP applying standards that may not be accurate (potentially leading to an unwelcome recommendation and preliminary decision, and an angry request for reconsideration).
Lack of criteria for normal advancement
In a related note, we return to the issue of acceleration, as CAP requested additional information in a large number of cases in 2012–13. The same section of the PPM quoted above notes that “The degree of achievement required for acceleration is greater than that expected for normal advancement” and that “A departmental recommendation letter proposing accelerated advancement must include a statement describing the department standards for a normal advancement to the same rank and step.” CAP Common Law interprets “greater than expected” as roughly twice the research productivity that would be typical for a normal merit (note that CAP Common Law almost always requires that the greater achievement be in the area of research).2 Thus, the department needs to make clear what is typical for a normal merit and how the file exceeds this by a factor of two.
Lest one jump to the conclusion that CAP is only interested in ‘bean counting’, the above should be qualified with two important caveats. First, CAP is not expecting a single, one- size-fits-all standard for each department. Clearly there can be different standards for different sub-fields; hence, any metric needs to be relativized to the candidate’s discipline. Note, however, this does not mean relativizing the metric to the candidate’s last review period – the standard should be independent of any particular candidate. Secondly, it is possible for quality to trump quantity. The University expects excellence in the area of research, so a large number of minor publications should not be the basis of acceleration. Conversely, a smaller number of high-quality publications may be. It is up to the chair to make the case, based on evidence in the file for quality of venue, impact, significance, and the like (prestigious awards may be another factor). While the Common Law rule is a rule of thumb, the departmental argument should be appropriately nuanced.
Many departmental recommendation letters neglected to provide standards in acceleration files – these were usually sent back for additional information. Departments were often reluctant to provide standards, even after such a request. Sometimes the reason was that there was no single standard, but again, standards can be relativized to the candidate’s area. The Task Force on Faculty Rewards recommended that each department prepare a single document that CAP would keep on file. This may be difficult to do, due to the nuanced nature of these standards. However, CAP would like to see the case made for each file as part of putting the candidate’s work in context.
1. Biography (include ONLY for New Appointments, Promotions and Career Review Actions - not used for Merit files)
Dr. Jones attended Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, where he received his BS degree in Engineering (2002), his MS degree in Bioengineering (2004) as well as a PhD (June 2009) in Bioengineering. Since August 2009, Dr. Jones has been a postdoctoral fellow in the UCSD Department of Bioengineering in the Brain Engineering Center, under the joint mentorship of Drs. Gabe Starshine and William Freeburger. He was the first person in the world to discover brainwaves (2011). He was appointed to my laboratory as an Assistant Project Scientist, Step I, at ORU XXXXX on July 1, 2013. Dr. Jones’ salary is currently, and will continue to be, funded by Department of XXXXXX grants.
2. B/E/E Salary Scale Justification (if the candidate does not already have an Engineering degree – please refer to the B/E/E Matrix)
Research - Dr. XXXXX has a PhD in physics. He has outstanding technical abilities in his role in Dr. YYYYY’s lab which involves finding engineering solutions to signal processing problems. His work on new virtual reality systems couples with his interest in brain disorders of movement positions his to develop new approaches to rehabilitation of such newromorotr disorders. Dr. XXX is associated with Dr. YYYY’s Institute for …..and his group is also working closely with several faculty in the UCSD Bioengineering department.
Funding - Dr. XXXXXX is a valuable member of a project in a newly funded NSF Engineering grant titled “……………………………….” on which Dr. XXXX is listed as a Co-PI. Dr. XXXX’s expertise and participation is critical to the ongoing efforts of this project.
Publications - During the past year, Dr. XXX has published in Physical Review E and IEEE Biocas Proceedings, and has submitted papers that are under consideration in the Proceedings if the National Academy of Sciences. These are high-impact journals relevant to Bioengineering.
For all of the preceding reasons, we feel Dr. XXX should be under the auspices of Engineering.
3. Committee Review
ORU’s Committee reviewed Dr. Jones’ file and unanimously voted (4-0) in favor of the proposed action as well as the 4th-year appraisal with a “Favorable” (4-0) rating. The committee was comprised of 3 full Research Scientists and 1 Associate Research Scientist. I fully concur with the Committee’s recommendation of the proposed action. Dr. Jones’ accomplishments are impressive for a scientist at this stage of career. I also agree with the recommendation that Dr. Jones should strengthen university service.
4. Mentor Paragraph – for NEW “Assistant” level appointments only
It is a new requirement to provide central review offices with an outline and description of who the mentor will be and the mentors role
Dr. xxxxx will be mentored by Prof. (or other title) xxxx xxxxx, who is a senior researcher and/or faculty member in the xxxx ORU. As his mentor, Prof. (or other title) xxxxx will provide him/her informal advice on aspects of expected research, publications, funding and/or committee/service work and/or direct him to another resource. In helping Dr. xxxxx adjust to and learn about UC San Diego and the ORU Unit expectations, Prof. (or other title) xxxx will help him/her identify key individuals for different tasks, find key funding opportunities, resolve problems and learn key policies and procedures, and determine priorities for him/her as a new research member. Prof. xxxx (or other title) will provide invaluable support in this role particularly as Dr. xxxxx prepares for future promotion processes. In that regard, Prof. xxxx (along with the Unit Director) can explain the evaluation process and expectations for the Assistant Research Scientist level and beyond.
5. Conventions in the “field”
It is a new requirement to provide central review offices with an outline and description of what the conventions are in the pertinent field of the candidate regarding publications, roles, author order, funding conventions, collaborative vs. independent environments, etc.
6. Conventions in the “Unit”
It is a new requirement to provide central review offices with an outline and description of what the conventions are within the candidate’s Unit regarding expectations for publications, roles, author order, funding conventions, collaborative vs. independent environments, etc., for the different types of proposed actions. I.e., what does a “normal merit” looks like vs. and “Acceleration”?
7. Research and Roles (Description, roles and impact of research work in this review period)
Dr. IQ has done exceptionally well this review period. He has led the modeling effort …..and has focused on three topics; i) ………, ii) ………….. and iii) ………… He for the first time discovered ………….which is extremely challenging. In these simulations, he found that ……………………. This is an extremely important finding for …….. and he has contributed significantly to the understanding of ………………….. My group plans to perform the first experiment using ……………………based on these novel modeling predictions. The …………for this experiment was obtained through a highly competitive international process. The potential of this modeling work was recognized by the ……………………….and they have awarded him a grant to test his idea on world’s highest energy short pulse laser……….. at the Laboratory for …………………..
Project and Research Scientist Series: The statement should begin with a broad, yet BRIEF overview of the research problems, so that non-specialists can appreciate the significance of the work. In this context, provide a description of the research goals, and the applicability of this work to broader areas of the Research Unit.
Describe specific research accomplishments over the review period. Annotate each area/description of research results with the appropriate references from the UCSD Bio-Bibl publication list citation #. Indicate where the field was before the work was published and how the work changed the previous understanding of the problem being investigated. Place the work in the context of work in the field in general, and explain the specific significance of the studies and how they have advanced the field, including International Impact and Significance. Detail research from individual papers that are particularly noteworthy.
If initiated a new research direction and have made significant progress, please highlight these studies. Be enthusiastic about especially exciting findings. If the advancements in the lab have established new paradigms or have changed the direction of ideas in a field. On the other hand, be evaluative. Put the work and findings into perspective. Explain the specific role in all collaborative and coauthored works when not first or senior author.
Associate and Full Research Scientists: required
· At the Associate Research Scientist level in the “Professor equivalent” series, independence of research and funding are key. Please pay particular attention to highlighting this idea as much as possible within these as well as the other sections.
· The Research Statement should be pointed and factual and display the novel accomplishments, the independence, the contributions and detail the role as related to the “intellectual force” contribute/d to the research and publications. At this level, should be separate from a mentor. Explain the former mentor situation and the transition of the work.
· Explain the specific role in all collaborative and coauthored works when not first or senior author, or those pubs which still include the former mentor.
From “Where CAP Stood 12-13”:
Research independence
An important criterion for promotion to the Associate Research rank is evidence of research independence. CAP often sees files at the Assistant rank (both at the fourth-year appraisal and at promotion) that fall short in this area; this is particularly true in laboratory fields. Evidence for independence can come from first-, but particularly senior-authored publications independent of former mentors, independent grant support, and leading a laboratory. Problems may arise in cases where post-doctoral researchers or project scientists are proposed for appointment to the Adjunct Professor or Research Scientist series. In some cases, they later fail to establish independence from their former mentors, continuing to work in their mentors’ laboratories, and continue to publish with their mentors. This appears to be an issue for both mentor and mentee, but mentors, in particular, need to be aware that the mentees’ careers are on the line. There has been a good deal of discussion of whether independence is possible if the mentor remains on the candidate’s publications (e.g., as a middle-author) – this depends – it is easier and cleaner if the candidate publishes without the mentor, but failing this, there needs to be independent evidence in the file that shows the candidate is leading the science.