1. Promotion to Associate Professor in the MCL
Linda M. Boxer, Vice Dean
Cheryl Gore-Felton, OAA Associate Dean
Jim Brooks, OAA Associate Dean

2. Outline of Topics Regional reputation Proportionality of contributions
Summary of criteria
Timing of promotion consideration
Preparation for the promotion review
Outline of promotion process
Office of Academic Affairs resources

3. MCL Associate Professor
Promotion to Associate Professor is for a 5-year term, and there is no limit to the number of 5-year terms as Associate Professor
Must demonstrate excellence in the overall mix of contributions in clinical care, teaching, and scholarship
A regional reputation is required

4. Regional Reputation
Activities that contribute to a regional reputation:
Scholarly publications and presentations at regional and national meetings
Membership on editorial boards
Service on regional or national committees or study sections
Leadership or other participation in leading scientific or clinical societies in the field
Invited lectureships and visiting professorships

5. Establishing the Proportionality of Contributions
The allocation of an MCL faculty member’s time is determined by the strategic and programmatic needs of the department
The proportionality of contributions is determined at the time of appointment and is confirmed in the offer letter
All MCL faculty should have a minimum of 20% FTE for scholarship
The proportionality of contributions should be discussed at each annual counseling meeting with the chair or chief

6. Establishing the Proportionality of Contributions-2
The proportionality should be documented in the annual counseling form
If the proportionality of contributions changes, the changes should be included in written documentation
Evaluation for reappointment and promotion should take into account the proportionality of contributions in each year of the term

7. Proportionality of Contributions
Often the majority of time is spent in clinical care and teaching
In some cases, the highest percentage of effort is devoted to scholarly activities (often with peer-reviewed funding)
Need to establish and maintain excellence in the area in which the highest proportion of time and effort is dedicated

8. Applying the Criteria Evaluation should be of total performance
Taking into consideration the proportionality of contributions in each year of the current appointment, appropriate weight should be given to the quality and quantity of work in each mission area
Documentation that explicitly and tangibly supports both the quality of performance and the quantity of contributions is required

9. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Scholarship
Written scholarship that advances the field is expected
Contributions are usually made through first or senior authorship or may be through other substantive contributions to multi-author works
External referees are key to documenting regional reputation and impact in the field

10. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Scholarship-2
In most cases, scholarly activities will flow naturally from the clinical responsibilities, and usually the scholarly activities will complement the clinical activities
Research may be in any appropriate area such as basic science, clinical trials, clinical or translational research or health policy research
The field of research may be more narrowly defined than for the UTL

11. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Scholarship-3
Factors considered in assessing scholarship:
Scholarly activity and productivity
Impact, innovation, and creativity
Recognition in the field and investigative independence
Ability to work effectively as part of a research team
Effective communication with colleagues, staff, and students
Professionalism
Institutional compliance and ethics

12. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Scholarship-4
If a majority of time and effort is dedicated to scholarly activity:
Contributions will be made through first or senior authorship
Investigative independence is expected since it can be a useful marker of substantive scholarly contributions
A record of peer-reviewed external funding is often seen as an indicator of how the work is regarded in the field

13. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Scholarship-5
By the time of the promotion review, the candidate’s fundamental scholarly contributions should be well defined and apparent to reviewers at the departmental, School, and University levels
It is too early to establish the impact on the field of manuscripts in press

14. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Scholarship-6
In some fields, other written works such as books, chapters, reviews, commentaries, development of policies and protocols may be acceptable as long as the contributions are of a nature appropriate to the field, and the impact of the work in advancing medicine or the public health can be established
Referees need to document this too

15. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Clinical
Regardless of FTE breakdown, excellence in clinical care is a requirement for the line
Clinical Excellence Surveys (CES) will assess performance in:
General clinical proficiency
Communication
Professionalism
Systems-based practice

16. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Clinical Proficiency
General clinical proficiency:
Up-to-date knowledge base
Maintains current technical/procedural proficiency
Applies sound diagnostic reasoning and judgment
Applies evidence from relevant scientific studies
Maintains appropriate clinical productivity
Seeks consultation where appropriate
Demonstrates reliability in meeting clinical commitments

17. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Communication
Communicates effectively with patients and their families, physician peers, trainees, and other members of the health care team
Maintains appropriate medical documentation

18. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Professionalism
Treats patients with compassion and respect
Serves as patient advocate
Shows sensitivity to cultural issues
Treats physician peers, trainees, and other members of the health care team with respect
Is available to colleagues
Responds in a timely manner
Respects patient confidentiality

19. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Systems-Based Practice
Effectively coordinates patient care within the health care system
Appropriately considers cost of care in medical decision-making
Participates in quality improvement activities
Demonstrates leadership in clinical program development and administration

20. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Teaching
Factors considered in assessing teaching:
Knowledge of the material
Clarity of exposition
Positive style of interaction with students
Availability and professionalism
Institutional compliance and ethics
Effective communication skills
Helpfulness in learning
Ability to work effectively as part of teaching team

21. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Teaching-2
Most clinicians teach in small group sessions or with individual trainees
Some develop or participate in formal didactic courses
Teaching may be of undergraduates, medical students, residents, clinical and postdoctoral fellows, ancillary staff, and in CME

22. Criteria MCL Associate Professor-Service
Service is also relevant for promotion but this is not a primary criterion
A major commitment to service activities detracts from the time available for the primary areas of scholarship, teaching, clinical care, and Assistant Professors are discouraged from significant administrative commitments

23. Respectful Workplace
Faculty members are expected to treat all members of the Stanford community with civility, respect and courtesy
Application of the criteria for evaluating the quality of scholarship, teaching and clinical care include specific expectations regarding a faculty member’s professional behavior in the workplace and are an important factor in appointment, reappointment and promotion

24. Duration of Appointments
MCL Assistant Professors are appointed for a first term of 4 years
Term appointments are frequently made with the clear possibility of reappointment or promotion, but there is no entitlement to such action at the end of term, and it is not automatic
Following a successful reappointment, the second term as Assistant Professor is generally for 6 years

25. Timing of the Promotion Review
MCL Assistant Professors may spend a total of 10 years in rank before being reviewed for promotion to Associate Professor
Promotion reviews are typically launched one year in advance of the appointment end date and take ~9 months to complete
Promotions may be initiated at any time when there is unequivocal evidence that the quality of the contributions meets the criteria for the higher rank

26. Timing of the Promotion Review-2
There is a mandatory counseling meeting at the seventh year in rank to assess progress toward promotion
Materials for promotion review should reflect a record of actual accomplishment in satisfaction of the promotion criteria rather than work in the pipeline (speaks more to promise)

27. Timing of the Promotion Review-3
There is a range of time that Assistant Professors spend in rank before promotion
Many are considered for promotion in the seventh year after the mandatory counseling session to assess readiness for promotion
Many others are promoted in the eighth and ninth years

28. Extensions to Appointment Term
New Parent Extensions are generally automatically approved by the Provost if the faculty member is eligible
Other special circumstances to extend the term are rare, but have been granted by the Provost
MCL Assistant Professors are ineligible for any extensions to their appointment that would take the total appointment time beyond 10 years in rank so extensions are only to the first term (prior to reappointment)

29. Importance of Annual Counseling
Please make certain that progress toward promotion and timing is discussed during every annual counseling meeting with your chair or chief
If there are specific questions about your situation, we in OAA are happy to discuss with you and/or with your chair or chief
The feedback and counseling that was obtained at the time of reappointment is very important and should be followed

30. Changes in Faculty Line
Line changes are rarely done
They are intended to allow appropriate evaluation of a faculty member whose programmatic contributions have drifted to better fit the intent of another line
This requires a new appointment that is initiated either with a national search or approval of a search waiver request by the Provost

31. Changes in Faculty Line-2
This is not a safety mechanism for a failed promotion bid
It is not to be pursued during the final year of appointment
A faculty member’s programmatic fit in the MCL should be actively considered each year during the annual counseling

32. Preparation for the Promotion Review
Faculty have the responsibility for designing and pursuing a schedule of scholarship that results in publication in advance of the review
It is best to have developed a defined area of scholarly emphasis for which you are known prior to the initiation of promotion
Independence from your mentor should be established

33. Scholarly Contributions
Scholarly contributions and impact on the field should be well defined and apparent to reviewers at the time of the promotion review
Ways to assess this prior to the review:
Feedback from counseling meetings and reappointment review
Feedback from mentors
Extent to which work is known to leaders in the field who are not mentors or collaborators

34. Team Science
With the increasing prevalence of collaborative team science, it is understood that there are many ways for a faculty member to be recognized for individual substantive contributions to multi-author works
These may include the conception and design; acquisition of data; analysis and interpretation of data; drafting of the manuscript; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content; statistical analysis; obtaining funding; administrative, technical or material support; or supervision

35. Team Science-2
Evidence accumulated should provide information regarding the nature of the faculty member’s substantive contributions to multi-author works, as well as the impact that the publications have had in advancing medicine
Annotation of the CV and description of role in the Candidate’s Statement will help to demonstrate the role of the faculty member in collaborative projects

36. Metrics to Assess Impact
First and senior-authored publications in high quality journals
Peer-reviewed funding helps to assess the ability of the faculty member to carry out an excellent program of scholarly activity
Invited presentations outside of the local area
Visiting professorships
Regional and national service leadership roles

37. Developing Excellence in Clinical Care
Need sufficient FTE devoted to clinical care to establish clinical excellence
Feedback on clinical skills from CES at time of reappointment and review of MedHub evaluations
Seek feedback from senior colleagues in your specialty

38. Developing a Record of Excellence in Teaching
Didactic lectures with evaluations for every course and lecture; if reviews are not strong, seek guidance from the Teaching and Mentoring Academy, your mentor, or the Center for Teaching and Learning
Investigative mentorship—positive letters from trainees will be needed
Clinical teaching—MedHub evaluations should be excellent; review these each year

39. Additional Preparation
Mission areas that show room for improvement should receive appropriate attention during annual counseling meetings and through the counseling memo that accompanied the reappointment process
Talk to mentors and senior colleagues who have recently been promoted to learn more about the requirements

40. Review Process
You provide your updated CV (with middle author publications annotated to define your role in the research) and Candidate’s Statement
Candidate’s Statement is limited to 3 pages; discuss recent achievements in all mission areas and include near-term and longer-range plans
You may suggest up to 3 referees

41. Review Process-2
You provide a list of your current and former research trainees and some of your clinical trainees (you do not select which ones will write letters)
Evaluations will be collected on teaching, broadly defined (formal lectures, mentoring, clinical), and clinical activities
The counseling memo is provided after the review

42. Review Process-3
Clinical Excellence Surveys (CES) are requested from physicians, trainees, allied health care providers and administrators
MedHub evaluations are collected
Letter requirements:
5 to 8 external referee letters (at peer institutions, most are independent, not collaborators or mentors, must be Associate Professors or full Professors)
3 to 5 internal referee letters
3 to 5 (minimum) trainee letters (all research trainees, selection of current and former clinical)

43. Review Committees
The long form is not reviewed by the University Advisory Board
Review process:
Departmental committee
Departmental faculty or A&P committee
Department Chair
School of Medicine A&P committee
Vice Dean and Dean
Provost
President

44. Resources on OAA Website
Reappointment and Promotion Overview
SoM Faculty Handbook
University Faculty Handbook

45. Questions
Questions or discussion?