Clinical Educator Track University of Miami Miller School of Medicine 1

Clinical Educator Track: Selected for full-time faculty whose primary professional activities are teaching and clinical service. However, a tangible contribution to academic scholarship is expected. 2

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) 3

What is the process? 4 Faculty member asks to be considered 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 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 Academic Personnel Board (APB) Reviews and Votes Provost Reviews Recommendations, makes Final Decisions University Board of Trustees Reviews and Makes Final Decisions on Tenure Individual/Department Miller School of Medicine University

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. 5

Promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor: Contributions toward advancement of clinical knowledge through scholarly endeavors (i.e. published reviews, reports of innovative treatment, case reports, outcome studies and authorship of reports by major commissions or committees on health-care issues) Evidence of significant contributions in more than one area of academic life and a tangible contribution on the other: clinical and/or administrative service, teaching, clinical research Local, regional and/or state recognition in the candidate’s field 6

Promotion from Associate Professor to Professor: Continued contributions toward advancement of clinical knowledge through scholarly endeavors (i.e. published reviews, reports of innovative treatment, case reports, outcome studies and authorship of reports by major commissions or committees on health-care issues) Evidence of continued significant contributions in more than one area of academic life and a tangible contribution on the other: clinical and/or administrative service, teaching, clinical research National recognition in the candidate’s field Scholarly clinical publications 7

Who Votes for What? 8 TENURE TRACK TENURE-EARNINGTENURERESEARCHCLINICAL EDUCATOR ACTIONTO/OF ASST PROF ASSOC PROF PROF ASST PROF ASSOC PROFPROF ASST PROF ASSOC PROFPROF Initial/ConsultativeTenure-earning Asst Profxxxx Tenure-earning Assoc Profxxxx Award of Tenure Assoc Profxxxx Award of Tenure Profxxxx Research Asst Profxxxx Research Assoc Profxxxx Research Profxxxx Asst Prof of Clinicalxxxx Assoc Prof of Clinicalxxxx Prof of Clinicalxxxx AppointmentTenure-earning Asst Prof xx Tenure-earning Assoc Prof xx Award of Tenure Assoc Prof xx Award of Tenure Prof x Research Asst Prof xx Research Assoc Prof xx Research Prof x Asst Prof of Clinical xx Assoc Prof of Clinical xx Prof of Clinical x

Who Votes for What? 9 TENURE TRACK TENURE-EARNINGTENURERESEARCHCLINICAL EDUCATOR ACTIONTO/OF ASST PROF ASSOC PROF PROF ASST PROF ASSOC PROFPROF ASST PROF ASSOC PROFPROF Reappointment Tenured Assoc Prof making progress toward Promotion to Prof x Tenure-earning Asst Prof xx Tenure-earning Assoc Prof xx Research Asst Prof xxx xx Research Assoc Prof xx x Research Prof x Asst Prof of Clinical xxx xx Assoc Prof of Clinical xx x Prof of Clinical x PromotionAssoc Prof (Tenure Track) xx Prof (Tenure Track) x Research Assoc Prof xxx xx Research Prof x x Assoc Prof of Clinical xxx xx Prof of Clinical x x Award of TenureAssoc Prof xx Prof x

Items Needed for Promotion File 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) 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 10

Getting Started: Seek Advice and Feedback from Others Meet with your chairman or division chief early in the process to gain his/her support and perspective Share materials with a colleague, preferably one who has already successful gone through the process, and who doesn’t know you or your area well to be sure it is clear and interpretable 11

Formatting Your Curriculum Vitae Follow the UM format, but use subcategory headings to organize the material to tell your story Be precise: –Consider using Summaries at beginning of CV Sections to give a snapshot of your work in each section (include categories applicable to your work). For example, for Publications: Number of Peer-reviewed publications Number of Book Chapters Number of Books as Author/Editor/Co-Editor Number of Non-Peer-reviewed publications Number First Author /Corresponding Author Publication Number of Team Science publications Total Citations of your work –Number items; specifically your references/publications and clearly organize by type (e.g., peer-reviewed, book chapters, editorials) –Be accurate in your references (committee members will check pub-med); Include PMID if available and applicable –Clearly indicate Corresponding author (e.g. *) and T-Team Science (e.g., T) roles –Make your regional / national (for associate professor) and national / international (for professor) activities, impact and recognition clear Highlight invited national/international presentations, service on editorial boards, participation/leadership of national (professional, NIH) committees and task forces) Be concise: be conscious of committee member reader burden (they have lots to read) Continually update your CV and materials Link to UM Format: 12

Personal Statement/Career Assessment Recommended length: 2-3 pages (2 is preferred) Illustrate progressive advancement and impact: Tell your story, but do so concisely Suggested outline: –Paragraph 1 – Early career and roots in science and teaching –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 13

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. Reviewers should be: –academic leaders who can provide neutral expert opinions on your accomplishments, stature, and potential for future success. –at 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. –neutral to you (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 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. 14

Guidelines for Determining “arm’s length” Reviewers: Reviewer QualificationsDetails 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. 15

General Timeline EventEstimated Date Survey FacultyJanuary 2015 Initial document solicitation for candidatesJanuary/February 2015 Solicitation letters sent outMarch 2015 Responses from letters receivedApril – end of May 2015 Document compilation for each fileApril – end of May 2015 Final receipt of documents from faculty and departmentEnd of May 2015 Departmental APT Committee Voting MeetingsJune – August 2015 Completed files to Faculty AffairsEnd of August 2015 SOM APT Committee File ReviewSeptember – October 2015 SOM APT Committee MeetingEnd of October 2015 Dean’s review of filesNovember 2015 Coral Gables Academic Personnel Board MeetingJanuary – February 2016 Provost Review of filesFebruary – March 2016 Board of Trustees Review of FilesApril – May 2016 Results Announced (effective June 1, 2016)May

Resources/Contacts Mitzi Wilkinson, Director, Faculty Affairs Amanda Mesa, APT Coordinator Faculty Affairs Website – 17