OFFICE OF RESEARCH AFFAIRS
TEL: (858) 534-9758
FAX: (858) 534-3868
SUBJECT:
9500 GILMAN DRIVE
LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92093-0043
http://research.ucsd.edu
ACADEMIC REVIEW CALL LETTER – actions effective JULY 1, 2015 - For All Actions
including Merits/Reappointments, Promotions/Career Reviews, and Appraisals
If you are receiving this information, you are eligible for academic advancement review, effective July 1,
2015.
Because Organized Research Units (ORU’s) collectively have a large number of reviews to process, and because
the final deadlines for submission of review files are strictly enforced by the Vice Chancellor, your materials must
be returned and received by me, the ORU Academic Personnel Analyst (ORU/APA), no later than the deadline
in the attached email.
 This document contains a detailed description of the items needed for the preparation of your
review file.
Submit Your File Documents using the ORU Drop Box: Your completed materials and
individual documents (as listed below) are to be downloaded back to me, the Organized Research
Unit, Academic Personnel Analyst (ORU/APA), on or before the deadline in the attached email by
using this link: https://ratpcsws.ucsd.edu/dropbox.
Please be sure to name each document specifically with your LAST NAME first, then the
doc type as follows:
JONES_BioBibl
JONES_Research Statement
Etc…
ACADEMIC REVIEW DOCUMENTS CHECKLIST
Review period: Update your documentation from your last review through June 30, 2014
(Please Note: Since we prepare review files 1 year in advance, your Review documents will cover your activity up
to and including June 30, 2014, and the action will be effective June 30, 2015.)
The following is a checklist of the review materials you need to submit - Once completed;
submit all documents electronically to ORU Academic File Drop Box link indicated above):
1) UCSD Bio-Bibliography Form – DATES MUST BE INCLUDED FOR ALL ENTRIES AND LISTED
FROM OLDEST TO NEWEST - The final version of this form from your last review, if it was
available, (attached to this email) to provide you with a starting point. Please do not remove any
historical information from the last review cycle as this document is meant to be comprehensive and
cumulative. Please just add on anything new since your last review, leaving all prior documentation
intact.
Bibliography. (attached to this email) Your bibliography is included in your biography in section III please refer to this and update only publications that are new since your last review. Do not remove
or renumber any of the previously listed citations. See additional guidelines below for instructions on how
to list these items. There has been a new section added this year (B.IV) where Patents and other
special works are to be listed (please describe significance of these items in your Research
Statement). You will also need to inform us of the disposition of any publications that were previously “In
Press” or were previously listed in Section C, Work in Progress, at your last review.
NOTE: Please also upload it additionally to me as a word.doc as I will make edits and format
changes as needed, and return it to you at a later time for your final approval and signature.
2) Certification A (attached to this email) – need signature - processed at the time documents are initially
submitted for review
3) Research Statement – Use the TEMPLATE/Guideline (attached to this email). One of the
most important items is the written statement regarding your research and service. Please follow
the TEMPLATE provided.
4) Updated Curriculum Vitae - provide a copy of your updated CV in the standard format,
electronically, as this may provide an additional synopsis of your career and/or list some additional
items not found in the UCSD file material. Your CV will also be used when requesting referee
letters, as applicable. Do not include narratives, personal information, personal addresses or
referees names in your CV
5) Reprints and preprints –Submit PDFs of all NEW Section A & Section C (as applicable)
publications added since your last review
6) List of Qualified “Candidate-Selected” Referees - If you will be pursuing a Promotion,
advancement to Full Project Scientist/Research Scientist, Step VI, or Project Scientist/Research
Scientist, Above-Scale, there will also be a Career Review conducted on your file and this will
additionally require the submission of Referee names from both you and your Department. Please submit
names of your “candidate” external referees as requested if this is your case.
For your convenience, Additional Details for Preparation of Materials needed for all Merit Advancements
and Promotions/Career Reviews are provided below:
1) Updated UCSD Biography Form (attached to this email, if available): DATES MUST BE INCLUDED
FOR ALL ENTRIES AND LISTED FROM OLDEST TO NEWEST - This form is required to be completed
at the time of academic review. This document is in MS Word format. NO PRIOR INFORMATION
SHOULD BE DELETED - EXCEPT FOR IN THE GRANTS SECTION. No re-numbering of the
Bibliography is allowed. All citations should be listed in date order from Oldest to Newest.
Section I. Please complete, and/or update any changes.
Section II. This section is required to be completed at each review.
Section II (c). All honors and awards you have achieved since taking an academic position (at any institution)
should be listed, not just the awards over the past review period. Be sure to include the year of each reward.
Section II, (d). Please work with your fund manager to complete this section on all NEW contracts and grants.
Files have been returned due to false information, so please be sure to provide accurate information. Only
grants that were/are active during the current review period should be listed. Please be sure to indicate
your role and %, as well as that of PI/Co-PIs.
Section III. This is your bibliography, which comprises three sections. I will format and edit your biobib to APO
standards, after you have provided your current information/updates.
2) Updated UCSD Bibliography Form (attached to this email, if available): List items in your
bibliography by section with Section A first, etc., and order them chronologically (oldest to newest). You
must include after each item the type of publication and its status. Below is a list of those publication
types and status to be used so that we may maintain consistency. DO NOT DELETE ANT PREVIOUSLY
LISTED CITATIONS
Section A includes only peer-reviewed publications. This includes research articles, peer-reviewed invited
reviews, or books/book chapters as part of the prepublication process. This section should not include abstracts
of papers or conference proceedings unless the department can provide documentation that the work has
equivalent stature or is referred to a standard equivalent to that for professional journals. Articles in this section
should be published. In press or accepted (with documentation) may also be put in this section.
Section B includes non-refereed meeting/conference proceedings, and abstracts (see below), etc. Section B also
includes non-peer-reviewed and other publications, patents, and other scholarly material, which is described as
“scholarly activities such as patents, presentations, performed material, non-reviewed works, conference
proceedings, abstracts, etc. as well as unpublished work.” In press or accepted (with documentation) may also be
put in this section. The ORU Director must justify the inclusion of abstracts in Section A, as they detract from the
rest of the file.
There has been a new section added this year (B.IV) where Patents and other special works are to be
listed (please describe significance any of these listed items in your Research Statement).
Section C includes Work In Progress. (This section is used ONLY when being reviewed for Appraisal
assessments). All items listed in Section C (Work in Progress) MUST be accompanied by a PDF draft. NOTE:
“Submitted” items must include the confirmation email from the publisher.
Summary:
SECTION
ARTICLE TYPE
STATUS
Section A
Research Article
Published
Peer Reviewed Book
In Press
Peer Reviewed Book Chapter Accepted (must have documentation from publisher)
Peer Reviewed Review Article
Peer Reviewed Abstract
Peer Reviewed Conference Proceeding (Engineering)
Invited Article
Patents (Engineering)
Section B
New Section B.IV as described
Abstract
Published
Non-Refereed Conf Proc’s
In Press
Peer Reviewed Conf Proc’s
(non-Engineering)
Accepted (must have documentation from publisher)
Reviews
Patent
Monograph
Encyclopedia Entry
Thesis
Report
Popular Article
Software
Editor
Editorial
Commentary
Section C
(Used for
appraisals
Section A types only
In Preparation
Submitted (must have documentation from publisher)
In Revision
Abandoned
If work has been since published, provide the relevant data. For those works in Section C that will remain in that
section, provide a status update even if the status is the same.
IMPORTANT REMINDERS
You are encouraged to take a responsible and active role in the preparation of your academic review
file documents by providing the relevant materials in a timely fashion, and by discussing with your
Mentor and Director any concerns you may have that pertain to your pending review file.
 It is critical that you meet file document submission deadline in the attached email, so that your
Director will have sufficient time to act upon your review proposal and also meet the mandatory
Research Affairs deadlines, or we will not be able to guarantee your review or advancement for an
effective date of July 1, 2015.
Academics eligible for Promotions, Career Reviews, Appraisals, and Above Scale actions will be able
to add/include reprints/preprints ONLY up until October 15th, but no other materials, and ONLY if
needed to support the file ONLY in MARGINAL cases.
Overview – UCSD Academic File Review Process
Policy Links Regarding Appointments and Advancements
http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/ppm/docs/230-20.pdf (Appointments Policy PPM 230-20)
http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/ppm/docs/230-28.pdf (Advancements & Reappointments PPM 230-28)
The Professional Research (Research Scientist) Series
The performance criteria for the Professional Research (Research Scientist) series (hereafter referred to
as the Research Scientist series) are the same as for the Professor (Ladder-Rank) series in the area of
research and creative activity.
The appointee must be continuously and effectively engaged in independent research and creative
activity of
high quality and significance, equivalent to that expected of the Professor series.
Associate and Full Research Scientists are expected to engage in University and/or Professional service,
such as service on research review boards.
Assistant Research Scientists are recommended to participate in service activities and should document
activities in the UCSD Bio-Bibl Form.
Appointees in the Research Scientist series at UCSD) function as independent investigators, have
complete responsibility for their research programs, and are leaders or have the potential for leadership
in their fields. The ability to sustain an independent research program is a necessary but not sufficient
criterion for appointment as a Research Scientist.
Research Scientists normally are fully self-funded Principal Investigators. Occasionally, Research
Scientist appointments will be given to candidates who meet the criteria for research quality and
independence, but who are not Principal Investigators. Typically these individuals will be funded by
large center or program project grants that support many independent investigators.
Assistant Research Scientists also may be funded as Co-Principal Investigators on grants. They should
demonstrate strong potential to become independent and distinguished researchers and should work
independently on grants.
The Project Scientist Series
Criteria for advancement and reappointment in this series are demonstrated significant, original
contributions to a research project or creative program. Appointees in this series need not demonstrate
the same leadership ability, independence, or scholarly breadth as members of the Research Scientist or
Professor Series. University and public service are recommended.
At the time of academic review, the Project Scientist’s supervisor (normally the principal investigator)
should evaluate the Project Scientist and submit his or her written evaluation and recommendation to the
department Director.
Project Scientists may serve as Principal Investigators only with PI Exception, but may serve as CoPrincipal Investigators with members of the Professor or Research Scientist series.
An appointee in this series who carries a significant teaching load must concurrently hold an appropriate
instructional title, following campus review procedures for such appointments.
For Project Scientists who demonstrate strong potential for independent research, the Vice Chancellor
for Research Affairs will consider requests from department chairs for exceptions to the Principal
Investigator eligibility policy. The award of Principal Investigator status does not in itself justify a
change in series to the Research Scientist series.
UCSD File Review Process – A Brief Overview
Every UCSD Academic member undergoes a periodic formal review by the ORU and campus reviewers
at various intervals depending upon their appointed series, rank and step. Files are reviewed every two
years until the academic is promoted to Full Project Scientist/Research Scientist, and then every three
years until he/she is advanced to Full Project Scientist/Research Scientist, Step IX, or above. The file is
then reviewed every four years.
TYPES OF ACTIONS
1. Merit/Reappointment Reviews
Focus only on progress made during the last review period. However, all information in the UCSD
BioBibliography Form should always remain comprehensive – i.e., listed from oldest to newest, no
previously reported/reviewed activity should be deleted from the form, except for that listed in the
Grants Section.
2. Promotions
These actions require external evaluators (referees names are provided by both the candidate and the
Department) to assess the quality of the academic’s progress. These letters provided by external referees
help the Unit division and the campus assess each individual’s qualifications for the proposed rank/step
when being considered for Promotion to Associate Project Scientist/Research Scientist, or to Full Project
Scientist/Research Scientist, and advancement to and through Full Project Scientist/Research Scientist
Step VI, and advancement to Project Scientist/Research Scientist Above Scale (which follows Project
Scientist/Research Scientist Step IX). These actions are considered as comprehensive Career Reviews,
and therefore file materials considered includes everything since the last career review/promotion
3. Accelerated Merits/Promotions
Requests due to exemplary performance can be processed at the normal review date and will be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Acceleration occurs when an individual receives a merit advancement
or promotion after serving fewer years at a given step than is normal for that step. It also occurs when,
through advancement, an entire step is skipped.
Promotion from the Assistant level to the Associate level, regardless of when proposed, is not
considered an acceleration. Assistant-level appointees should be proposed for promotion whenever they
are deemed ready for such advancement.
Accelerations should be used to reward extraordinary contributions in research and creative activity,
teaching, or other scholarly and educational contributions, or for recalibration purposes at career
reviews. The Senate Committee on Academic Personnel discourages one-year accelerations unless there
are extraordinary reasons for them. Further, acceleration cases should not be proposed if there is a
weakness in the appointee’s performance in any area of responsibility specified in the review criteria.
It should be noted that acceleration requires demonstration of unusual achievement and exceptional
promise of continued growth. The degree of achievement required for acceleration is greater than that
expected for normal advancement; the character of achievement required for acceleration is identical to
that expected for normal advancement. The departmental recommendation letter should state that the
advancement is accelerated, and the academic review file must be documented accordingly. A
departmental recommendation letter proposing accelerated advancement must include a statement
describing the department standards for a normal advancement to the same rank and step.
The departmental recommendation letter must specifically describe the impact on the discipline of the
work that is being used as a justification for acceleration. Acceleration proposed on the grounds of
unpublished work or work that has not yet been evaluated by a scholarly public is not appropriate. An
acceleration proposal based primarily on the quality and quantity of contributions other than research
and other creative activity must contain documentation and evidence of these extraordinary
achievements.
4. Cross-over step Merits – these steps are no longer called “Cross-Over” for the 2015 files
Assistant level – Steps 5 & 6
Advancement to these steps is recommended when a file contains evidence demonstrating that the
candidate is making timely progress on the kind of substantial research and creative projects that are
likely, when completed, to justify promotion.
Associate level – Steps 4 & 5
Steps IV and V may be used in exceptional situations and with proper justification. The normal period of
service at Steps IV and V is three years. In case of subsequent promotion to Full level, previous service
at Steps IV or V at the Associate Professor level and the conclusions of a career review determine the
entry step in the Professor rank. Service at Associate Professor, Step IV, may be in lieu of service at
Professor, Step I; service at Associate Professor, Step V, may be in lieu of service at Professor, Step II
5. Career Reviews
In addition to Referee Letters, all promotions, and advancements to Full Project Scientist/Research
Scientist, Step VI, and Project Scientist/Research Scientist, Above-Scale, require a full Career Review.
If you are currently in the Assistant Rank, a 4th or 6th year appraisal may also be due. These actions are
also considered as comprehensive Career Reviews, and therefore file materials considered includes
everything since the last career review/promotion.
Full Level
Merit to Step VI: Advancement to Step VI usually will not occur after less than three years of service
at Step V and will be granted on evidence of highly distinguished scholarship, highly meritorious
service, and excellent University teaching. There must be evidence of continuing achievement in all
areas at the prescribed level. Continuing great distinction in scholarly and creative achievement should
be recognized nationally or internationally. The file must reflect a critical career review. Service at Full
level, Step VI, may be of indefinite duration.
Merit to Above Scale – Distinguished Researcher: Advancement to Full level, Above Scale, is reserved
for scholars and teachers of the highest distinction, whose work has been internationally recognized and
acclaimed and whose teaching performance and service are excellent. Except in rare and compelling
cases, advancement will not occur after less than four years at Step IX. Moreover, mere length of service
and continued good performance at Step IX are not a justification for further salary advancement. There
must be demonstration of additional merit and distinction beyond the performance on which
advancement to Step IX was based. The file must reflect a critical career review.
6. 4th and 6th Year Appraisals
Assistant level academics are normally additionally reviewed for progress in years 4 and 6 as follows:
- A formal “4th Year Progress Appraisal” is conducted for Assistant Research Scientists
- A formal “6th Year Promotion Readiness Assessment” is conducted for both Assistant Project
and Assistant Research Scientists.
-
These appraisals 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 (Research Scientist series only), as well as a candid
assessment of his or her potential for promotion, based upon the evidence presented in the current
file materials
-
Reviews of Research Scientists for which activity is expected at the ladder-rank level, are strongly
weighted toward academic research achievements. Additionally, a lack of activity/participation in
the Service component in the Research Scientist series can result in advancements being denied. In
fact, for accelerations, exceptional achievement in all components of academic performance is
required.
-
In your best interest, it is imperative that we have complete and up-to-date records that reflect your
performance and achievements since your last academic review. The main performance criteria at
UCSD are Research and Creative Activity, Professional Competence and activity, and additionally,
University and Public Service (for the Research Scientist series). Evidence of achievement in each
of the criteria specified for your series, as well as other performance-related information, should be
reflected in the various documents required for your review
7. No Change Reappointments
Appointee Not Recommended for Advancement at this time (No Change)
An academic review file must be prepared and submitted for review for an appointee serving in the final
year of the normal period, even if the appointee is not recommended for advancement. A department
should propose a no-change action if productivity is not sufficient to justify advancement, or if the
appointee is unresponsive to departmental requests to submit updated file materials. For appointees
subject to APM 137, Non-Senate Appointees/Term Appointment, the department may allow the
appointment to expire instead of recommending a no-change action.
If the appointee has an off-scale salary, its disposition should be discussed in the departmental letter. For
instance, if a market off-scale salary is due to be rejustified at the time of a no-change action, and no
argument is included in the file to reset the market off-scale salary, the letter should state that the market
off-scale salary will be tapered in accordance with PPM 230-28 VII.B.5.
After a no-change action takes effect, the appointee’s review cycle will be reset for the normal two-,
three-, or four-year cycle.
The Campus Review Process
Promotions, career reviews, appraisals, accelerations, crossover merit advancements, and no change
actions of appointees in the Project Scientist and Specialist series are reviewed by the Project
Scientist/Specialist Review Panel (PSSRP).
 The Academic Senate Committee on Academic Personnel (CAP) reviews the following proposed
actions for appointees in the Professional Research (Research Scientist) series:
• Appraisals
• Merits as, Above Scale
• Accelerations
• New bonus or reset market off-scale salary components
• Career reviews (promotions and advancements to Step VI and Above Scale)
• Career equity reviews
• Crossover merit advancements to Assistant Professor, Steps V and VI, and Associate Professor, Steps IV and V
• Terminations
• Reconsideration of termination decisions
• Initial Continuing Appointments (Unit 18)
Merit proposals and no change actions will be reviewed by CAP at the request of any concerned party,
or if any reviewer disagrees with the proposed action.
Your Rights and Responsibilities
The review process and your rights during the review are described in the UC-wide Academic Personnel
Manual (APM), Sections 160, 210-1, and 220. You have access to and may review at any time the
relevant sections of the APM available on the Web at: http://www.ucop.edu/academicpersonnel/academic-personnel-policy/appointment-and-promotion/index.html . Local policies are also
available in the UCSD Policy and Procedure Manual (PPM) at:
http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/PPM/docs/230-28.pdf. We also recommend becoming familiar with PPM
230-29 (Policies and Procedures to Assure the Fairness in the Academic Personnel Review Process),
located here: http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/PPM/docs/230-29.pdf.
Please prepare written statements describing your research, teaching, and University and public service,
in accordance with the attached guidelines. These statements will greatly assist us in preparing your file.
Salary Increases
Advancements are usually accompanied by a designated salary increase in accordance with the UC
Salary Scale and budgetary constraints.