IV. The Promotion Package

1. Transmittal Letter from the Department Chair to the Dean. This letter requests the promotion, states the proposed date of promotion, and briefly describes the external reviewers, explaining why they were selected. To help prevent delay in processing, the letter may also point out any unusual features about the promotion - for example, the rationale for an accelerated promotion request or an explanation of an asymmetrical evaluation. It will be helpful to note at the beginning if the individual is fulltime or has reduced effort. The promotion process will be compromised if this letter is missing.

2. Talking Points. A single page commentary by the candidate describing scholarly niche (and type of scholarship), professional expertise, contributions to field, special skills, instructional contributions, national leadership etc. This is a sort of self assessment that may help a chair understand the candidate and that candidate's self image. The chair may wish to include this in the promotion package although the primary intent is to help the chair in the Form B.

3. Three Page Summary (Form B). This is drafted by the departments and should include direct quotes from all of the external evaluators. Soft and general praise is not helpful to senior level candidates - select strong reviewers and pick unequivocal quotes. Since we are now demanding direct quotes from each reviewer, circumstances may require expansion of some Forms B's to four pages. An overall career impact factor may be obtained from the Web of Science-Science Citation Index - and if the chair wishes, this could be included (see above). Please submit both a paper copy and a disk version of the Form B or attach the Form B document to an e-mail and send to Betsy Tieden in the Faculty Affairs Office at btieden@umich.edu. Examples of this document for each track are attached. (Appendix A)

4. CV. The standard Medical School model can be found at
http://www.med.umich.edu/medschool/faculty/cvguidelines.html
(Appendix B)

5. Publications - Recent and significant since last promotion (Five best pieces of scholarship). These are to be selected by the candidate as emblematic of best work and typically are those produced since the previous promotion. For all promotions submit two copies of the reprints.

6. Bibliographic Notes. A single page document that explains for each paper, why the author selected the paper, what unique and seminal contributions might have been made, and exactly what constitutes the author's contribution to the paper (including an explanation of the authorship position). Each paper should be keyed to its place in CV. (Appendix C) The citation survey may be useful to demonstrate impact of some or all of your papers. The number of citation hits can be mentioned if this information is thought to give good evidence of impact. The URL to check on citations is as follows:
http://www.lib.umich.edu/taubman
· Click on Databases by Subject
· Under Medicine click on Science Citation Index (Web of Science)
· "Full Search/Science Citation Index Expanded/All Years/
Cited Ref Search/Author's Name/Lookup"

7. Solicitation Letter (to external reviewers). A new model solicitation letter is attached. (Appendix D) The chair should elicit suggested names of reviewers from candidate but also include other appropriate reviewers in final solicitation list. The letter should stress that we seek a measured, unbiased evaluation. The quality of independent analysis has special implications for a tenure decision. Evaluators will be asked to describe, very specifically, impact in field or seminal contributions in cases of senior level faculty. The evaluators should receive the candidate's CV, the five papers, the bibliographic notes, and our descriptions of faculty tracks & ranks. FOIA considerations need to be mentioned. Several chairs send the external evaluators a note or card of thanks after receiving the evaluations, with a mention of the subsequent length of process and time of outcome. This costs little and garners good will from those asked to study and report on our faculty. One copy of the solicitation letter for external reviewers must accompany promotion packet.
List of External Reviewers. A short statement for each reviewer should include the reviewer's position, fields of expertise, important contributions and standing in the discipline, and appropriateness of that individual to provide an unbiased expert evaluation. Any close professional associations with the candidate such as dissertation committee, post-doc supervisor, co-author, etc. should be disclosed. (Appendix E)

8. External Reviewer Letters. The five primary "arm's-length reviewers" excludes close collaborators, present or former mentors/supervisors, and close personal friends. The reviewers should be individuals in the relevant field who can critique the candidate's work and scholarly contributions. There is little need to exceed the Provost's request for five letters, outside the safety factor of perhaps getting one or two additional letters in case a reviewer fails to meet our deadlines. All letters solicited and received must be included. Original letters of evaluation must accompany promotion packet.

9. Internal Reviewer Letters. Internal reviewers are considered to be any University of Michigan faculty member regardless of school, unit, or department of appointment. Letters from internal reviewers can be helpful because they are presumed to have a good sense of both the candidate and the work. If such letters are included, they will be considered additional to the minimum requirement of five external letters.

10. Teaching Evaluations. It is important to supply the Office of Faculty Affairs with relevant teaching documentation. Some primary unedited data on teaching should be indicated in the promotional packet. Typical examples of acceptable measures of teaching ability include summary sheets of systematic, standardized student surveys. Students may be undergraduates, graduate students, medical students, house officers, fellows, or continuing medical education participants. Be certain to mention the standards used, e.g., "scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being outstanding."
Educator's Portfolio (optional 2002-03). Our Department of Medical Education has created a two to four page Medical School model, which should include teaching activities; documentation of teaching awards or citations; summaries of comments or evaluations for seminars, conferences, lab supervision, etc.; and documentation of research concerning the educational process. (Appendix F) http://www.med.umich.edu/medschool/teaching/

11. Effort Distribution Letter. A short letter or memo should accompany the packet outlining the percentage of time the faculty member spends doing teaching, service, clinical care, and research.

12. Record of Review. (For Instructional Track Promotions Only) Attached is a sample of the Record of Review for promotions. (Appendix G) This form must be submitted for each person formally reviewed for promotion at the department level, whether or not the department is forwarding promotional materials for that person. In other words, if the department seeks external reviewers for a faculty member, this form must be submitted to Faculty Affairs, even if the department decides to defer recommendation for promotion.

Miscellaneous Information. (Appendix H) This contains three documents:
a) Qualifications for appointment and promotion in the several faculties of the University of Michigan; b) Promotion Do's and Don'ts; and c) Ellipsis.

Faculty Promotion Process Chart. (Appendix I)

Instructional/Clinical/Primary Research Tracks - Definition/Ranks/Criteria. (Appendix J)