For Faculty
Introduction to Promotion and Tenure
712 Statements
Pharmaceutics
Guidelines for Departmental Statements Required by Section 7.12 of Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure
October 11, 1999: Approved
I. Introductory Statement
This document describes with more specificity the indices and standards which will be used to evaluate whether candidates meet the general criteria in section 7.11 of the Regulations. For a complete perspective, the reader is advised to review Section 7 in its entirety.
II. Department's Mission Statement
The mission of the Department of Pharmaceutics is to improve human health through the creation and dissemination of knowledge. The research and teaching programs of the faculty focus on elucidation of the kinetics and mechanisms underlying drug absorption and disposition, the development of new drug delivery systems, and the optimization of drug therapy.
III. Granting of Indefinite Tenure
A. Criteria for Tenure: General (Abridged from section 7.11 of the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure, July 1, 1985)
The basis for awarding indefinite tenure is the determination that the achievements of an individual have demonstrated the individual's potential to continue to contribute significantly to the mission of the University and to its programs of teaching, research and service over the course of the faculty member's academic career. The primary criteria for demonstrating this potential are effectiveness in teaching and professional distinction in research. Service, whether professional service or University and public service, may be taken into consideration, but is not in itself a basis for awarding tenure.1. Teaching
The requisites for effectiveness of a teacher include intellectual competence, integrity, independence, enthusiasm, a spirit of scholarly inquiry, a continuous increase in knowledge of the subject taught, an ability to effectively transmit knowledge to students, to arouse curiosity in beginning students and to stimulate advanced students to creative work. Evaluation of effectiveness of teaching will include classroom performance, curriculum materials, and educational development activities. The evaluation of effectiveness of teaching will be based on:a. The candidate's overall teaching ability as perceived by students and documented by their responses on periodic student opinion surveys in a course in which the candidate is the major instructor.
b. The candidate's teaching competence as determined by teaching evaluation by peers and/or comments of other instructors of higher rank, in team taught courses.
c. The candidate's contributions to pharmacy education as demonstrated by any of the following:1) Developing new courses or rotations, or revising existing courses.
2) Receiving educational development grants or directing experimental educational programs.
3) Publishing review articles of didactic nature in professional journals.
4) Authoring or co-authoring chapters in pharmacy, medical, or related health science textbooks.
5) Participating as an invited contributor in national symposia or workshops on aspects of pharmacy education.
6) Publishing articles on subjects relating to pharmacy education.
7) Developing and presenting within continuing education programs.
8) Receiving recognized teaching awards.Any of the candidate's contributions listed above must be judged by peer review as scholarly and of high quality and significance.
2. Research
The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether or not the candidate is an independent researcher who is capable of conducting research of high quality. The candidate will be evaluated to determine if she/he has achieved the following standards.a. Publications
The candidate is the primary author of original research published in peer-reviewed journals. Primary authorship is defined as the author that is primarily responsible for initiating, conducting and reporting the research. Research publications in which the candidate is not the primary author will be taken into account but will not be regarded as foundational for awarding tenure. Publications resulting from work as a student or a post-doctoral fellow and Letters to the Editor will not normally be considered in evaluating the candidate's research productivity, unless they meet the criteria for primary authorship as defined above.In multi-authored articles, the contribution of the candidate should be specifically described and evaluated.
b. Research Funding
The candidate has secured funding from sources outside the University to support his/her independent research efforts. The candidate should also demonstrate the ability to obtain research funding via peer-reviewed proposals submitted to federal or state agencies, foundations, or private industry.c. Training of Advanced Degree Professionals
The candidate has demonstrated the ability to train advanced degree professionals as evidenced by an ongoing post-doctoral research training program and/or mentoring of graduate students.d. Peer Recognition
The candidate has demonstrated that she/he is recognized by peers as making significant contributions to the field. Examples of such evidence include invited presentations in national scientific and professional meetings, receiving recognition awards (e.g., career development, young investigator), serving on national review committees or editorial boards, and election as a fellow or officer of prestigious national organizations that recognize excellence in the discipline.e. Quality of Work and Potential for Advancement
A review of three of the candidate's publications and other research efforts by at least three tenured members in the Department of Pharmaceutics who outrank the candidate, and by at least three academic peers at other universities with expertise in the same area, must conclude that the work is scholarly, creative, original, and of high quality and significance.3. Service
Recognition should be given to scholars who make significant service contributions to student welfare through service on student organizations, to scientific or professional associations, to the community, or to the state and the nation in their special capacities as scholars.Service, while compensating for reduced contributions in teaching and research, should in no way replace either, or be required in itself for the award of indefinite tenure. However, a strong record of service will strengthen the recommendation for tenure.
B. Procedures
The procedures used by the Department of Pharmaceutics comply with the Procedures for Reviewing the Performance of Probationary Faculty as provided by Sections 16.3, 7.4, and 7.61 of the Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenureand distributed annually by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.1. Initiation of Recommendations for Tenure
Recommendations for tenure may be initiated by any member of the Department of Pharmaceutics faculty for himself/herself or for other faculty members of the Department. It is strongly recommended that a faculty member who believes he/she should be considered for tenure, discuss these possibilities with the Department Head and obtain, if at all possible, the support of the Head for consideration. Any faculty member may request the Department to remove his/her name from consideration. Tenured members of the regular faculty of the Department will meet and review the documentation identified below (Section V a.) They will vote by secret ballot on the recommendation to award tenure to the candidate. The Department Head will then inform the Second Level of Review Body (SLRB) of this vote, and submit to the SLRB documentation specified in Section Vb.2. Continuation of appointment
Recommendations concerning continuation of appointment of probationary faculty (N appointment) shall be made in September. The Department of Pharmaceutics faculty shall meet to review and discuss documentation submitted for by the probationary faculty member. Such documentation, which is prepared by all Department of Pharmaceutics faculty for purposes of merit review, summarizes the activities of the faculty member over the previous academic year. The tenured faculty of the Department of Pharmaceutics shall vote, by secret ballot, on 1) whether the probationary faculty member has made satisfactory progress toward tenure, and; 2) whether the faculty member¿s appointment should be continued. A document prepared by the Department Head shall summarize the evaluation and transmit the results of both votes to the Second Level Review Body (SLRB). Copies of the annual evaluation and the probationary faculty member¿s curriculum vitae shall also be transmitted to the SLRB.3. Tenured Appointments (P Appointments)
a. Tenured appointments will be granted only to probationary (N) faculty or to faculty who have been recruited for a specific tenured (P) position. Department of Pharmaceutics with "nonregular" appointments are eligible to apply for available "regular" positions through the search process.
b. A tenured (P) appointment shall be made only after tenured Department of Pharmaceutics faculty and members of the SLRB who hold indefinite tenure have voted on the recommendation for tenure.
c. The vote to grant tenure shall be separate from, precede, and may be in addition to, the vote for promotion to a specific rank.
IV. Promotion
A. Criteria
Excellence in teaching, research, and service are meaningful parameters for academic promotion. Although a balance among these functions is obviously desirable, it is recognized that the best use of professional talent may often dictate that a faculty member's contribution in one area will predominate. Service, while compensating for reduced contributions in teaching and research, should not be a primary criterion for promotion considerations.1. Assessment of Academic Activities
a. Teaching
The requisites for effectiveness of a teacher include intellectual competence, integrity, independence, enthusiasm, a spirit of scholarly inquiry, a continuous increase in knowledge of the subject taught, an ability to effectively transmit knowledge to students, to arouse curiosity in beginning students and to stimulate advanced students to creative work. Evaluation of the professional, graduate, and continuing education teaching skills should include appraisals by the members of the instructional units and critical evaluation of student impressions of the candidate's performance as a teacher. In judging teaching competence, special consideration should be given to formal evaluation of the candidate's teaching by college faculty teaching review procedures. Review articles, contributions to textbooks, and investigation of teaching techniques should be given consideration in evaluating teaching ability.b. Research
The requisites for evaluating the quality of a candidate's research should include the following:1) A critical review of three scientific publications that reflect the candidate's most significant accomplishments by at least three peers at other academic institutions who outrank the candidate.
2) A critical review by Department of Pharmaceutics faculty who outrank the candidate.
3) An appraisal of the candidate's research contributions by academic peers with expertise in the same areas at other universities.
4) Other evidence of acceptance by peers.c. Service
1) University and Public Service: Recognition should be given to scholars who make significant service contributions to scientific associations or societies, to editorial boards or funding agencies, to student welfare through service on student organizations, the community, the state and the nation in their special capacities as scholars.
2. Specific Standards for Various Ranks
a. Assistant Professor
Promotion to Assistant Professor requires that a candidate has demonstrated a capacity for teaching and independent research. This rank may also be accorded a person who has completed only the educational program characteristic of this discipline when that person has given evidence of superior potential for professional growth and productivity. A demonstrated capacity for university and public service, or for superior professional activity may be used as a parameter for promotion to this rank. The candidate should have the ability to participate in the training of research investigators or advanced degree professionals.b. Associate Professor
Promotion to the rank of Associate Professor requires clear and demonstrable evidence that the candidate, by independent effort, has developed a program of original research, teaching, and service. The candidate should have demonstrated the ability to supervise the training of research investigators and advanced degree professionals.c. Professor
Promotion to the rank of Professor implies advanced academic maturity and requires evidence that the candidate has achieved recognition as a national authority in his/her discipline through the development of an original program of research, teaching, and service. If research is the major aspect of the candidate's activities, he/she should have demonstrated accomplishments and ongoing potential. If teaching is the primary criterion for promotion, the candidate should be clearly superior in the activity and there should be evidence of excellent performance by students whom he/she has prepared for careers in teaching, scholarship and service. If professional service or university and public service represent a significant aspect of the candidate's activities, he/she should have obtained national recognition for his/her papers and activities in professional organizations and in public service.B. Procedures
1. Initiation of Recommendations for Promotion
Recommendations for promotion may be initiated by any member of the Department of Pharmaceutics faculty for himself/herself or for other members of the Department. It is strongly recommended that a faculty member who believes he/she should be considered for promotion, discuss these possibilities with the Department Head and obtain, if at all possible, the support of the Head for consideration. Any faculty member may request the Department to remove his/her name from consideration. Members of the regular faculty (tenured and tenure-track) of the department who hold a higher rank than the candidate will meet and review the documentation identified below (Section Va.) They will vote by secret ballot on the recommendation to promote the candidate, and will inform the Second Level of Review Body (SLRB) of this vote.The SLRB may be the Faculty Affairs Committee or the College of Pharmacy Faculty who are eligible to vote on promotion. The SLRB will consider all candidates in accordance with its "Guidelines of Operation." Voting by the SLRB will be by secret ballot of all regular (tenured and tenure-track) faculty who hold an academic rank equal to or higher than the rank for which a nominee is being considered for recommendation for promotion.
2. Academic Ranks
a. Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor
Promotion of a probationary appointee to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor must be accompanied by an appointment with indefinite tenure. Initial appointment to the rank of full professor, associate professor or assistant professor will be made by the Dean based on the recommendation of the Head of the Department of Pharmaceutics. The Departmental recommendation shall include the Search Committee's report and the vote of the regular (tenured and tenure-track) faculty of the Department who hold an equal or higher rank than the candidate.b. Joint Appointments
Initial appointments, or promotion of faculty with a primary appointment in the Department of Pharmaceutics and a secondary appointment elsewhere in the University, shall be reviewed in the same manner as a full-time primary appointment in the Department of Pharmaceutics with additional provision that for promotions or appointment to tenured positions, the recommendation shall include relevant information on qualifications and performance from the head of the department in which the secondary appointment is held. It is recognized that the school and/or department in which the secondary appointment is held may conduct its own independent academic review.
V. Documentation Required for the Promotion and/or Tenure Review
It is the responsibility of each faculty member to keep a record of his/her teaching, scholarly activity and service. It is the responsibility of the Department Head to request each faculty member to update by September 1 each year this documentation of the faculty member's professional performance for the previous fiscal year (July 1 - June 30).
It is also the responsibility of the Department Head to review the performance of each Department faculty member annually and enter a summary of this review as part of the documentation. The written annual appraisal shall be made available to, and be discussed with, the candidate.
In the case of a tenured faculty member in the Department of Pharmaceutics, the review shall be as defined in Procedures for Post-Tenure Review in the Department of Pharmaceutics.
A. Materials to be submitted by the Candidate to the Department Head
1. Cover letter which may be a self-nomination for Promotion and/or Tenure by the candidate, or a letter of nomination from a Department of Pharmaceutics faculty member.
2. A Curriculum Vitae which shall indicate the candidate's degrees, honors, professional work experience (academic and otherwise), professional affiliations, committees, consultantships, etc.
3. A description of the candidate's teaching activities shall include, where applicable:a. Current teaching responsibilities - course titles, credits and description.
b. Teaching responsibilities during the full period of his/her service on the faculty to include those in professional, graduate and continuing education courses with corresponding titles, numbers, credits and descriptions.
c. The number of graduate students and post-doctoral fellows currently supervised by the candidate, with their degree objectives.
d. The number of masters and doctors degrees awarded graduate students supervised by the candidate.
e. The candidate's faculty status with the Graduate School.4. Evaluations of the candidate's teaching ability at all levels of professional, graduate and continuing professional instruction offered by the Department and graduate programs, including student evaluations of the candidate's teaching ability.
5. A description of the candidate's research activities which shall include:a. A statement by the candidate of the nature and significance of the candidate's research.
b. A summary of all grant support for the last five years and any evidence of potential for additional or continued support.
c. A complete bibliography in which the candidate identifies those publications for which he/she is the primary author.
d. A description of the candidate's responsibilities and/or contributions in multi-authored publications and grants.
e. Five copies of three recent publications for which the candidate is primary author, selected by the candidate.6. Teaching or research awards, invited participation in symposium, lectures, contributions to textbooks, etc. including any special professional honor or recognition.
7. Names of four to six persons from outside the College who are at equal or higher rank and who would be in a position to evaluate the candidate's professional standing. None of these persons may be from the University of Minnesota or its affiliated institutions. Candidates will not be encouraged to obtain additional letters of support.
8. Service to the Department, College and University.
9. Service to community groups, to scientific or professional associations, or to public or private agencies.
10. Other materials which the candidate wishes to submit.The Department Head shall inform the candidate of his/her right under Minnesota law to examine or obtain copies of filed data of which the candidate is the subject, and to have the meaning of these documents explained to him/her. The Department Head shall also inform all individuals who provide written evaluations of the candidate, that the candidate has the right to examine those evaluations. The right to examination may be waived by the candidate without prejudice.
B. Materials to be submitted by the Department Head to the Chairperson of the Second Level of Review Body
1. All of the documents identified under V a. above.
2. A Summary Appraisal of the candidate's qualifications by the Department Head including the vote of the eligible department faculty. This Summary Appraisal shall have been reviewed and discussed by the Department faculty who participated in the candidate¿s review. It shall also have been reviewed by the candidate for accuracy and completeness.
3. Any additional materials provided to the Department Head at the candidate's request, or at the request of Department faculty who may have a minority view not expressed in the Summary Appraisal. These materials may include a document from the candidate which supplements or refutes points made in the Summary Appraisal.