WELCOME TO THE
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AFFAIRS
2015 ACADEMIC REVIEW WORKSHOP
Academic Affairs Staff
Catherine Schumacher
ORU - Academic Personnel Analyst
Office of Research Affairs
Atkinson Hall, Room 5401 / MC 0043
9500 Gilman Drive / La Jolla, CA 92093-0043
Tel: 858-822-1506
Email: oru-academics@ucsd.edu
Website: http://blink.ucsd.edu/sponsor/ora/orupers/index.ht
ml
David DeSpain (VC ORA Contact for Academic Issues)
Academic Personnel Analyst
Office of Research Affairs
Student Services Bldg., Room 417/MC 0043
9500 Gilman Drive/ La Jolla, CA 92093-0043
Tel: 858-822-7510
Email: ora-ap@ucsd.edu
Overview of Workshop
• Review Timetable for 2015 Review
• Review of Senate Task Force on Faculty
Awards II Report
• New Structure for the Bio Bib
• Structuring the Director’s Letter
• Normal Periods of Service
• Preparation of Academic Personnel Review
Files
• 4th Year Appraisals for Research Scientists
• 6th Year Readiness Assessments for Project
and Research Scientists
Outcomes from the UCSD Academic Senate Task
Force on Faculty Reward System II
• Elimination of Crossover Step Criteria
• Elimination of Step VI Letters
• Assistant Research Scientist I & II
Appointment Delegation
• Bonus Off Scale (BOS) Proposal
• Market Off Scale (MOS) Proposal
Elimination of Crossover Step Criteria
Senate Task Force on Faculty Rewards II
Recommendation 16: Elimination of crossover step criteria
• Crossover criteria (publications listed in Work In Progress) are
no longer required for proposed actions effective 07/01/15.
These actions are now at Dr. Brown’s authority and no
committee review is required. Section C. Work In Progress
should now only be used when needed for Appraisals or
Promotions
• Advancement to steps currently referred to as “crossover steps”
should be treated similarly to advancement to any other step
based on performance during the review period
• As before, the academics that advanced to Assistant Step V or
VI or Associate Step IV or V, may be proposed for
advancement to either Associate or Full Steps II or III in the
subsequent review period if proposed for promotion
Elimination of Step VI Letters
Senate Task Force on Faculty Rewards II
Recommendation 24: Elimination of external letters for
advancement to Step VI
• External letters are no longer required for proposed
advancements to Step VI
• ORU must be capable of mounting a case which curates
the evidence of nationally or internationally recognized
highly distinguished scholarship and highly meritorious
service
• ORU’s can choose to request external letters if they
consider them necessary to demonstrate the impact and
quality of the scholarship
• CAP can also instruct the ORU to seek external letters
Assistant Research Scientist I & II Delegation
Senate Task Force on Faculty Rewards II
Recommendation 27A: Delegation of Authority for
Appointment to Assistant Research Scientist I or II level
• Dr. Brown was given delegated authority to approve Assistant Research
Scientist I & II on-scale salary appointments without CAP review
• MOS appointments must still be reviewed by CAP unless there is a
competing offer letter from a comparable academic institution that is
within 10% of the scale salary
• The current high standards in the appointment criteria MUST continue to
be applied and will be required by both Catherine and David
• New Requirement: The ORU recommendation letter must indicate who
will mentor the candidate, as well as provide a description of the ORU’s
mentoring plan for the candidate in all applicable areas in order to
support his or her successful research career at UCSD
• CAP will conduct post-audits of the files to ensure compliance with
policy
Awarding of Bonus as Single Payment
Senate Task Force on Faculty Rewards II
Recommendation 35B: Awarding of Bonus as Single
Payment
• BOS awards will no longer be paid as part of the annual salary, but
instead as a single payment once a year or as one lump sum
payment to cover the entire review period. The exact details are still
being worked out with administrators at Academic Personnel
• The BOS award will continue to terminate at the end of the review
period and can be awarded at the next review period if merited
• BOS may be accorded to reward:
• outstanding service of individuals who lack adequate scholarly or creative
achievement to deserve an academic step increase;
• to respond (where appropriate) to outside offers, other than those driven by a
market in a discipline or field
When awarded as a bonus for service, the off-scale increment should be
approximately equal to the total salary increment of the next higher step on the
published salary scale or to an amount half-way between the relevant steps.
Market Off-Scale (MOS) Proposal
EVC Proposal to Eliminate Tapering of MOS
•
•
Consultation process underway to eliminate tapering of Market Off-Scale (MOS)
Salaries
What does this potentially mean?
1. The MOS will no longer taper after a 6 year period
2. The MOS will no longer have to be justified again at the end of the 6 year period
3. The MOS will remain as part of the salary as long as the person is appointed in
the title
4. If candidate is appointed on the regular pay scale with an MOS and moves to
B/E/E scale, the MOS goes with them.
Therefore:
• Be very sure that when you appoint an academic with a MOS that the ORU is
aware that the salary will always be a MOS salary with upward adjustments to
salary every time the academic is proposed for merit or promotion
• Per Policy, an MOS salary still must be justified with either a competing offer
from a comparable academic institution or by completing a salary survey for
similar positions at other UC or outside academic institutions that are
comparable to UCSD (http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/ppm/docs/230-41.html)
Upcoming Bio Bib Changes
•
•
•
•
A new section entitled Additional Major Research Products (draft title) is
proposed as an addition to the bio bib and is in the development stage for the
2015 review period
The new section will include a list of other works of significant impact to the
academic field for the person reviewed:
o Patent licenses
o Software, databases, websites
o Devices, hardware, structures, fabrications
o Musical compositions, performances, artistic fabrications
o Media coverage
(This is not a complete list—there is a Metrics Committee of ORU Director’s
that will determine a more comprehensive list)
A statement of appropriate metrics of quality, innovation or impact of the
contribution will be required in the research statement/self-assessment. A
reference in the Director’s Letter should also be made to the significance of
the listed items
More details will follow in the next couple of months once the Metrics
Committee has convened and the ORA office has a chance to review
Tips for Structuring the Director’s Letter
Updated Guidelines for Director’s Letters:
The ORU Director’s letter is one of the most useful parts of an academic file. The
letter should present the ORU recommendation, summarizing faculty/academics
discussions, and puts the remainder of the file in a context that helps reviewers
evaluate the entire file. The best department letters:
• Say just enough to allow the committees to understand the scope, significance,
and impact of the research and extent of the service
• Not overly cursory or too long
• Written for a general audience
• Provide an objective appraisal of the file
• Free of “spin” and more evaluative
• Clear of what the expectations are for the proposed action(i.e., how much
research and in what kinds of venues? and how much service?)
• Clear about the criteria for normal advancement (the letter should include a
statement describing the department standards for a normal advancement)
• Where appropriate, appoint/reappoint at a variable (0-100%) time. This will
eliminate the need for multiple RIT forms and will allow more flexibility
• Catherine will provide templates for Director’s letter
Tips for Structuring the Director’s Letter
Updated Guidelines for Director’s Letters:
Introduction
• The Introduction should include the action that is being proposed
• The action proposed should be clearly stated in the first paragraph of the Director’s letter.
This is important for all files, but especially important for any file that will be reviewed by a
committee. The members want to understand the proposed action right from the beginning
of the letter and don’t want to have to search for this in the body or at the end of the letter
Research
• Important to provide an explanation of authorship conventions in the field that distinguishes
independent authors (i.e., Principal Investigators) from dependent authors (i.e., group
members working under the direction of the PI). If authorship is not clear (first or last
author), then the Director’s letter should discuss the candidate’s role on the publication(s) or
refer the committee to the research statement for the explanation. This is especially
important for committee files
• An important criterion for appointment or promotion to the Research Scientist Associate rank
is evidence of research independence. There should be an explanation in the letter of how
the candidate is leading the science when the file is light on or there is an absence of first
and senior authored publication without the mentor
• Explain the candidate’s role on all of the contracts and grants that are listed. A person’s role
on grants is often unclear especially when many people are listed on the same grant
Tips for Structuring the Director’s Letter
Service (Research Scientists)
• The letter should include an explanation of all University and public service
activities of the person being reviewed or appointed (mandatory for
Associate or Full Research Scientist) . A lack of service activities should
be explained as well. In this case, explain the plan the ORU has to
remedy the lack of service
Service (Project Scientists)
• Although University and public service are not required for the Project
Scientist series, please include if any service is present
Tips for Structuring the Director’s Letter
Engineering B/E/E Salary Scale Justification (Required for New
Appointments or Change in Scale)
FACTORS
CONSIDERATIONS
Degree
Is Ph.D. in an engineering discipline?
Training
Did the individual receive additional
training in an engineering discipline?
Research
Is the individual using engineering
principles, techniques, or answering
questions of an engineering nature
Publication/Journals
Are publications in engineering journals?
If so, how many? Or has the research
shifted such that the individual is starting
to publish in engineering journals and
grant study sections?
PI Status
Is the individual a PI or co-PI on an
engineering or related grant, subaward,
or contract?
Collaborators
Are the collaborators engineers and the
individual is contributing as an engineer
or as a different subject matter expert?
Tips for Structuring the Director’s Letter
Engineering B/E/E Salary Scale Justification (Required for New
Appointments or Change in Scale)
FACTORS
CONSIDERATIONS
Competitiveness
Does the market condition support
appointment on BEE scale?
Equity
Are there others in the ORU with a
similar background that are appointed
on the BEE scale
Appointment
Does the individual have the
qualifications to be considered for
appointment in an engineering
department?
Research Trajectory
If not, is the individual’s research
trajectory such that, s/he would be
considered for an engineering
appointment in the future?
Normal Periods of Service Project/Research Scientist Series
STEP
ASSISTANT PROJECT
SCIENTIST
ASSISTANT RESEARCH
SCIENTIST
I
Two years at each step
Two years at each step
II
Two years at each step
Two years at each step
III
Two years at each step
Two years at each step*
IV
Two years at each step
Two years at each step**
V
Two years at each step***
Two years at each step***
VI
Two years at each step***
Two years at each step***
*4th Year Appraisal due for Assistant Research Scientists that were initially appointed at Step I
(Unless there was a No-Change review at some point—then the 4th Year Appraisal should occur
in the 4th academic year)
**4th Year Appraisal due for Assistant Research Scientists that were initially appointed at Step II
(Unless there was a No-Change review at some point—then the 4th Year Appraisal should occur
in the 4th academic year)
***Used in exceptional situations. May be used in lieu of service at Associate Project/Research
Scientist, Step I & II
Assistant Project/Research Scientist have a maximum of 8 academic years to promote to
Associate Project/Research Scientist
Normal Periods of Service Project/Research Scientist Series
STEP
*ASSOCIATE PROJECT
SCIENTIST
ASSOCIATE RESEARCH
SCIENTIST
I
Two years at each step
Two years at each step
II
Two years at each step
Two years at each step
III
Two years at each step
Two years at each step
IV
Three years at each step**
Three years at each step**
V
Three years at each step**
Three years at each step**
*PI Exception must be obtained at the Associate Project Scientist level. A Change in
Series to the Research Scientist series should be considered if the individual has
grant support as a PI or Co-PI or has a clearly defined leadership role in a large
center or program project requiring relatively independent effort and/or expertise
**Used in exceptional situations. May be used in lieu of service at Project/Research
Scientist, Step I & II
Normal Periods of Service Project/Research Scientist Series
STEP
*PROJECT SCIENTIST
RESEARCH SCIENTIST
I
Three years at each step
Three years at each step
II
Three years at each step
Three years at each step
III
Three years at each step
Three years at each step
IV
Three years at each step
Three years at each step
V
Three years at each step**
Three years at each step**
VI
Three years at each step
Three years at each step***
VII
Three years at each step
Three years at each step
VIII
Three years at each step
Three years at each step
IX
Four years at each step
Four years at each step
Four years at each salary
level
Four years at each salary
level
Above Scale
*PI Exception must be obtained at the Project Scientist level.
A Change in Series to the Research Scientist series should be
considered if the individual has grant support as a PI or Co-PI or has a clearly defined leadership role in a large center or program
project requiring relatively independent effort and/or expertise
**Service at Step V may be for an indefinite duration, however Research and Project Scientists must be reviewed every 3 years at
this level
***Granted on evidence of continuing great distinction, recognized nationally or internationally in scholarship. Continuing
excellence and high merit in original scholarship and service
APM 133-0
Periods of Service on Any UC Campus in Any
Combination of the Following Titles Count Toward 8 Year Rule
From
To
Ladder
Ladder*
---
IR
Clin X
Adj
HsClin
Visit
Acting
Proj
Res
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
IR*
Y
---
Clin X
N
N
Adj*
N
N
Y
HsClin**
N
N
Y
Y
Visit*
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Acting*
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Project
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Researcher
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
---
*0-100%
**at more than 50%
Y=Yes, years count toward 8 year rule
N=No, years do not count, i.e., clock starts again
---
---
---
---
--Y
N
---
Tips on Preparation of ORU Review Files
Who May Participate in file prep and review?
• Appointees’ mentors, co-authors, or collaborators should not chair unit ad
hoc committees. However, they may serve as committee members if their
expertise is needed. The unit recommendation letter should explain why
they were asked to serve. Mentor should not vote on mentee’s file
• Conflicts of interest should be noted in the file. Any faculty member or
director who has a financial or management interest in a company
providing support for either an appointee’s research or an appointee’s
salary should avoid contributing to the file. If such a faculty member or
director does contribute to the file, his or her relationship to the company
and the appointee should be detailed in the unit recommendation letter
Tips on Preparation of ORU Review Files
•
No academic appointee may participate in any academic review affecting a
near relative. (For the definition of “near relative,” refer to APM 520,
Appointment of Near Relatives.) If an academic appointee would have
participated in the review if the reviewee were not a near relative, the unit
recommendation letter should state that the academic appointee did not
participate in the review
Selection of external referees
• External letters for Associate and Full Research Scientists should be
solicited from referees who are independent of the appointee. External
referees whom campus reviewers may not regard as objective or
independent evaluators, either because they are too close to the appointee
professionally (e.g., collaborators, co-authors, thesis supervisors, etc.), are
from the same institution as the appointee, or have a personal relationship
with the appointee, may be included if they shed light on collaborations on
the Referee ID list. However, except for Assistant Research Scientists,
Project Scientists, and Specialists (see next slide), non-independent letters
do not count toward the minimum number of external letters required
Tips on Preparation of ORU Review Files
•
For advancement in the Assistant Research Scientist, Project Scientist and
Specialist series, evaluation letters may be solicited from individuals who are not
professionally independent of the appointee; however, additional letters from
more independent sources should be obtained if possible
•
External letters should be solicited from senior scholars (Associate level and above)
who are at the same rank as that proposed for the appointee, or higher. If external
referees are not senior scholars, the unit should explain why they were selected as
the best-qualified referees and identify their particular expertise within the field or
specialty. This information should appear only on the Referee I.D. form, not in the
unit letter
•
It is important to solicit a sufficient number of external referees. Five external letters
are required for files proposing promotion to the associate level, and three external
letters are required for files proposing promotion to the full level. Therefore,
Catherine will need several more names than the minimums since many of those
solicited will not be able to provide a letter.
•
While appointees may suggest external referees, the majority of external referees
should be selected by the unit
Tips on Preparation of ORU Review Files
Unit Ad Hoc Reports (for all actions except merits)
• The unit’s ad hoc or review committee report (if required by the ORU)
should be included in the file, and the committee membership should be
indicated at the end of the report (with members’ signatures
• If the unit ad hoc report fails to describe the content and importance of
research or creative activity, this should be included in the unit
recommendation letter
• Excessive quoting of external referees should be avoided
Principal Investigator’s/Mentor assessment
• For the Research Scientist (Assistant I & II), Project Scientist and
Specialist series’, the file should include a letter from the Principal
Investigator (mentor) in whose lab the appointee is employed
Tips on Preparation of ORU Review Files
Accelerations
• For accelerations, information on the unit’s standards for a normal merit
advancement to the recommended rank and step must be included in the
unit recommendation letter. This information is essential in order for
reviewers to determine the appropriateness of the proposed acceleration.
An acceleration should not be proposed if there is a weakness in
performance in any of responsibility specified in the review criteria
Policy on 4th Year Appraisals
for
Research Scientists
• An Assistant-rank Research Scientist appointee must receive an
appraisal, which is a formal evaluation of his or her
achievements and progress toward promotion in his/her 4th
academic year. The appraisal also identifies appointees whose
records of performance and achievement are below the level of
excellence expected for Research Scientists
• An appraisal should provide an appointee with a careful,
considered, analytical evaluation of his or her performance to
date in the areas of research and creative work, professional
competence and activity, and University and public service, as
well as a candid assessment of his or her potential for
promotion, based upon the evidence
Policy on 4th Year Appraisals
for
Research Scientists
ORU Consideration
The following factors should be evaluated when conducting an appraisal:
• An appointee’s published research and other completed creative activity
and his or her potential for continued research and creative activity
• An appointee’s departmental, University and community service
contributions
• If an appointee is lacking in either area, please explain the ORU’s plan to
resolve this by the next review period
Policy on 4th Year Appraisals
for
Research Scientists
The Possible Appraisal Ratings are:
• FAVORABLE: Indicates that promotion is likely, contingent on
maintaining the current trajectory of excellence and on
appropriate external validation
• FAVORABLE WITH RESERVATIONS: Indicates that promotion
is likely, if identified weaknesses or imbalances in the record are
corrected
• PROBLEMATIC: Indicates that promotion is possible if
substantial deficiencies in the present record are remedied
• UNFAVORABLE: Indicates that substantial deficiencies are
present; promotion is unlikely
Policy on 6th Year Readiness Assessments
for Project and
Research Scientists
• A readiness assessment is a department-level evaluation of an
appointee’s career achievements and readiness for promotion
• If it has not already occurred, a readiness assessment must take
place at the time of an appointee’s final merit/reappointment
review
• The ORU must determine whether an appointee should be
recommended for promotion, whether the promotion review
should be postponed, or whether the appointee should not be
reappointed.
Policy on 6th Year Readiness Assessments
for
Research Scientists
a. Promotion is Recommended
• If the ORU is convinced that an appointee’s record meets or
exceeds the University’s expectations for promotion, the
department may vote to recommend promotion to the Associate
or Full level, effective the following July 1
b. Postponement of Promotion Review
• If the ORU believes there is significant work in progress that
cannot be completed in time to justify promotion, but which
should be completed within the reappointment period (either one
or two years) and, when completed, would likely suffice for
promotion, the ORU may propose postponement of the
promotion review
Policy on 6th Year Readiness Assessments
for Project and
Research Scientists
The ORU must demonstrate that the appointee’s academic record
is strong, and that he or she is making active and timely progress
on substantial work that:
• should be completed prior to the promotion review (the
anticipated completion date must be indicated); and
• would likely suffice for promotion.
If the ORU proposes postponement of the promotion review, a
reappointment file must be submitted in accordance with the
campus deadline for submission of reappointment and merit
advancement files
Policy on 6th Year Readiness Assessments
for Project and
Research Scientists
c. Non-reappointment
• If the ORU believes an appointee’s overall career achievements
do not justify promotion, and that a postponement of the
promotion review is not warranted, no promotion file is prepared
and the appointee will not be reappointed. In accordance with
APM 137, Non-Senate Appointees/Term Appointment, the
appointment will expire on the established ending date. In
cases of non-reappointment, the ORU Director should consult
with the dean
d. Campus Review
• If the ORU recommends promotion, an academic review file
must be prepared for campus review and submitted in
accordance with established campus deadlines
Policy on 6th Year Readiness Assessments
for Project and
Research Scientists
• If promotion is proposed and denied, or if the ORU does not
propose promotion and/or reappointment, in accordance with
APM 137, Non-Senate Appointees/Term Appointment, the
appointment will expire on the established ending date.
• Although notice of non-reappointment is not normally required*,
the ORU should provide written notice of non-reappointment
whenever possible.
*In accordance with APM 137, Non-Senate Appointees/Term Appointment, notice is
not required for appointees who have served fewer than eight consecutive years in
the same academic title or title series on a campus. If an appointee has served
more than eight consecutive years, notice is required as specified in APM 137.
Below is a listing of UCSD websites in an effort to help
familiarize and inform you on the Academic Personnel process
POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL
http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/PPM/Index.html
ORU ACADEMIC AFFAIRS WEBSITE:
http://blink.ucsd.edu/sponsor/ora/orus/orupers.html#
UCSD ACADEMIC AFFAIRS WEBSITE:
http://academicaffairs.ucsd.edu/offices/apo/
Below is a listing of UCSD websites in an effort to help
familiarize and inform you on the Academic Personnel process
ACADEMIC SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC PERSONNEL
http://www-senate.ucsd.edu/committees/cap.htm
INTERNATIONAL CENTER
http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/icenter/scholars/visa_departments.html
This page provides Visa information for Departments and International scholars.
LEAVES OF ABSENCE
ACADEMIC LEAVE POLICY (PPM 230-10)
http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/ppm/docs/230-10.HTML
BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES (APM 700 TO 760)
http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/sec5-pdf.html
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT – “AT YOUR
SERVICE”SITE
http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/life_changes/leaves/index.html
SABBATICAL LEAVES
http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-740.pdf
Questions?