University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Tenure-Earning Track

Tenure-Earning Track: Faculty members who demonstrate excellence in teaching and service and who strive to make significant and original contributions to the body of knowledge in their medical specialties or scientific disciplines.

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)

What is the process? Individual/Department Miller School of Medicine 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 Faculty member asks to be considered Miller School of Medicine 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 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

Evaluation of Merit: A key is whether there has been significant and continuing growth, productivity and excellence in the activities relevant to the candidate’s track during the candidate’s time at his/her present rank.

Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor: Must have attained national recognition Evidence of scholarship supported by publications or similar communications in at least one focus area Teaching: evidence of having developed and/or conducted teaching programs (classroom teaching, graduate-student teaching, clinical teaching) Research: evidence of major involvement in a research program that is of high quality and significance and is extramurally funded Clinical Activity: evidence of performing clinical responsibilities Professional Service: evidence of service to Department, School, hospital or University

Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor and Award of Tenure: Must have attained widespread recognition Continued evidence of scholarship supported by publications or similar communications in at least one focus area Teaching: continued evidence of having developed and/or conducted teaching programs (classroom teaching, graduate-student teaching, clinical teaching) Research: evidence of major involvement in a research program that is of high quality and significance and is extramurally funded Clinical Activity: evidence of performing clinical responsibilities Professional Service: evidence of service to Department, School, hospital or University

Mandatory Tenure Review Timeline for Tenure Year Event Comments Year 1 Yearly Review Year 2 Year 3 Mid-Point Review Midpoint assesses progress towards tenure and occurs in the Fall of the third year. If not making progress, recommendation for terminal notice is made; if renewal, receive 3-year extension of appointment Year 4 Terminal Year If not making progress, this is terminal year Year 5 Mandatory Review Mandatory Promotion Review occurs in the Fall of the fifth year. Assistant Professor must be promoted to Associate Professor to receive 2-year extension of appointment. Associate Professor is assessed for progress towards tenure. Promotion is effective June 1st of the sixth year. Year 6 If Associate Professor is not making progress toward tenure or if Assistant Professor is not promoted, this is terminal year. Year 7 Mandatory Tenure Review Mandatory Tenure Review occurs in the Fall of the seventh year. If tenure is awarded, it is effective June 1st of the eighth year. Year 8 Tenure Awarded If tenure is denied, this is terminal year

Voting Procedures All mid-point reviews require one vote All promotions require one vote All award of tenure reviews require one vote Instances where a promotion and request for tenure are being considered at the same time, there are two votes taken: one for promotion and one for tenure

Who Votes for What? TENURE TRACK TENURE-EARNING TENURE RESEARCH   TENURE TRACK TENURE-EARNING TENURE RESEARCH CLINICAL EDUCATOR ACTION TO/OF ASST PROF ASSOC PROF PROF Initial/Consultative Tenure-earning Asst Prof x Tenure-earning Assoc Prof Award of Tenure Assoc Prof Award of Tenure Prof Research Asst Prof Research Assoc Prof Research Prof Asst Prof of Clinical Assoc Prof of Clinical Prof of Clinical Appointment

Who Votes for What? TENURE TRACK TENURE-EARNING TENURE RESEARCH   TENURE TRACK TENURE-EARNING TENURE RESEARCH CLINICAL EDUCATOR ACTION TO/OF ASST PROF ASSOC PROF PROF Reappointment Tenured Assoc Prof making progress toward Promotion to Prof x Tenure-earning Asst Prof Tenure-earning Assoc Prof Research Asst Prof Research Assoc Prof Research Prof Asst Prof of Clinical Assoc Prof of Clinical Prof of Clinical Promotion Assoc Prof (Tenure Track) Prof (Tenure Track) Award of Tenure Assoc Prof Prof

Clock Dates for Tenure Review Hire Date Mid-Point Review (3rd year) Terminal Year (4th Year) Mandatory Review (5th Year) Promotion Effective (6th Year) (7th year) Tenure Review (8th year) Tenure Effective (9th year) (10th year) 2008 Jan 2011 May 2012 Fall 2013 June 2014 May 2015 Fall 2015 June 2016 May 2017 2009 Jan 2012 May 2013 Fall 2014 June 2015 May 2016 Fall 2016 June 2017 May 2018 2010 Jan 2013 May 2014 Fall 2017 June 2018 May 2019 2011 Jan 2014 Fall 2018 June 2019 May 2020 2012 Jan 2015 Fall 2019 June 2020 May 2021 2013 Jan 2016 Fall 2020 June 2021 May 2022 2014 Jan 2017 Fall 2021 June 2022 May 2023 2015 Jan 2018 Fall 2022 June 2023 May 2024

Candidate file to include the following: Third Year Mid-Point Reviews (effective June 1st of fourth year) Purpose is to assess progress towards tenure. Candidate file to include the following: The faculty member is responsible for: Candidate’s Personal Statement/Career Assessment (2 pages) Candidate’s current CV in Standard UM Format Minimum of five external review letters (arm’s length) Letters of acceptance for ‘in-press’ articles (as applicable) Three publications (within last 5-7 years) Educator Portfolio (optional) http://edo.med.miami.edu/the-educators-portfolio The Department is responsible for: DF-15 form (completed by department) Chairman Recommendation Memo Summary of Departmental APT Committee Vote Teaching Evaluation (s) Scholarly Material Review Certification

Candidate file to include the following: Fifth Year Mandatory (Promotion) Review (effective June 1st of sixth year) Assistant Professors must be promoted to Associate Professors in order to receive 2-year extension of appointment. Those already at Associate Professor rank are assessed for progress towards tenure. Candidate file to include the following: The faculty member is responsible for: Candidate’s Personal Statement/Career Assessment (2 pages) Candidate’s current CV in Standard UM Format Minimum of five external review letters (arm’s length) Letters of acceptance for ‘in-press’ articles (as applicable) Three publications (within last 5-7 years) Educator Portfolio (optional) http://edo.med.miami.edu/the-educators-portfolio The Department is responsible for: DF-15 form (completed by department) Chairman Recommendation Memo Summary of Departmental APT Committee Vote Teaching Evaluation (s) Scholarly Material Review Certification

Purpose is to review for and grant award of tenure. Seventh Year Mandatory (Tenure) Review (effective June 1st of eighth year) Purpose is to review for and grant award of tenure. Candidate file to include the following: The faculty member is responsible for: Candidate’s Personal Statement/Career Assessment (2 pages) Candidate’s current CV in Standard UM Format Minimum of five external review letters (arm’s length) Letters of acceptance for ‘in-press’ articles (as applicable) Three publications (within last 5-7 years) Educator Portfolio (optional) http://edo.med.miami.edu/the-educators-portfolio The Department is responsible for: DF-15 form (completed by department) Chairman Recommendation Memo Summary of Departmental APT Committee Vote Teaching Evaluation (s) Scholarly Material Review Certification

Formatting Your Curriculum Vitae Be precise: Number items; specifically your references/publications Follow guidelines for presentation of materials Be accurate in your references (committee members will check pub-med) Quantify first and last author roles Be concise: be conscious of committee member reader burden (they have lots to read) Make your regional / national (for associate professor) and national / international (for professor) activities, impact and recognition clear Continually update your CV and materials Link to UM Format: http://facultyaffairs.med.miami.edu/faculty-development-apt/cv-format

Personal Statement/Career Assessment Recommended length: 2-3 pages (2 is preferred) Illustrate progressive advancement and impact Suggested outline: Paragraph 1 – Early career and roots in academic medicine 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

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. These reviewers should be academic leaders who can provide neutral expert opinions on your accomplishments, stature, and potential for future success. Evaluators should hold 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 core letters. External reviewers should be neutral to you and 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.

Guidelines for Determining “arm’s length” Reviewers: Reviewer Qualifications Details Is this reviewer a current or former mentor/mentee? Former preceptors, thesis advisors, lab directors, or other industry experts that have had a role in your training and development are NOT considered arm’s-length. Former students, and/or post-graduate trainees are NOT considered arm’s-length. Is the reviewer from your former institution and/or region? In general, reviewers should NOT be from your former institution, regardless of professional relationship. Former faculty members, Chairs, Deans and/or colleagues who directly interacted with you in the course of your duties at your former institution(s) are NOT considered arm’s-length. Candidates should NOT list more than one reviewer from the same institution. Is this reviewer a current or former supervisor? Former lab directors, Chairs, Deans that directly supervised your duties and/or training at other institutions are NOT considered arm’s-length. Is this reviewer a close collaborator? If the reviewer has collaborated in a grant, published or been a co-applicant with you, within the last five years, the reviewer is NOT considered arm’s- length. Beyond that five year window, the reviewer may or may not be neutral depending on the nature of the relationship. Is this reviewer a close personal friend or a relative? If the reviewer has maintained a long-standing relationship that has extended beyond professional meetings or occasional communications, the reviewer is NOT considered arm’s-length.

General Timeline Event Estimated Date Survey Faculty January 2015 Initial document solicitation for candidates January/February 2015 Solicitation letters sent out March 2015 Responses from letters received April – end of May 2015 Document compilation for each file Final receipt of documents from faculty and department End of May 2015 Departmental APT Committee Voting Meetings June – August 2015 Completed files to Faculty Affairs End of August 2015 SOM APT Committee File Review September – October 2015 SOM APT Committee Meeting End of October 2015 Dean’s review of files November 2015 Coral Gables Academic Personnel Board Meeting January – February 2016 Provost Review of files February – March 2016 Board of Trustees Review of Files April – May 2016 Results Announced (effective June 1, 2016) May 2016

Mitzi Wilkinson, Director, Faculty Affairs Resources/Contacts Mitzi Wilkinson, Director, Faculty Affairs mwilkinson@med.miami.edu; 305-243-6551 Amanda Mesa, APT Coordinator amesa@med.Miami.edu; 305-243-6551 Faculty Affairs Website www.facultyaffairs.med.miami.edu