The Why’s and How’s of Academic Promotion

1. The Why’s and How’s of Academic Promotion Fei-Fei Liu Shun Wong Drew Loblaw Rebecca Wong

2. Outline • Academic promotion – why • The promotion process • From the candidate’s perspective • In front of the decanal promotions committee

3. Purpose • Academic promotion is a mechanism by which the University recognizes notable achievements of their faculty in contributing to the mission of the University • Vision of the Faculty of Medicine: “International leadership in improving health through innovation in research and education” • Vision of UTDRO is: “Global leadership in Radiation Oncology by transforming practice through innovation and excellence in research and education.”

4. Domains • Four domains: • research • education/teaching • creative professional activity (CPA) • leadership/administration • Recognition granted based on exceling in a specific aspect of academic activity • Not granted based solely on length of service

5. Philosophy • Greatest weight given to excellence in scholarly achievement • Research/CPA (wide reputation; deep engagement) • And effective teacher • Associate: national reputation; Full: international reputation • Excellence in teaching alone – needs to be sustained x 10 yrs • Administration (or other university services) alone – given less weight

6. UT-DRO Faculty

7. Radiation Oncology Medical Physics Others Radiation Therapy

8. Overall Objective • Shift the curve to increase number of Associate and Full Prof’s in UTDRO • Info session • Mentorship • Define expectations • 3-year reviews • Achieving our vision of “Global leadership in Radiation Oncology by transforming practice through innovation and excellence in research and education.”

9. Leave Your Mark:C4 Mural Project welcomed guests by encouraging them to add some art to a canvas banner. ELLICSR celebrated National Cancer Survivors Day Monday, June 10

10. Appointments • Initial appointment is generally for three years. • Following a successful performance review, faculty member is given a continuing annual appointment which can only be terminated for cause.

11. “Promotion” from Lecturer to Assistant Professor • Appointment from lecturer to assistant professor is NOT a promotion. It is a new appointment • Application reviewed by Departmental Appointment Committee, advisory to Chair • Chair submitted recommendation to Dean for approval. • Process does not go through Departmental Promotion Committee and Decanal Promotion Committee.

12. Timeline • Mar: Membership of DPC established • May: Review of CV of all Assistant & Associate Prof • Jul: 1st Review of Promotion Dossiers by DPC • Sep: 2nd Review of Promotion Dossiers by DPC, names of referees • Nov/Dec: Final Review of Promotion Dossiers including referee letters • Jan (deadline): Submission of materials to Decanal Promotion Committee

13. Do’s #1 • Update CV • Speak to your Department Chief and/or Chair DPC

14. Do’s #2 Faculty appointments & promotions Website: www.facmed.utoronto.ca/staff/appointment.htm 2. Read the Manual for Academic Promotion

15. Do’s #3 • Start WORKING on your CPA and teaching dossier • Go through CV, CPA and teaching dossier of recently successful candidates. • Speak to your Department Chief and/or Chair DPC re potential referees

16. Don’ts #1: CV • Manuscripts in preparation • Awards won by your students, residents, fellows • Awards nominated but not won • Presentations your students/colleagues made • Appropriate use of 5 most significant publications, select journals with high IPs • Typos

17. CPA • CPA: • 1. Professional innovation & creative excellence • 2. contributions to development of professional practice • 3. exemplary professional practice • Contributions to at least one of these elements • Criteria: • 1. Creative • 2. Documented • 3. Impact established

18. CPA dossier • 1. Intro, CPA themes (2-3 typically) to support at least one of 3 CPA elements • 2. Description: must describe creative elements and impact on professional practice • 3. Documentation: • Grants, contracts, clinical trials, patents • Publications-peer-reviewed & non-peer-reviewed journal articles, books & book chapters • Presentations: local, national, international • Teaching • Clinical supervision/education • Administrative

19. Theme 1: Treatment guidelines and management of brain metastases CPA element of “Contributions to development of professional practice” Creative: theme including meta-analysis, critical evaluation and pooling of outcomes etc.. CPA has helped define new standard evidence-based radiation practice Impact: publications of peer-reviewed articles, systemic reviews, book chapters, presentations, teaching, leadership administrative activities Documentation: Tabulated SUMMARY, APPENDICES

20. Don’ts #2: CPA • Failure to document • 1. evidence for national & international reputation • 2. creative elements • 3. impact on professional practice • 2-3 themes NOT 5-6 themes • Broad CPA themes

21. Don’ts #3: teaching dossier • Description of teaching activities only • Need to demonstrate teaching effectiveness and/or excellence • Teaching evaluations • Teaching letters • Notes of thanks

22. Hope Beyond the Fall IJROBP v 87, Issue 2 “This painting is inspired by the extraordinary strength and hope of my patients and their families in the face of adversity, loss and grief” - Caroline Chung

23. Promotion PearlsWeb CV • Web CV is your friend • Document papers, abstracts, grants, presentations, teaching as you do it • Always easier to edit down the extraneous work rather than add it in later • Try to identify CPA themes early (and prioritize around these) • The vast majority of your academic work should be aligned with one or both of your CPA themes

24. Promotion PearlsManuscripts • Manuscripts much more important than (repeat) abstracts • It takes almost as much work to prepare abstract as a manuscript • Aim high for manuscript • Being able to address hard reviewers’ comments will make you a better manuscript and grant writer • Don’t be discouraged by rejections • Reviewers are busy and often don’t read paper thoroughly • Quickly move on to “plan B” (1 week to resubmit) • Plan C: peer-reviewed, pay-for-publication journals

25. Promotion PearlsTeaching • Be enthusiastic about subject matter • If you’re excited / interested / engaged, so will your student • Try and be relevant / value-added to student • Why are they doing the rotation? • How can you help them? • Document student rotations in Web CV as they occur • File / scan + save all evaluations in one promotion folder (preferably network folder) • Be open to invitations to visit other centres (industry partners often willing to sponsor)

26. Promotion PearlsProcess Before Promotion: • Build relationships with potential referees • Social networking (conferences, LinkedIn, Twitter) During Promotion: • Need to manage your commitments during promotion year • Often you’ll be asked to revise various parts of your application on short notice • Don’t get frustrated

28. Criteria for promotion • The successful candidate for promotion will be expected to have established a wide reputation in his or her field of interest, to be deeply engaged in scholarly work, and to show him or her self to be an effective teacher. • However, either excellent teaching alone or excellent scholarship alone, sustained over many years, could also in itself justify eventual promotion to the rank of professor. • Administrative activities…. Promotion will not be based primarily on such service. • Research • CPA • Teaching • Excellence in at least one (commonly 2) and competence in others • If excellence in teaching alone – waiver for external review

29. Features of a strong dossier • EXCELLENCE • IMPACT • NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL • SUSTAINED

30. Royal college examiner ✔ • Building a picture • CV – objective items (free from interpretive language by the candidate and referees) • Chair’s letter • External reference letters (source of bias, analytical letters expected, negative language is taken quite seriously) • Rest of the dossier

31. The decanal promotions committee • Multidisciplinary team • Chair, lab scientists/ clinicians • Provostial assessor (re process) • Administrator • Rank of Professor • Appointed by the dean (3 year term) • Chair – AvrumGotlieb • Advisory to the dean

32. The evaluation processGuiding principles • Promotions manual • Other guidance/benchmarks • Training session by chair • Peer expectation • Group discussions establish soft criteria • For resubmissions: each application is viewed independently • Time reaching excellence is not that important

33. The evaluation process • CV distributed using microfiche • Each candidate reviewed in detail by 2 committee member (approx 10 dossier to review) • 2 day meeting + 1 deferral date • On day of review • Assigned reviewers • Comment/summarize strength/weaknesses, state recommendation • committee at large • Review pertinent information from microfiche • Discuss • Vote • promote/defer

34. Letters • Chairs, External, Internal, Students, Teaching effectiveness cmt • External letters • individuals of appropriate stature (professors) who are able to judge the quality and impact of the candidate’s work • Not collaborators • Internal letters • from within U of T, usually not from same dept • Chairs letter – very important

35. From the evaluator’s perspective • A lot of information to go through • Question • Has the candidate provided sufficient evidence that (s)he has demonstrated sustained excellence national/internationally in the proposed (research, CPA, education) area • Has the candidate provided sufficient evidence that (s)he has demonstrated competent in the other areas • Evidence • Objective (e.g. amount of grant money as PI from CIHR) • Interpretive (e.g. grant money as coI from xxx foundation) • Consistency/style of presentation influence interpretation

36. Examples of deferral statements The committee .. • requests additional evidence of excellence in CPA • found the candidate’s dossier provided inadequate evidence of national impact of the work and invites additional information • noted a gap in productivity and asks for clarification • requests any additional information regarding new publications or submissions

37. Padding a CV • Seeks promotion to associate professor, last promoted 8 yrsago • CPA: • implementing new treatment technique in the region, teaching technique • Research: • 10 publications since last promotion as 2 as SRA. 5 in journal she is associate editor. • Cite 5 small industry grants • Cite 1 collaborative grant, but she is not named as coI • Teaching: • cite multiple medical students but no teaching scores • One internal letter not complimentary about technique • External letters credentials unclear (no letterhead), excellent colleague, worked together • Discussion • Unclear citations are legitimate • Unclear science in technical implementation is strong • Unclear there is national impact • Deferral • Request new letters, request evidence of national impact, teaching scores

38. The star researcher • Request for promotion to associate • Last promoted 5 years ago • Excellence (star) in research • Steady grants every 1-2 yrs as PI • Million dollar peer reviewed grant PI • Publications 19 since last publication, 10 as PI,SRA • CPA parallels research themes • Excellent chairs letter/external letters • Discussion • Agreed excellence in research/CPA • No teaching scores, student letters – deferral • Deferral • Request for evidence of teaching competency

39. Things to start collecting(not typically in your CV) • On Teaching quality • File anyteaching evaluations from your invited lectures (ask for them) • Thank you letters that talks about how good you are preferably based on evaluations • File any teaching scores • On professional practice • File letters from national/international visitors asking you to come to visit your program to learn about your innovation • Thank you letters describing the impact their visit has on their subsequent practice

40. Vision of UT-DRO “Global leadership in Radiation Oncology by transforming practice through innovation and excellence in research and education.”