Overview of Faculty Promotions, BUSM - CV Bootcamp Kitt Shaffer, MD PhD 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 Committee meets monthly throughout the year

Committee Chair, Kitt Shaffer MD PhD FACR, Professor Radiology Vice-Chair, Harold Lazar MD, Professor Surgery Karen Antman MD, Provost and Dean Christopher Akey PhD, Professor Physiol/Biophysics Susan Fisher PhD, Professor of Microbiology James Feldman MD, Professor Emergency Medicine Elizabeth Barnett MD, Professor Pediatrics Amelia Benjamin MD, Professor Cardiovascular Medicine Robert Stern PhD, Professor Neurology Jennifer Vasterling PhD, Professor Psychiatry (VA) Mieke Verfaellie PhD, 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 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 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- Historic data since late 2010 typelevelAY 2013AY 2012AY 2011 AY 2010 InitialProfessor Associate Assistant Instructor TOTAL * Promotion Professor Associate Assistant Instructor TOTAL 56 46*70 52 Tabled Denied 16 (7%) 8 (3%)5 (1%) 5 (2%) Approved TOTAL *

details, Assistant promotionsinitial appointments denied total number avg publications 881 ( none since coming to BMC ) avg presentations 6 (3 national)9 (5 national)1 national avg grants 110 time at rank 4 years-2

details, Associate promotionsinitial appointments denied total number avg publications avg presentations 20 (8 national) 20 (9 national)29 (9 national) avg grants 785 time at rank 6 years-5 years

details, Professor promotionsinitial appointments denied total number 1343 avg publications avg presentations 73 (33 national) 57 (35 national) 70 (21 national) avg grants 1621<1 time at rank 9 years-5 years

questions?