VI. Appointment Procedures for Professors, Full Time, Without Limit of Time or of Indefinite Duration; Associate Professors, Full Time, Without Limit of Time; Clinical Professors, Academic Part Time, of Unspecified Duration

B. Evaluation Procedure by Investigator or Clinician Teacher Criteria for Professors, Full Time, Without Limit of Time or Of Indefinite Duration

To be used when there is a strong internal candidate already occupying the position, no new opening, and no expectation of making any professorial appointment if the internal candidate is not judged among the best. Not to be used when there is a search for the head of a department.

Differences in initiation of professorial appointments occur between those in the basic/social science departments where Harvard Medical School or Harvard School of Dental Medicine alone bears all institutional responsibility, and those in departments in affiliated institutions where other administrations and boards of trustees are responsible. Therefore, the initial steps in these processes will be described separately.

Basic and Social Science Departments in the Faculty of Medicine

1. Evaluation is initiated.

In basic science departments in the eighth year following appointment as assistant professor, or before, the department decides whether or not to make a case for appointment as professor with tenure.

a. Department head, after consultation with the departmental executive committee and the Dean (if appropriate), informs the Dean's Office of commencement of the process and prepares a letter requesting the initiation of an evaluation. The letter should include the following items:

1) Nature of the job and the criteria by which the individual should be judged with regard to
a) Research needs
b) Teaching needs
c) Administrative responsibilities (if any)

2) Qualifications needed

3) Composition, strengths, and weaknesses of the area and of the department

4) Implication of the appointment for the parent department, related departments, the institution, and the Medical or Dental School

5) Resources available (financial, space, human)

6) Description of the candidate to be evaluated

b. Candidate must provide her/his curriculum vitae and bibliography using the format described in section XV. Included with the curriculum vitae should be a list of all of the candidate's trainees with relevant years of training and current positions noted. In keeping with Faculty of Medicine guidelines, which recommend a maximum number of publications on which appointments should be judged, the appointee, in consultation with the department head, should list on a separate sheet up to ten publications from her/his bibliography, annotated to indicate the significance of each. The candidate's C.V. should be seen as a dossier of the individual's activity; the publications listed should be those considered as having a significant impact on the selected candidate's field.

c. Four letters should be solicited by the department for its own preliminary evaluation of an internal candidate; two letters should be from members of the Faculty of Medicine, two from outside, to assess the national reputation of the candidate (click HERE for sample letter).

2. Preliminary review occurs.

a. Initiating letter, CV, bibliography, and letters of reference are submitted to the Preclinical Council (for proposals from basic science departments), or the Council of Social Science Departments (for proposals from social science departments).

1) Council reviews the proposal with particular consideration of the academic needs, institutional needs, and the job description.
2) Council advises on the appropriateness of search versus evaluation and recommends the relevant action.
3) Council suggests members to serve as chair and as members of the ad hoc evaluation committee.

Clinical Departments in Faculty of Medicine

1. Evaluation is initiated.

a. After discussion with other department members and colleagues at HMS or HSDM and elsewhere, department head informs candidate that formal evaluation process will commence. (Process is formally initiated when candidate has been so informed). Dean's Office is notified of commencement of initial process.

b. Department Head prepares a letter requesting the initiation of an evaluation. The letter should include the following items:

1) Nature of the job and the criteria by which the individual should be judged with regard to

a) Research needs
b) Teaching needs
c) Clinical needs
d) Role in the affiliated institution (if any)
e) Administrative responsibilities (if any)

2) Qualifications needed

3) Composition, strengths, and weaknesses of the area and of the department

4) Implication of the appointment for the parent department, related departments, the institution, and the Medical or Dental School

5) Resources available (financial, space, human)

6) Description of the candidate to be evaluated

c. Candidate must provide her/his curriculum vitae and bibliography using the format described in section XV. Included with the curriculum vitae should be a list of all of the candidate's trainees with relevant years of training and current positions noted. In keeping with Faculty of Medicine guidelines, which recommend a maximum number of publications on which appointments should be judged, the appointee, in consultation with the department head, should list on a separate sheet up to ten publications from her/his bibliography, annotated to indicate the significance of each. The candidate's C.V. should be seen as a dossier of the individual's activity; the publications listed should be those considered as having a significant impact on the selected candidate's field.

2. Preliminary review occurs.

a. The initiating letter, C.V., and bibliography are forwarded simultaneously to the following:

1) HMS or HSDM Departmental Executive Committee
2) Institution's Senior Appointments Committee (where one exists)
3) Hospital Administration to obtain institution's financial guarantee and trustee approval

Four letters should be solicited for preliminary evaluation of an internal candidate; two letters should be from members of the Faculty of Medicine, two from outside, to assess the national reputation of the candidate. These letters may be solicited by the department head or one of the above bodies.

The proposal can proceed to the Dean's Office for review only if it has been approved by each of the first two bodies. It is understood that it can be halted later if administrative approval (3) is not provided.

b. Proposal is submitted to the Council of Academic Deans.

1) Council reviews the proposal with particular consideration of the academic needs, institutional needs, and the job description.

2) Council advises on the appropriateness of search versus evaluation and recommends the relevant action.

3) Council suggests members to serve as chair and as members of the ad hoc evaluation committee.

NOTE: Process from here on is identical for candidates in all departments.

3. Notice of all actions (by the appropriate councils) is mailed to members of the Committee of Professors.

4. Ad hoc Evaluation Committee appointed.

a. Ordinarily this committee is composed of six members. The ad hoc evaluation committee must be constituted to enlist the expertise to perform a rigorous evaluation. It may include one or two members of the candidate's HMS/HSDM department, but members of the same Division/Unit or a close collaborator of the candidate should ordinarily be avoided. In the case of appointments to clinical departments there should be institutional (hospital) representation on the committee. At least two members are from outside the Faculty of Medicine. The outside members may participate in early meetings by teleconference, but are expected to attend the final meeting in person if possible. The head of the candidate's department or the chief of the division/unit should not be a member of the committee, but may be called as a witness.

Meetings require three committee members for a quorum; members absent may attend by teleconference. If a member's participation is impossible he/she will be consulted prior to and after meeting by the committee chair.

b. Ad hoc evaluation proceeds.

1) Ad hoc evaluators are provided with:

a. Initial letter from the department head
b. Curriculum vitae, bibliography, and copies of up to ten self-selected reprints/scholarly communications from the candidate.

2) Ad hoc evaluators review:

a. Strengths and weaknesses of the field within the discipline, within the Medical School, and within the clinical setting (as appropriate)
b. Present composition of the department
c. Description of the position to be filled
d. Curriculum vitae, bibliography, list of trainees, and reprints of the candidate being evaluated

c. Ad hoc evaluators develop:

1) List of leaders in the field with whom the internal candidate should be compared; may consult with other inside or outside experts by telephone or in writing
2) List of outside experts in the field to be asked to compare the leading candidate with the leaders in the field identified above
3) List of HMS or HSDM faculty members (or colleagues from other institutions) to write letters of evaluation of the candidate

d. Ad hoc evaluators send:

1) Letters to outside experts requesting comparison of the candidate with the leaders in the field as identified above (click HERE for sample letter).
2) Letters to HMS faculty members or colleagues requesting internal evaluations with specific comments regarding teaching.
3) Requests for other pertinent information on the candidate as necessary (new C.V., bibliography, teaching materials, update of information from the department head, etc.)

NOTE: Copies of these letters should be sent to the Office of Faculty Affairs for approval before they are mailed to the recipients.

e. Ad hoc evaluation committee conducts in depth review of candidate's qualifications (reads papers, or other written/visual material, attends candidate's lectures, may call witnesses, e.g. departmental chair etc.). The committee also reviews and comments explicitly on the candidate's commitment to and accomplishments as a teacher and mentor.

f. At final meeting of ad hoc evaluation committee a member of the Subcommittee of Professors will attend as a reviewer.

g. Ad hoc evaluation committee prepares report.

In a comprehensive report to the Dean, the committee makes and defends its recommendation that candidate should/should not be promoted to Professor. Minority views, if any, may be included in report or transmitted in confidence to the Dean or Dean for Clinical and Academic Programs. In the event that the committee recommends against promotion, the report is not ordinarily considered by the Subcommittee of Professors but is reviewed with the Dean for Clinical and Academic Programs.

Ad hoc evaluation committees are requested to complete their report within five months. Chairperson is reminded of deadline at three months. Docketing for review by the Subcommittee of Professors is begun at four months with meeting scheduled as soon as possible after the anticipated deadline.

5. Final consideration occurs.

Members of the Subcommittee of Professors are designated to serve as primary and secondary reviewers. The primary reviewer will have attended the final meeting of the ad hoc evaluation committee. These members are charged, on behalf of the Subcommittee, to review:

a. The process which the ad hoc evaluation committee used to reach its recommendation, with specific attention to the referees utilized and the scientists/clinicians/scholars/teachers with whom the candidate has been compared. The reviewers examine the material gathered on the candidate for completeness in addressing the candidate's record as an independent scientist, as a teacher/mentor, clinician, and administrator (where applicable), and

b. The ad hoc evaluation committee's recommendation, with specific reference to dissenting opinions, and any questions raised in the evaluation process.

The primary reviewer presents an oral summary of the ad hoc evaluation committee's findings and the recommendation of the two Subcommittee of Professors reviewers at a meeting of this committee. A brief written report is also prepared by the primary reviewer. Chair of the ad hoc evaluation committee is present to provide information, if requested.

6. The Subcommittee of Professors receives the report of the ad hoc evaluation committee, hears the reports of the two reviewers, and recommends action to the Dean.

7. Report of the subcommittee action, when approved by the Dean, is mailed to the Committee of Professors. Any member of the Committee of Professors may review the report in the Dean's Office. If a petition with signatures of ten members of the Committee of Professors is received within two weeks of the announcement of the subcommittee action, a meeting of the full Committee of Professors will be called to review the recommendation.

8. Dean makes a final recommendation and transmits it to the President and Provost of Harvard University in a summary letter appended to the documentation of the appointment process.

9. Recommendation is considered by the President and Provost on behalf of the Governing Boards of Harvard University. Final approval is rendered by the President and Provost.