Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line (Dartmouth College Employees)

A. Tracks and Ranks:

Tracks

  • Investigator-Scholar Track
  • Educator-Scholar Track

Ranks

  • Assistant Professor
  • Associate Professor
  • Professor

Faculty Members in the Tenure-track/Tenure Line shall include members of the Professoriate who are employees of Dartmouth College. All faculty full-time members appointed to the Tenure-track/Tenure Line and only faculty members within this line are eligible for tenure (Appendix 1: Faculty Tenure at The Geisel School of Medicine).

The qualifier Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line will be defined in all offer letters and reappointment letters, and in all Geisel databases. Individuals appointed in the Tenure-track/Tenure Line shall identify their positions on all external documents (e.g., grant applications) as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, or Professor of [Department] (tenured/tenured-track). The qualifier Tenure-track/Tenure Line does not need to be used on internal documents (e.g., letterhead) or personal business cards (e.g., John Doe, Assistant Professor of The Dartmouth Institute).

Appointment in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line will be reserved for the most distinguished academic scholars, and the criteria for this line of appointment are consistent with that expectation of excellence in scholarship. Appointment to The Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line and advancement in this line require a commitment to and excellence in research (broadly defined as original inquiry), teaching, service (institutional or engagement), and disseminated scholarship.

All appointments of individuals as faculty members in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line shall follow Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action (EO/AA) Guidelines. Recruitment/appointment of individuals to these faculty positions must occur through a national search or a waiver from a national search overseen by Dartmouth College and follow best hiring practices (Appendix 2: Protocols for Faculty Hiring and for Search Committees). Individuals in this line who are > 0.5 FTE will be accounted for in the Dartmouth College Affirmative Action Plan and in the Dartmouth College Interactive Fact Book.

For faculty members in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line, the decision to offer employment and a faculty appointment at Dartmouth College must follow protocols set out in Appendices 2 and 6.

Individuals may be appointed in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line in two tracks:

1. The Investigator-Scholar Track: Individuals appointed in this Track are those for whom documentation (CV, letters of support) indicates the ability to establish and sustain (for Assistant Professor) or a proven record of having established and sustained (Associate Professor/Professor) a rigorous, self-directed extramurally-supported research program and ongoing excellence in peer-reviewed scholarship. Individuals appointed in this Track will also be expected to teach (the venue of that teaching may be variable), to excel in teaching, and to provide exemplary service/engagement to the Medical School, as well as to professional organizations related to their chosen field.

It is the expectation that individuals appointed to the Investigator-Scholar Track in the Tenure-track/Tenured Line will be provided with central support for compensation (subvention) in most cases, at least 50% of their fractional FTE, in recognition of their contributions to all three missions (research, teaching, and service). Exceptions to this expectation may exist based on past history or hiring and/or by approval by the Dean at the time new hires are made.

2. The Educator-Scholar Track: Individuals appointed in this Track are expected to be fully dedicated to innovation and excellence in the delivery of undergraduate medical education (UME). In their roles, they are expected to excel at teaching in the preclinical UME curriculum, to provide institutional service, and to establish a self-directed research program in medical education.

Individuals in the Educator Scholar Track of the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line are expected to be excellent teachers and scholars, playing a key role in the evolution of the health care and excellence/innovation in medical education both here at Geisel and on a national front. Although extramural funding is not required for advancement in this track, excellence in original inquiry (research) and peer-reviewed scholarship is. Moreover, as with laboratory or data sciences, peer-reviewed extramural support for educational inquiry will be taken as validation of the faculty member’s contributions to advancing their given field. Individuals in this track are expected to sustain a record of excellence for peer-reviewed work in either the specific scientific discipline or in medical pedagogy. Individuals appointed in this track will also be expected to provide exemplary service/engagement to Geisel as well as to professional organizations related to their chosen field.

B. Initial Appointments and Offer Letters:

Individuals appointed in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line are expected to hold a terminal degree (e.g., PhD, MD, MD/PhD). In rare cases, individuals who hold non-terminal degrees appropriate for a specific position (e.g., an MBA or M.Ed.) may, upon approval by the Dean or their proxy, the DAB and the Provost, be approved for appointment to the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line. Appointment with tenure (at the rank of Professor) must be approved by the Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College.

As part of the national search process for appointments to the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line, applicants (and thus initial appointments) shall need to provide evidence of excellence and commitment to teaching, the ability to establish a robust self-directed research program, and a commitment to fostering a diverse and inclusive population of students, faculty, and staff (See Appendix 2). All appointments to any rank in the Tenure-track/Tenure require evidence of demonstrated scholarly accomplishments (in all but exceptional cases, peer-reviewed) and, in all but rare cases, also require a minimum of two years of postdoctoral training. Publications must meet the standard of being indexed in appropriate databases (e.g., Medline and other indexed databases within the Web of Science/The Social Sciences Citation Index).

In a limited number of cases, other advanced degrees (e.g., MD/PhD, MD/MBA or relevant MS/MPH degrees) or receipt of awards, such as the NIH Directors (DP5) award may substitute for time spent in postdoctoral training . All requests for initial appointments made to the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line must be accompanied by a minimum of three (3) letters of recommendation from outside referees and the candidate’s curriculum vitae submitted to the Dean of Geisel and, subsequently, to the Provost of Dartmouth College (Appendix 6).

The decision to appoint an individual in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line; the resources committed to the appointment; and the expectations in research, teaching, and service/engagement for the hire shall be made by agreement of the Department Chair, the Dean of Geisel, the Executive Dean for Administration and Finance, the Dean of Faculty Affairs at Geisel and, if applicable, other senior deans, cluster or center directors.

Individuals who are appointed at the level of Associate Professor or Professor in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line are expected to excel in multiple areas of academic endeavor and to be our most renowned faculty members. These candidates shall have attained extramural recognition for significant contributions to their given field(s) of scholarly endeavor, been recognized for excellence in teaching, been active in disseminating their scholarly efforts, and have demonstrated ability to foster a diverse and inclusive population of students, faculty, and staff .

Offer letters will fully delineate the track in Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line, expectations in terms of research, scholarship, teaching, and service (or engagement), expectations for the level of qualified support for their compensation (e.g., 50%), obligations of the School in terms of salary and research support (e.g., program development funds), ability and metrics by which a candidate may contribute to a Faculty Research and Innovation Account (FRIA), and any milestones expected for such support (e.g., submission of specific types of proposals and timeline for these submissions), and expectations for specific administrative roles (e.g., Chair, Center Director).

C. Appointments, Reappointments, and Expectations for Annual Meetings with Chair:

Important qualification for timeframes for advancement set forth below.  In 2020, Dartmouth enacted an institution-wide one-year extension to the tenure clock for all current tenure-track faculty members. The extension, which applies to faculty at any stage of the tenure-track process, is supported by the deans of all our schools, and applies to all tenure-track faculty in Arts and Sciences, Geisel, Thayer, and Tuck. The extension allows for flexibility for all faculty whose work will be adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and its restrictions on travel and operations. However, no faculty member is required to utilize the extension. Those who wish to remain on their current timeline may choose to do so and should consult their chair, associate dean, or dean at the appropriate time.

The Chair (and/or their designee as academic advisor) must meet with each faculty member in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line at the rank of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor at least annually to ascertain that they are both fully informed of their expectations for teaching, research, and service to Geisel, and to ensure that the faculty member is being provided with appropriate formal and informal mentoring/coaching to guide them successfully through academic advancement. In turn, each faculty member should also take responsibility for informing their Chair (or designee) of progress, needs, questions, and/or concerns in order to optimize their academic success.  While there are no mandatory metrics for these meetings (as key parameters may vary with field of study and rank), meetings should address relevant information and be guided by review of:

  • Scholarly productivity: Assessment shall consider publications, invited talks, and engagement (e.g., grant reviews), moderating this assessment by the limited amount of time that the faculty member has held the position, the lag time inherent in establishing a research program at Dartmouth, and the fact that different fields have different community norms and metrics for gauging productivity (e.g., developmental biologists vs. statisticians);
  • Qualified support: Assessment shall consider the expectations set forth in the faculty member’s offer letter for securing compensation support from qualified sources, the efforts expended (e.g., grant proposals submitted) and relative success in meeting those expectations, the impact of securing funding from qualified sources (e.g., the faculty member having received highly competitive funding versus meeting compensation expectations from internal grants), and the likelihood of meeting expectations in the near future if they have not been fully met (e.g., a 15% on a grant when funding levels were 14%). These discussions should be informed by information provided in the Quarterly meetings with the Dean's Office (Q meetings);
  • Feedback from others in the academic community.  Chairs should discuss any formalized feedback (complimentary or of concern) and also any informal feedback from those in the academic community.  This feedback should be inclusive of those who many be both more senior and more junior to the faculty member.
  • Teaching: Assessment shall consider the expected teaching obligations and a review of the faculty member’s performance to date.
  • Service/Engagement: Assessment shall consider institutional and external contributions in service of the missions of Geisel/Dartmouth and to broader academic communities. Chairs should also discuss with faculty members their efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (see Section F2 below) at these annual meetings.

It is not required, but advised, that Chairs provide the faculty members with a summary of the meeting; allowing the faculty member the opportunity to amend as appropriate so that both are in agreement with the information given and received during the review.

C1. Assistant Professors

a. Appointment terms as Assistant Professor:

Individuals appointed to the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line will be appointed for a three (3)-year term that, in most cases, will be renewed for an additional 3-year term, with the expectation that such faculty members will be brought before the APT Committee by end of their sixth year (second term) for consideration for advancement to Associate Professor.

b. Process for reappointment to a second term as Assistant Professor:

The Chair of the faculty member’s primary department, the Dean of Faculty Affairs, and the Dean for Administration and Finance will meet two and a half (2.5) years from the faculty member’s date of hire to review their academic performance to date. This review shall consist of an assessment as noted above  for the annual meeting with the Chairs), and should be formalized in writing.

Assessment of teaching and service shall be tempered by the fact that most faculty members are allowed minimal teaching and service obligations during their first one to two years, in order to establish a successful research program.

In nearly all cases, it is expected that following this assessment, the faculty member’s appointment will be renewed for a second standard three (3)-year term, and the reappointment would be put forward for the normal process of review and approval by the Dean, the DAB, and the Provost.

In cases where the faculty member was hired mid-year, the date of the second term will be extended to June 30th of that third year (e.g., if the hire date was January 21, 2016, the second-term appointment would be extended to June 30, 2019).

In a limited number of cases the Chair and the Dean’s Office may recommend a shorter second- term appointment of one to two (1-2) years. Such a shortened reappointment term may be predicated on extenuating personal or professional difficulties or on deficiencies in academic performance that would not lead to non-renewal, but also would not warrant a full-term reappointment. Both instances are expected to be rare.

If there are academic deficiencies, and those deficiencies are remedied during this provisional period, the appointment will be extended to the full duration of the second term, approximately three (3) years, but bringing the end date to June 30th. As above, the appointment must follow the normal process of approval by the Dean, the DAB, and the Provost.

If potential deficiencies are not remedied, and if the Chair, the Dean of Faculty Affairs, and the Executive Dean for Administration and Finance are in agreement that the faculty member should not be reappointment, the faculty member shall be provided a letter indicating notification of non-reappointment (See Section C4 below). Terminations must follow the normal process of approval by the Dean, the DAB and the Provost.

c. Mid-term process following reappointment to second term as Assistant Professor:

Beginning with the second-term appointment, the Chair(s) of the Department(s) should annually review the progress of each Assistant Professor with their senior faculty (or Promotions Committee) according to policies outlined in Appendix 5: Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth Guidelines for Faculty Promotion Procedures.

As noted above, it is the expectation that Assistant Professors in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line will be put forward to the APT Committee on a timeframe such that they are considered for promotion to Associate Professor before six (6) years in rank. The Chair of the faculty member’s primary department, the Dean of Faculty Affairs, and the Dean for Administration and Finance will meet during regularly scheduled quarterly reviews or as otherwise necessary prior to the faculty member's firth year in rank to review their academic performance to date. This review shall consist of an assessment of:

  • Scholarly productivity: Assessment shall consider publications, invited talks, and engagement (e.g., grant reviews), moderating this assessment by the limited amount of time that the faculty member has held the position, the lag time inherent in establishing a research program at Dartmouth, and the fact that different fields have different community norms and metrics for gauging productivity (e.g., developmental biologists vs. statisticians);
  • Qualified support: Assessment shall consider the expectations set forth in the faculty member’s offer letter for securing compensation support from qualified sources, the efforts expended (e.g., grant proposals submitted) and relative success in meeting those expectations, the impact of securing funding from qualified sources (e.g., the faculty member having received highly competitive funding versus meeting compensation expectations from internal grants), and the likelihood of meeting expectations in the near future if they have not been fully met (e.g., a 15% on a grant when funding levels were 14%);
  • Performance critiques: Assessments to date from full professors in the department and (if relevant) from secondary/tertiary Chairs or other individuals who may have specific expertise to comment on the performance of the faculty member to date (e.g., Center Directors/Heads of Clusters);
  • Teaching: Assessment shall consider the expected teaching obligations and a review of the faculty member’s performance to date.
  • Service/Engagement: Assessment shall consider institutional and external contributions in service of the missions of Geisel/Dartmouth and to broader academic communities. Chairs should also discuss with faculty members their efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion (see Section F2 below).

If the Department does not plan to advance the faculty member’s portfolio for consideration by the APT Committee prior to the end of the second term, the Chair will notify the Dean’s Office no later than six (6) months prior to the end of the second term, and the Chair, with the Dean of Faculty Affairs and the Dean for Administration and Finance will review the faculty member’s performance to date (see Appendix 7: Faculty Review Process for Provisional Reappointments for Non-tenured Individuals in the Tenure-track and Non-tenure Faculty Lines).

Following this review, the Chair and the Dean’s Office may recommend an additional (3rd) term appointment of reduced duration (one to two years). Such a shortened reappointment term may be predicated on extenuating personal or professional difficulties or on deficiencies in academic performance that would not lead to non-renewal, but also would not warrant a full-term reappointment. Both instances are expected to be rare.

If there are academic deficiencies, and if such deficiencies are remedied during this provisional period, the faculty member’s portfolio will be advanced to the APT Committee for review.

If potential deficiencies are not remedied, and if the Chair, the Dean of Faculty Affairs, and the Executive Dean for Administration and Finance are in agreement that the faculty member should not be reappointment, the faculty member shall be provided a letter indicating notification of non-reappointment (See Section C4 below). Terminations must follow the normal process of approval by the Dean, the DAB and the Provost.

If the Chair, the Dean of Faculty Affairs, and the Executive Dean for Administration and Finance do not agree on a course of action (provisional reappointment or forwarding to the APT Committee), the procedures for granting a reduced-duration additional term, as well as for review, are outlined in Appendix 7: Faculty Review Process for Provisional Reappointments for Non-tenured Individuals in the Tenure-track and Non-tenure Faculty Lines.

C2. Senior Ranks: Associate Professors and Professors

a. Appointment terms as Associate Professor or Professor:

Individuals hired as Associate Professors or Professors in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line will be appointed for an initial period of one (1) year (except under conditions where APT review and administration approval occur prior to employment). Expectation is following this 1-year period:

  • Associate Professors would have their initial term extended for a full six (6)-year period
  • Professors would be awarded tenure and an unlimited appointment period

Candidates at senior ranks who do not meet the expectation of APT review during the first 12 months of appointment may have this first appointment period extended (usually 6 months) upon approval by the Dean. As set out in all offer letters to senior faculty, review must occur within 12 months or an approved extension (e.g., 18 months) or the candidate's appointment and employment will end at the end of this initial appointment period unless otherwise approved by the Dean.

b. Mid-term process for Associate Professors:

It is the expectation that, with rare exceptions, each Associate Professor in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line will be put forward for review by the APT Committee for consideration for promotion to Professor by the end of their sixth (6) year in rank as Associate Professor as Associate Professor (i.e., one full term as Associate Professor).

By no later than the beginning of the faculty member's fifth year in rank, the Chair(s) of the Department(s) should review the progress of each Associate Professor with their senior faculty (or Promotions Committee). If the Department does not plan to advance the faculty member’s portfolio for consideration by the APT Committee by the end of the 6-year term as Associate Professor, the Chair will notify the Dean’s Office to provide either for

  • A provisional second term of reappointment (1-2 years);
  • Sufficient time to afford the faculty member at least one (1)-year's written notice of a provisional change in status as a member of the Tenure-track/Tenure Line.

Procedures for provisional reappointment and review also follow the guidelines indicated above for second-term Assistant Professors.

The Chair (and/or their designee as academic advisor) shall continue to meet with faculty members at the rank of full Professor at least annually to ascertain that they are meeting expectations for teaching, research, and service to Geisel, and to assure that they can convey to the Chair needs that they may have to meet those professional obligations.

C3. Provost Review: Request for Extended Appointment Terms in the Tenure-track/Tenure Line

Except for initial reappointment as Assistant Professor (i.e., the second 3-year term), all requests for reappointments in the Tenure-track/Tenure Line at rank (rather than a request for consideration for promotion) must be accompanied by:

  • an assessment from the Chair of the faculty member’s performance to date based on the faculty member’s fulfillment of expectations as outlined in their offer letter and criteria relevant to Line/Rank as outlined in this document, as well as in relevant appendices; and
  • a justification for continued appointment at rank and the faculty member’s curriculum vitae, which shall be submitted to the Dean of Geisel and the Provost of Dartmouth College.

C4. Required Notification of Non-reappointment in the Tenure-track/Tenure Line

Voting members of the faculty in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line (Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor) must be provided with a minimum of one (1)-year’s notice of impending non-reappointment/end of employment or of termination during an appointment term. This notification shall indicate a date (not less than 1 year from the time the letter is provided) that the faculty member:

  • must be promoted; or
  • must move to a different line (e.g., Non-tenure Faculty Line or Research Scientist); or
  • their employment and appointment at Geisel will be terminated (date specified).

Faculty appointments shall terminate effective of the employment termination date (irrespective of the end date of the appointment term), unless otherwise agreed upon in writing by the Dean of Geisel School of Medicine. New appointments in a different line (e.g., adjunct) may be granted to those who continue to fulfill criteria to hold such titles. Sponsoring departments must submit termination of title paperwork to the Dean's Office for faculty members in the Tenure-track/Tenure Line who leave employment.

D. Tenure:

Tenure imposes a long-term financial commitment by the Medical School and Dartmouth College. As such, the number of new hires to the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line positions at the Medical School at any one time shall be determined by the Dean in consultation with the Executive Dean for Administration and Finance and the Dean of Faculty Affairs, following input from the faculty and in a manner consistent with the financial well-being of the School and overall policies of Dartmouth College.

Tenure-track and Tenured members of the faculty will with rare exception, and only with approval by the Dean and the Provost, be expected to hold full time positions with Geisel.

Tenure decisions at Geisel are made at the time the faculty member is considered for promotion/appointment to the rank of Professor. Tenure at Geisel School of Medicine may be granted to those in either the Investigator-Scholar or the Educator-Scholar Track. Tenure appointments will be made only when there is clear evidence of outstanding accomplishment and demonstrated potential for distinction in scholarship, research, and teaching. Those individuals who are recommended for tenure need not only to meet criteria for advancement to Professor, but also to excel in those areas, such that the School is justified in making the long-term commitment to them that tenure provides. In brief, individuals who are recommended for tenure should demonstrate a sustained excellence in in their specific area(s) of endeavor, a long-standing record of successful research accomplishment (broadly defined as discovery recognized through external mechanisms), and national and/or international prominence with respect to scholarship in their respective field(s). With tenure, Geisel and Dartmouth College indicate that the individual’s accomplishments and their future anticipated contributions warrant a continued, non-term commitment. Thus, only those individuals whose academic records fully support the assumption that their performance in teaching, research, scholarship, and service shall continue at a level of national/international excellence will be recommended to the Board of Trustees for granting of tenure.

The tenure document (Appendix 1), as approved in 1993, stipulates that to be fully compensated, a tenured faculty member is expected to derive at least 40% of compensation from extramural (qualified) sources, and that in the absence of external compensation support, tenured faculty members are guaranteed at least 60% of their previously determined full compensation from internal funds. The provision to provide full compensation to a tenured member of the faculty if they derive at least 40% of compensation from qualified sources is not equivalent to stating that a tenured member of the faculty is expected to obtain only 40% of compensation from such sources. To be considered meeting expectations (as set out in Appendix 3), all tenured members of the faculty must continue to meet those metrics delineated in their offer letters or any subsequent document approved by the Dean that supersedes the original letter (e.g., a letter of retention). The Dean has also approved an expansion of acceptable avenues of support from those that are strictly external to include a broader definition of qualified sources (Appendix 3; Subappendix A).

The tenure policy established by the Board of Trustees in 1993 is for full time faculty, however, tenured faculty members who voluntarily reduce their FTE from 1.0 in order to address compensation shortfall and who remain solely Dartmouth College employees do not jeopardize their tenure status by this FTE reduction.

Appointment terms for tenured professors in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line are indefinite until resignation of appointment/employment at Dartmouth (inclusive of leaving for a different position or completing FRO), moving to emeritus/a status, or death, or if the title is revoked following procedures delineated under the Agreement Concerning Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Responsibility of Faculty Members at Dartmouth College (in the document entitled, Organization of the Faculty of Dartmouth College).

As per Dartmouth policy, just as it is expected that an individual holding a tenured position at another institution will resign that position when accepting one at Dartmouth College, so it is an explicit principle of Dartmouth College that an individual will resign a Dartmouth tenured position if one is accepted elsewhere unless otherwise explicit exemption is granted by the Dean and the Provost of Dartmouth College.

E. Subvention:

it is the expectation that new hires into the Tenure-track/Tenure Line faculty members will be provided with subvention (i.e., fractional coverage of compensation of the stated FTE). In nearly all cases, the level of subvention will be 50%, with exceptions noted for faculty members in the Educator Scholar Track in the Department of Medical Education and, in specific other cases where specified and agreed upon by the Dean, the Dean for Administration and Finance, the Dean for Faculty Affairs, and the Chair/Institute Director. Additional subvention may be provided for administrative responsibilities (e.g., Chairs may receive an additional 20%; directors of graduate programs may receive an additional 10%). Such additional subvention supplements are provided only during the term of the administrative duties.

Faculty members in the Tenure-track/Tenure Line may also be provided with different levels of resources for professional/program development. For each hire/appointment, the commitments, obligations, and expectations shall be agreed upon by the Department Chair and the Dean of Geisel, in consultation with the Dean of Faculty Affairs at Geisel, the Executive Dean for Administration and Finance, and (where appropriate) the Senior Associate Dean for Research or the Senior Associate Dean for Medical Education, and delineated in the candidate’s offer letter.

Except in cases i) defined by the policies on Faculty Tenure (Appendix 1) and on Compensation and Research Support (Appendix 3); ii) when an individual is no longer performing assigned roles that were the basis for the subvention (e.g., ceases to be Chair); iii) when an individual moves to a non-tenure-track position; or iv) when programmatic restructuring of the school is mandated by the Dean and/or the President, the defined level of support for compensation shall not be reduced for any single individual. The Dean, following review by the faculty, may modify the policies of the School for setting general subvention levels for a given type of position in the Tenure-track/tenure Line (e.g., faculty members in the Educator-Scholar Track).

F. Academic Progression and Promotion in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line

It is the joint responsibility of the faculty member and the departmental Chair to establish a clear understanding of the faculty member's goals and the Medical School’s expectations to achieve those goals in order to develop plans to advance their academic career. This process leads to the generation of an academic portfolio that is consistent with the mission of Geisel, tailored to the particular talents, interests, and responsibilities of the individual faculty member, and guided by criteria that define accomplishment along specific career paths. The portfolio is a framework for academic development

F1. Departmental Oversight:

As noted above, (Section C), the Chair (and/or their designee as academic advisor) shall meet with each faculty member at the rank of Assistant Professor or Associate Professor on a regular basis (which, at a minimum is annually, but which is expected to be more than once per year) in order to assure that each faculty member below the rank of Professor is meeting expectations for teaching, research, and service to Dartmouth.

Each department should work to establish a template for gathering appropriate information such that the Chair (or Chair designee) should be able to assess the accomplishments and shortfalls of each faculty member with respect to the expectations in their academic line. Templates may vary from department to department, but each department is encouraged to use a similar template and mechanism of assessment for all of its faculty members within a specific track. Chairs (or their designees) need to identify accomplishments, shortfalls and trajectory for advancement well in advance of an expected date for promotion review.

For faculty members in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line, the Chair should insure that there is an academic plan that will be consistent with promotion within the expected timeframe of six (6) years in rank (except when circumstances support either an accelerated or prolonged timeframe). To this end, it is also the obligation of each department to designate a senior mentor or (ideally) a senior faculty mentoring committee to each faculty member below the rank of Professor to guide their academic advancement. Reciprocally, faculty members should convey to Chairs/mentoring committees information related not only on their status with respect to their scholarship, teaching, research, engagement and service, but also as to what resources are needed (and what barriers they believe exist) to maximize their academic potential.

Recommendations to advance a candidate to the Appointments Promotions and Titles (APT) Committee for consideration for academic advancement are to be made following review and recommendation by a committee of active senior faculty members at Geisel with expertise in the candidate’s field of endeavor to the candidate’s Chair(s). In some cases, inclusion of recently retired or emeritus/a members of the faculty may be appropriate, but must be reviewed and approved by the Dean of Faculty Affairs since retired faculty members are by definition, non-voting. This committee may be composed of solely of members of the candidate’s home department or, for departments that have smaller numbers of senior faculty members, of members from the home department and other departments with appropriate expertise.

F2. Efforts to advance diversity, equity and inclusion:

The Geisel School of Medicine believes a diverse, equitable, and inclusive community of students, residents, fellows, staff, and faculty enhances our mission of providing exceptional education, advances biomedical discovery, and fosters innovation to help tackle the most vexing challenges in health care. Building a diverse and inclusive community is an institutional goal to which the Geisel community as a whole must contribute.  Therefore, it is also expected that during these annual meetings that Chairs will assess how their faculty members have advanced the school’s mission to build a diverse and inclusive organization.  Such efforts may include, but are not limited to:

  • Self-education or professional development opportunities that have increased your own awareness, empathy and ability to be inclusive.
  • Committee membership, leadership or other service opportunities that have advanced institutional initiatives for diversity, equity, and inclusion.
  • Mentoring, counseling or advising. This may be student organizations or individual students.  It may include mentoring of students who are themselves members of under-represented groups or mentoring majority students in order to enhance their understanding of key issues in diversity, equity, and inclusion.
  • Incorporation of material in courses, lectures etc. that enhances presentation/understanding of diverse groups. This may include (but not limited to) discussions of both biomedical/health issues that have impact on different under-represented groups, highlighting the accomplishments of non-majority clinicians/scientists who have historically contributed to our knowledge of a biomedical subject, inclusion of issues related to biomedical ethics/or subjects that would be included in medical humanities that encompass greater cultural competence.
  • Presentations that you have made to groups within the academic/medical community or the community at large that have enhanced understanding of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
  • Specific efforts in which you have been engaged that have led to enhanced recruitment or retention of under-represented faculty, staff or students (e.g., service on a search committee that hired a non-majority candidate; hiring a non-majority individual for your laboratory [staff or postdoc]; service on admissions committees [med or grad] that augment recruitment of non-majority students; participation in summer programs that have, as part of their mission, enhancement of non-majority students in the biomedical community).
  • Participation in pipeline programs or engagement in efforts to enhance recruitment at meetings (e.g., professional societies, AAMC) or in conjunction with other professional visits (e.g., when giving a seminar at other institutions).
  • Participation/membership in local, regional, national, or international organizations whose missions are to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion.
  • Other efforts that you may want to report that would meet our diversity, equity, and inclusion goals.

In addition, specific programs developed and implemented that promote demonstrable enhancement of the recruitment, retention and advancement of a diverse and inclusive body of faculty, staff and students at Geisel may also fall under the areas of Academic Endeavor (Engagement) described below.

F3. Promotion Processes

As noted above, appointment to The Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line and advancement in this line require a commitment to and excellence in research (broadly defined as original inquiry), teaching, service (institutional or engagement), and disseminated scholarship. Excellence in these areas is predicated on recognition by both internal and external peers. The APT Committee shall consider the following in their determining whether to recommend promotion (or initial appointment) to the rank of Associate Professor or Professor in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line.

For those in the Investigator-Scholar versus the Educator-Scholar Tracks, the weighting of specific accomplishments may vary, but for promotion in either track, individuals must demonstrate excellence in teaching, investigation, scholarship, and a substantive commitment to service/engagement, either at the level of the institution or more broadly within the professional community. In a limited number of cases, excellence in clinical care may also be a key part of the candidate’s portfolio, but this is not expected for most faculty members in this line.

A commitment to and demonstrated excellence in teaching may be predominantly in either graduate education (PhD or Masters programs) or in medical education (e.g., small groups). Teaching in venues outside of Geisel (e.g., Dartmouth undergraduates or summer courses associated with other organizations) may also be considered when assessing a candidate’s teaching accomplishments, but should not be the sole teaching activity.

All members of the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line are also expected to have substantive activities in service to the institution (e.g., serve on Geisel or Dartmouth College committees) and to have recognition from their external peers in areas of service/engagement (e.g., study section, editorial boards).

Criteria relevant to each of these areas are defined in Part F4 below.

a. Assistant Professor to Associate Professor:

The Chair(s) of the Department(s) should review the progress of each Assistant Professor with their senior faculty (or Promotions Committee) according to policies outlined in Appendix 5: Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth Guidelines for Faculty Promotion Procedures, with the expectation that each Assistant Professor in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line will be put forward for review by the APT Committee for promotion to Associate Professor by six (6) years in rank[1] as Assistant Professor.

Those being considered for promotion to Associate Professor in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line shall have garnered substantive extramural recognition at the regional level and a burgeoning reputation at the national level in areas of teaching, scholarship, investigation, engagement, and, if applicable, clinical care. Note, as mentioned above, that the weighting of these individual components in contributing to a regional or national reputation may vary with each individual’s professional record of accomplishment.

For example, with respect to research: Individuals being considered for promotion to Associate Professor should have a regional to burgeoning national reputation in their area of research as made evident by the number and quality of peer-reviewed publications (especially those on which they have an identified key role, e.g., first or last author); their ability to secure peer-reviewed extramural funds as key personnel at a substantive fractional effort; their recognition by those in their field as made evident by invited presentations; and their elected/invited membership on review panels, study sections, and societies.

As with other faculty lines, the Geisel School of Medicine recognizes and values team-based as well as individual research efforts, however, advancement requires recognition and the development of a national/international reputation as leader in a field, even when work is performed in the context of a team, not simply acknowledgement that one is contributing member to a program, and a key driver of the scholarly enterprise.

If the candidate has not been approved for promotion at all levels (APT Committee, Dean, DAB, Provost), they may be reappointed for a variable non-renewable term, move to a Non-tenure Line faculty or Research Scientist position, or be provided with a one-year notice of the end of appointment/termination of employment as set forth in Section II on reappointments.

b. Associate Professor to Professor:

The Chair(s) of the Department(s) should review the progress of each Associate Professor with their senior faculty (or Promotions Committee), with the expectation that each Associate Professor in the Tenure-track/Tenure Line will be put forward for review by the APT Committee for promotion to Professor within six (6) years in rank as Associate Professor.[1]

Criteria for promotion (or initial appointment) to the rank of Professor in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line follow from those established for appointment/promotion to Associate Professor, with the expectation that both quantitative and qualitative advances in research, education, engagement, and, if applicable, clinical care (Section 3B, above) will have been made in order for this rank to be bestowed. While accomplishments may vary with the individual, those promoted to Professor in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line must have a sustained record of excellence in teaching and will have garnered extramural recognition at the national and/or international level for their scholarship, research, engagement, and, if applicable, clinical care.

For example, for research: Individuals being considered for promotion to Professor will be expected to have a national to international reputation. These individuals will be programmatic leaders and have a sustained history of excellence in peer-reviewed scholarship and in their ability to secure peer-reviewed, extramural funding as PI/multiple-PI, as well as in roles as co-I/biostatistician at a substantive fractional effort. Those being considered for Professor should have national to international recognition as made evident by invited presentations, permanent membership on study sections and editorial boards, awards, and honors.

If, at the end of the six (6)-year term as Associate Professor, the APT Committee has not recommended promotion to Professor, the Dean, following consultation with the Chair of the Department, may recommend that the academic appointment be extended, and the faculty member may be reappointed for a term of one to six (1-6) years until that time when:

  1. They are promoted; or
  2. They move to a different line (e.g., Non-tenure Line or Research Scientist); or
  3. Their employment and appointment at Geisel is terminated.

Recommendations to extend an appointment, and the length of term of that reappointment, shall take into account both professional considerations and considerations outside of professional criteria (see Appendix 7: Faculty Review Process for Provisional Reappointments for Non-tenured Individuals in the Tenure-track/Tenured and Non-tenure Faculty Lines). Moreover, if the Dean and the Chair do not agree as to the duration of the variable appointment provided, the Chair and/or the Dean may request that the APT Committee convene a special session for review and recommendation for the term of the appointment, as described above.

For faculty members in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line, it is expected that all individuals will demonstrate progress in their academic accomplishments consistent with their ability to attain promotion to the rank of Professor. That is, except in rare cases and only as approved by the Dean, indefinite and continued appointment at the rank of Assistant Professor or Associate Professor for those in this line is neither consistent with the expectations for Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line nor with the mission of the Medical School.

It is also the expectation for individuals in the Tenure-track/Tenure Line that, with very rare exception, they will meet criteria that will be consistent with the awarding of tenure at the time that they are promoted to Professor. As elaborated in Appendix 5: Guidelines for Faculty Promotion Procedures, the APT committee will make two separate recommendations to the Dean during review of a Tenure-track/Tenure Line candidate being considered for promotion to Professor: the first for advancement in rank and the second whether to recommend tenure. In a highly limited number of cases, the Dean may recommend promotion to Professor without tenure. If the faculty member is approved for promotion to Professor, but tenure is not approved, the Dean, in consultation with the Chair, may:

  1. approve a reappointment period of one to six (6) years until tenure is reassessed (such one- to six-year (1-6 year) terms are renewable); or
  2. recommend that the faculty member move to the Non-tenure Faculty Line.

F4. Accelerated Appointments and Promotions

It is the expectation that faculty members should be mentored along an academic trajectory that will lead to their successful promotion, on average, after 6 years in rank, and with portfolios being presented to the APT Committee in most cases during the faculty member's fifth to sixth year in rank. It is also recognized that some individuals may achieve academic success and recognition that may be consistent with promotion on an accelerated timeframe.

While such accelerated promotions are not expected to be common, they may be considered under the following guidelines:

  • The candidate has a history of documented and sustained accomplishments in their prior years in rank that are consistent with the criteria for promotion;
  • Beyond their past track record, at the point in time that the candidate is being considered for accelerated promotion they have evidence of robust academic accomplishments which are recognized as, without doubt, meeting the expectations/criteria set forth for the level of promotion;
  • That extending the period of time that the candidate is in rank prior to being reviewed (i.e., the standard 5-6 years) would not substantively change the likelihood that the APT Committee, Dean, DAB, Provost and (where relevant, Board of Trustees) would, based on the candidate's full portfolio, find that the candidate met the criteria for advancement. That is, a candidate's promotion should not be delayed solely so that they meet years in rank if all other metrics have been met.
  • Tenure is a separate decision from advancement in rank. Accelerated promotion may be granted without a concomitant recommendation for/approval of tenure if the APT Committee, Dean, DAB, Provost or the Board of Trustees does not find that the candidate's portfolio, at the time of promotion, warrants the commitment of tenure. Such cases are not expected to be common, and, if they occur, awarding of tenure must be considered during the subsequent years that would conform to the normal period of appointment (i.e., a standard 6-year term) or the alternatives set forth above for candidates on the standard promotion timetable put into effect.

F5. Areas of Academic Endeavor:

Time in rank alone is not sufficient to warrant promotion. To merit reappointment or promotion, the faculty member must provide strong evidence of achievement according to the criteria appropriate to a particular portfolio of academic activities.

Scholarly activity in the Tenure-track/Tenure Faculty Line is recognized in the areas of teaching, research (investigation), and engagement. For each component, promotion requires scholarship as defined by the creation and dissemination of new knowledge.

The descriptions below provide professional models and related indicators of excellence for academic contributions within each arena. These criteria are neither completely inclusive nor absolute. Moreover, there is a rich interdependency among these areas, each informing aspects of the others. In particular the area of engagement may be interwoven into each of the other areas. The weighting of these different areas of endeavor will vary for those in the Investigator-Scholar Tract versus those in the Educator-Scholar Track. The depth of accomplishment will also be expected to vary with promotion/appointment to Associate Professor (very strong regional to burgeoning national presence, as recognized by external peers and officers, as well as internal colleagues) versus promotion/appointment to Professor, with tenure (very strong national to international presence as recognized by external peers and officers, as well as internal colleagues). Finally, because notable accomplishments may vary not only among individuals, but also with time as innovations shape the academic sphere, the following descriptions are intended to be suggestive of appropriate criteria, but do not provide a rigid checklist of items that must be met or met in any specific number.

a. Teaching: Teaching is a core mission of Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and a fundamental expectation of all members of the Geisel faculty. While Geisel has historically been primarily dedicated to the teaching of medical and graduate students, Geisel faculty now participate in the education of many other learners in our academic medical system, within our region, and beyond (e.g., residents and interns, students in the other professional schools and in Arts and Sciences at Dartmouth, students in summer courses, and students in Dartmouth Community Medical School). The goal of all scholarship is to inform those inside and outside our own sphere. An informed and diverse body of learners becomes a critical legacy of our faculty and institution, and we are committed to excellence in their education. Indeed, some members of the faculty may devote the majority of their professional energy to teaching and to the area of scholarship that is the development and dissemination of novel pedagogy.

We expect our faculty to be dedicated to our learners and to aspire to excellence in teaching. We recognize and reward our teachers for their ability to inspire these learners to achieve a sound mastery of the subject, a critical manner of thinking, a healthy skepticism of dogma, and a clear notion of what is both known and unknown in their field. In addition, we expect our faculty to instill in those they teach these same skills and values so that they, in turn, will excel in teaching others. Our faculty members should teach rather than train, serve as role models rather than simply instruct, and inspire students to expand the horizons of knowledge.

b. Criteria Related to Teaching

With few exceptions, the teaching by faculty members in the Tenure-track/Tenure Line will be directed towards graduate students, medical students, and postdoctoral scholars, although teaching to other learners (e.g., residents, clinical fellows; undergraduates) is recognized as important to the medical school's mission for this faculty line and will be included as part of the holistic assessment made at the time of appointment/promotion review.

The candidate’s contribution to teaching and its impact on learners should be documented through syllabi showing participation in didactic courses, formal clerkship/residency/fellowship curricula, evidence of membership on thesis and qualifying examination committees, and documentation of training of individual students, including both identification of mentees and service on student committees. The criteria for teaching excellence include:

  • Recognition by peers and students as a key and/or outstanding individual in training, teaching, and advising of undergraduate, medical, and graduate students; residents, clinical, and postdoctoral research fellows; and allied medical personnel and peers. Such recognition of excellence is supported by:
    • Surveys, evaluations, and institutional ratings by students at all training levels;
  • Assessments of the candidate’s teaching contribution from department chairs or by other institutional officials (e.g., course directors) that provide a judgment based on a significant sample of the individual's teaching;
  • Documentation of the faculty member’s mentoring of a substantial number of students and of the documented outcomes of teaching (e.g., the mentees who have gone on to obtain positions of their own in biomedical or academic institutions);
  • Documentation of the success of specific educational programs implemented by a faculty member either singly or as a substantive member of a team that results in meeting specific defined goals of the department, the Medical School and/or the Medical School’s primary clinical partners. Fort such programs, data must be both collected and analyzed with rigor, and subsequent analyses of those data show that the program has impact towards the stated goal.  Furthermore, even within the context of team endeavors, the faculty member's role in that program must be shown to be substantive academically contributory, not simply participatory, in that their input affected the design, execution, and interpretation of the assessment. Outcomes that may indicate3 program impact include, but are not limited to:
    • Record of placement of trainees in well-recognized programs which can be attributed to a new or revised program;
    • Record of hires of trainees to the academic faculties and/or the professional staff of organizations with a reputation for excellence in science and/or academic medicine which can be attributed to a new or revised program;
    • Record of peer-reviewed publication and or extramural awards in areas of science or medical pedagogy;
    • Record of non-traditional scholarship in areas of science or medical pedagogy;
    • Record of student performance improvement;
    • Record of enhancing the educational experience and professional development of under-represented learners (e.g., but not limited to those recognized in the Geisel Diversity Commitment and Policy).
  • Formal acknowledgement of outstanding teaching (e.g., selection as Class Day speaker; Teacher of the Year award; membership in AOA, HHMI, and Teaching Professorships).
  • Leadership and major participation in departmental or institutional courses or educational programs (e.g., graduate program directors or course leaders), development of novel graduate curricula or novel programs that extend across the institution.
  • Scholarship in the area of education and teaching methodologies, including textbooks, videotapes, and training manuals, as well as the development, dissemination, and effective implementation (documented) of new courses, curricular content, or novel teaching materials--syllabi, web-based and/or computer-assisted instruction, films, or videotapes. Developments that are peer-reviewed and/or exported on a national or international level shall be heavily weighted.
  • Scholarship in the area of innovation in curriculum design and teaching that enriches Dartmouth’s teacher/scholar model through the innovative use of institutional resources, such as library resources and expertise, that has an objective and evidence-based impact on learners.
  • Novel scholarship as made evident in Dartmouth’s Digital Library and Dartmouth Digital Learning Initiatives.
  • Peer-reviewed extramural support for educational inquiry.
  • Extramural support for teaching-based programs (e.g., R25s; and teaching-directed programs associated with training grants).
  • Directorship or development of major courses or other curricular offerings and/or development of significant new teaching materials. Service in a major teaching responsibility (e.g., course director with major teaching responsibility) shall constitute a heavily weighted achievement when coupled with substantive effort commitment to other activities (e.g., research).
  • Measures of trainees' achievements related to teaching and pedagogy.
  • Frequent invitations to serve as a visiting Professor or outside speaker, especially in endowed visiting Professorships or lectureships.
  • Letters of commendation for exceptional educational contributions to other institutions and organizations.
  • Evaluations and ratings arising from participation in other teaching programs.
  • Peer-reviewed research that involves the development or evaluation of teaching methods, material (e.g., national board questions), and/or new programs, or that defines important, innovative, and effective (documented) changes in medical education.
  • Editorship or authorship of textbooks, reviews, or other scholarly contributions.
  • Development of important curriculum offerings or teaching materials (including textbooks, web-based training modules, clinical handbooks) adopted by Geisel and/or other institutions.

Individuals for whom teaching and pedagogical research comprise a critical part of their academic endeavors may want to track their activities using an educator’s portfolio. While there is not a required template for these portfolios, we note that the AAMC provides helpful guidance for both planning and recording of these activities with respect to academic advancement.

b. Research: The mission of the investigator is research, encompassing the discovery, production, and dissemination of new knowledge. Productive scholarship at all levels, from the molecular basis of living systems and human disease to health services and public policy, is an essential characteristic of an academic medical system. The biomedical research of today informs and transforms clinical practice and the health care policies of tomorrow. Results of research can have exponential influence well beyond Geisel by enhancing our understanding of the fundamentals of biological processes, developing new drugs and devices, and advancing healthcare delivery. Accomplished, active investigators imbue their teaching with the rigor of the scientific method and the excitement of discoveries that transform their fields. Investigators nurture an atmosphere of inquiry that permeates all phases of biomedical training and, in turn, promotes the development of researchers under their tutelage who have the ability to ask critical questions. This skill is at the heart of academic medicine, and individuals who understand the fundamental mechanisms of health, disease, and health care delivery will be those best equipped to advance the frontiers of biomedical knowledge and promotion of wellness and excellence in clinical care.

The Geisel School of Medicine also recognizes that research may encompass a broad range of academic inquiry. Specifically, we recognize that as with laboratory or data sciences, peer-reviewed extramural support for educational inquiry and scholarship in this area of endeavor will be viewed as contributing to the research community and will be taken as validation of the faculty member’s contributions to advancing their given field.

b. Criteria Relating to Research

The candidate should be recognized by peers as an investigator whose work has been instrumental in promoting significant advances in their field of inquiry, inclusive of basic research, clinical research, pedagogy, and health care delivery science. Hallmarks of recognition include both those made as an individual and those made as part of a larger, cooperative team. Recognition of excellence in investigation is made evident by:

  • Documentation of the ability to create new knowledge or manners of thought, as made evident by continued publication of substantive, original studies (basic, clinical, pedagogical, or translational science) in peer-reviewed, high-quality journals. Assessment through publications and peers that one has had a substantive impact in driving advances in their chosen field of endeavor.
  • Recognition by peers for peer-reviewed. Disseminated, original, and substantive investigation as shown by external funding of competitive peer-reviewed projects, in individual investigator awards, and/or in multi-investigator/institutional projects (biomedical or educational/pedagogical).
  • In the case of both disseminated, peer-reviewed scholarship and peer-reviewed funding, Geisel recognizes that such efforts more likely than not will occur in the context of collaborations with colleagues and often times as the combined efforts among individuals in research teams. In this context, Geisel recognizes the importance of substantive and original investigation whether attributed to an individual who is the head of a research team or to members within such a team by the following standards:

Substantive and original scientific contributions represent content or methodological work that is substantive (associated with a major scientific contribution or impact) and original (novel and/or unable to be replaced or substituted with a generic or standard alternative). “Substantive and original” scientific contributions are critical to the impact, design, methods, findings and/or interpretation of research, and include ones that are specific to the faculty member offering the contribution. In the area of research methods, substantive and original contributions apply to, for example, developing novel techniques, methods, and/or analytic models that break new ground, establish novel paradigms, and are associated with original publications in peer-reviewed publications, and/or major invited presentations at national or international meetings, and/or attributable funding (as an independent investigator or as part of a team—with commensurate effort as noted above) to support development of those techniques.

While recognizing that the term substantive is subjective in nature, in the context of appointments or promotions to a faculty rank, unless otherwise indicated by documentation provided by the faculty member’s chair, it will be expected that substantive effort on sponsored projects will be reflected in greater than de minimis effort on such work. This designation of “substantive” does not mean that contributions to projects at de minimis effort are not without importance in evaluation of the faculty member’s portfolio, but that such efforts will be weighted accordingly in considering the overall the faculty member’s academic contributions. For promotion/appointment to Associate Professor or Professor, faculty members will be expected, in all but rare cases, to have a well-documented and consistent record of contributions on funded awards at this level of effort.

In contrast, to substantive contributions, a professional “service” or operational contribution is one that, while of noted value to the research project, can be readily replaced, substituted, contracted, or otherwise arranged or purchased and which is not unique to a faculty member. Examples of service or operational contribution include providing a research service, biological product (unless it is a novel reagent developed by the individual as part the academic program of discovery), tool, registering patients in a database, or routine component in a research study that are along the lines of standard practice in the field.

As noted above, research accomplishments are often achieved by individuals as part of a complex and distributed team of investigators and clinicians. The scholarly importance of these team-science activities is recognized even when individuals are not accorded conventional indications, such as first or last authorship on collaborative projects. While team science is to be recognized, individuals must provide intellectual input that is critical to the scholarship. Service participation, however useful to for the collaborative effort, does not meet the criteria for advancement if it is bereft of analysis and interpretation, which are the cornerstones of scholarship. Similarly, as with committed efforts on sponsored research, for a faculty member to hold the rank of Associate Professor or Professor, with rare exception, it will be the expectation that they have a well-documented and consistent record of peer-reviewed publication in indexed journals which they are recognized for making substantive and creative contributions to that work.

  • Entrepreneurial advances. The transfer of knowledge and technology is integral to the educational mission. Research excellence may be recognized by intellectual property (patents, licenses, rights granted under copyright) and the transfer of technological advances to industries that provide for the improvement of society.
  • Substantive, non-peer reviewed contributions to the biomedical literature (e.g., authorship or editorship of textbooks, monographs, reviews, or journals). Such contributions may also be relevant to a faculty member’s contributions as an educator and/or clinician.
  • National or international prizes or awards.
  • Invitation to hold endowed lectureships.
  • Invited lectures, particularly at major scientific meetings.
  • Development of programs that result in increased submission of awards and receipt of funded awards of learners/faculty engaged in research.
  • Development of programs/methodologies that enhance and support new modes of scholarship, applied practice, and research innovation
  • Impact of scholarly output (through a variety of media, including opinion pieces and white papers) on scientific debate, policy, and health care practice.
  • Participation on editorial boards, associate editorships, and editorships of journals.
  • A strong record of departmental/institutional participation in scientific training.
  • Leadership of or active participation in development of research programs (institutional, extramural, and those that link research efforts of Geisel with other organizations).
  • Active participation in research-related administrative or committee activity.
  • Leadership of or active participation in program projects, training grants, graduate programs, or postdoctoral training programs that advance scientific content in concert with the teaching of science.
  • Leadership roles in institutional activities that are critical for broad-based discovery and scholarship. While service work is expected of all faculty members, it is recognized that leadership roles associated with specific activities are fundamental to the scholarly output of large sectors of the institution, even if that individual is not identified by named investigator status on specific grants or published work arising from those efforts. Such efforts may include leadership roles with the Clinical Trials Office or in major initiatives such as establishment of institution-wide electronic health record (EHR), etc. Administrative support of such efforts in the absence of evidence of leadership capacity, while valued, is not a criterion for academic advancement.
  • Measures of trainees' achievements related to research (e.g., NRSAs).

Whether the research endeavor is characterized as team-based or not, it is the expectation that faculty and their mentors follow the precepts and guidelines of the ICMJE in terms of defining authorship (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html). In particular, faculty and those that mentor them need to adhere to 4 criteria recommended by the ICMJE:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  • Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Both faculty members, and their senior mentors are also strongly encouraged to consult with the Biomedical Libraries on best publishing practices (https://researchguides.dartmouth.edu/PUBLISHARTICLE). The librarians provide an excellent resource in how to adhere to journal and funding organization requirements, open access considerations, the meaning of impact factors and how they are calculated, as well as how to assess whether a given journal meets a given scholar’s community norms or to be potentially wary of it (i.e., it may be a “predatory journal).

c. Promotion of Wellness and Advancement of Clinical Care: Academic Medicine has two primary directives: 1) to promote population health as made evident by programs and efforts that augment wellness and lessen the burden to society of our health care systems programs and 2) to provide for excellence in clinical care as made evident through advances in clinical research and in direct clinical practice. Both clinicians and non-clinicians may lessen the burden of disease through research and program development that advance health and wellness. For faculty members that are engaged in direct clinical care, we expect both superior performance and a clear academic dimension to these activities, evidenced by breadth and depth of knowledge, awareness of the fundamentals of basic science, pathophysiology and current clinical concepts, extensive use of the biomedical resources available to assist and improve clinical care, excellent judgment, humility, and an exemplary willingness to both teach and learn from professional colleagues. As embodied in the Oath of Hippocrates, the clinician demonstrates a consistent and deeply held dedication to human welfare, the promotion of good health, and the relief of human suffering.

Excellence in promoting wellness and advancement of clinical care can be assessed by a number of indicators, including recognition by peers and patients, clinical scholarship, practice of evidence-based medicine, quality of clinical service, whether as an individual or a team, and contributions to the profession and institution. In each instance, these are by-products of the individual's dedication to the highest principles of medical practice.

Criteria Relating to Promotion of Wellness and Excellence in Clinical Care

Recognition by peers and patients--a reputation within and outside of DHMC for excellence in medical practice as made evident by:

  • Development and maintenance of clinical skills and/or programs that have been demonstrated to significantly improve patient outcomes, clinical innovation, and elected or invited service to the profession, taking into account the impact of the program, based on regional health care need, patient volumes, program quality, and sustainability. Impact of such programs may be (but are not required to be) gauged through measures that include (but are not limited to):
    • Improved clinical effectiveness within the health care organization which can be attributed to a new or revised program;
    • Improved indices of wellness/professional satisfaction of professional staff in the health care system which can be attributed to a new or revised program;
    • Improved patient and/or population outcomes which can be attributed to a new or revised program;
    • Improved interprofessional dynamics of a clinical service attributable which can be attributed to a new or revised program;
    • Increased patient referral base which can be attributed to a new or revised program.
  • Record of placement of medical students in high quality residency programs which can be attributed to a new or revised program
  • Excellence in metrics/attestations of quality of care (e.g., patient testimonials, peer and support team evaluations).
  • Regional to national (for Associate Professor) or national/international (for Professor) recognition by peers and patients as an excellent clinician and consultant; evidence of unusual competence and accomplishment in clinical service.
  • Invitation to lead, organize or participate as faculty in regional or national CME courses or other programs that disseminate medical knowledge.
  • Evidence of a leadership role in local or regional clinical affairs by service (e.g., as Section Chief, Clerkship Director, Departmental Vice Chair, Departmental Chair, Center Director, or Service Line Director) and/or active and ongoing participation in committee, program, and/or governing boards.
  • Design and/or participation in workshops that promote and improve clinical care.
  • Patient referrals or professional recommendations from other health care providers and patients and complexity of patients referred, when applicable to the specialty and taking into account percentage of referrals/consultations that are requested by other peer providers rather than assigned number.
  • Recognition by key partners of excellence in care that arises from the concerted efforts of a team of practitioners. It is recognized that referrals may not be common for certain disciplines (radiology, anesthesiology, emergency medicine, pathology). In these fields, the recommendations of colleagues who can attest to the importance of the skills and contributions of the candidate in promoting the well-being of their patients will be weighed.
  • Consulting activities, documented acknowledgement by peers as a premier consultant, and requested involvement in complex clinical problems.
  • Introduction of novel and innovative skills or techniques locally, regionally, nationally, or internationally.
  • Special competencies that improve or extend other clinical or training programs.
  • Participation in clinical and translational research including questions relating basic biomedical science to clinical care, clinical trials, comparative effectiveness research, and quality improvement and translating education research and innovation into standard teaching practice. In assessing such participation, prime consideration should be given to the role of the individual in concept, design, oversight, and conduct of the research activity, as well as membership on key project committees and authorship.

Geisel does not require measurements such as numbers of referrals, clinical revenue productivity or patient satisfaction surveys in promotion review as these measures may not be relevant to all clinical fields (e.g., referrals to emergency medicine) and may not provide the most accurate assessment of clinical skill (i.e., patients may not like a decision made by a provider, but that decision nonetheless reflects the best avenue of clinical care).

d. Engagement: Engagement has been defined as “a highly positive step towards reestablishing what higher education is intended to be: a community of scholars, serving both internal and external audiences in addition to the academic and the public good.”[2] As such, engagement recognizes that service to both intra- and extramural communities fulfills not only an operational function, but is also fundamental to scholarship. Engagement is an alliance of university scholars, lay people, and individual knowledge-creating institutions in the local, regional, national and international community. Engagement promotes the public good and produces “projects that create knowledge and understanding that we cannot obtain anywhere else, while strengthening culture, community, and democracy.”[3] While committee membership is recognized as a valuable contribution to the academic community and is considered in the evaluation for appointment or promotion, engagement goes beyond service work. Engagement is one of the key endpoints of scholarship: extending academic efforts beyond one's own clinical, laboratory or classroom responsibilities to have a broader impact on the biomedical community within the institution and on society and its environs at large.

Criteria Related to Engagement

  • Regional/national (Associate Professor) or national/international (Professor) recognition by peers for original teaching or investigative accomplishments as made evident by invited presentations, lectures, and symposia, requested publications; and formal awards. It is expected that national/international invitations will be more prevalent for those being considered at the rank of Professor than Associate Professor.
  • Distinctive recognition through formal awards, invited and named lectures, and participation in symposia, professional society programs, and invitations to lead or participate in notable regional, national, or international courses. It is expected that named lectureships and national/international awards will be more prevalent for those being considered for the rank of Professor than Associate Professor.
  • Membership on editorial boards, study sections, and/or advisory groups.
  • Leadership roles on editorial boards, study sections, and/or advisory groups.
  • Appointed or elected membership/leadership roles in major societies; committee/program, national professional organizations; governing boards and organizations for major professional meetings. It is expected that such elections will be more prevalent for those being considered for the rank of Professor than Associate Professor.
  • Membership (elected) and/or leadership roles in societies and/or governing boards related to the candidate’s area of endeavor. Participation from local/regional to national/international level is expected to increase from Associate Professor to Professor. Progression from membership to leadership roles is also expected to increase from Associate Professor to Professor.
  • Leadership roles in institutional activities that are critical for broad-based scholarship and/or transformative programs at Dartmouth. While service work is expected of all faculty members, it is recognized that leadership roles associated with specific activities are fundamental to the missions of large sectors of the institution, even when that individual may not be identified by named investigator status on specific grants or published work arising from those efforts. Such efforts may include leadership roles with major programs (e.g., Senior Administration, Dartmouth/Geisel Centers; NSF ADVANCE grants; COBRE or INBRE awards) or in major institutional initiatives. Administrative support of such efforts in the absence of evidence of leadership capacity, while valued, is not a criterion for academic advancement.
  • Record of advancing scholastic achievement of learners who enter programs from a less advantaged foundation than the majority of their peers.
  • Membership (elected) and leadership on state, national, and federal advisory committees.
  • Consultancy participation in or institutional reviews of major external programs.
  • Appointed or elected service and leadership on Geisel/DH/Dartmouth College Advisory Committees.
  • Contributions to entrepreneurial efforts that create new products or implement advances in product design and instrumentation relative to biomedical science and/or biomedical education.
  • Contributions to non-conventional scholarship (e.g., opinion pieces, white papers) that can be shown (e.g., page view, citations) to have a substantive impact on scientific debate, policy, and health care practice.
  • Contributions to advances in computation and computing infrastructure and to development and implementation of large databases and/or networks.
  • Participation in community-based research organizations.
  • Contributions to education communities of practice and/or education collaborations.
  • Design and participation in workshops that advance key areas of academic medicine.
  • Contributions with respect to departmental and institutional service related to the mission of the Medical School.
  • Leadership of or major participation in community engagement venues (e.g., Geisel Community Medical School, HHMI-sponsored outreach programs).
  • Development and implementation of curricula associated with regional K-12 outreach.
  • Community science cafes and other initiatives that disseminate advances in science and healthcare through media for the general public.
  • Community mentoring activities including efforts to enhance the skills of students entering STEM fields and efforts to enhance the diversity of student and faculty representation at Geisel.
  • Pro bono service at organizations (regional, national, and international) that further health care and biomedical teaching/science (e.g., The Good Neighbor Clinic, Headrest, Listen, WISE, Second Growth, Dar-Dar, the WHO, After School Enrichment Programs).
  • Involvement in initiatives that advance science and medical education at academic and non-academic institutions outside of Dartmouth.
  • Involvement in initiatives that meet key departmental and/or institutional goals in attracting individuals from under-represented groups to residency and fellowship programs and to the professional staff of the health system; and/or developing mentorship and sponsorship programs that act to enhance the representation of under-represented women and minorities in areas of health care.
  • Finally, many areas of engagement fall under the rubric of Advocacy.  As with program development, faculty members may have substantive impacts at the regional and national levels through advocacy, including testimonial and involvement in position papers and reviews that shape the direction of medicine and science through local, state, and federal government agencies. For those for whom advocacy comprises a substantial part of their academic portfolio, these advocacy-directed activities need to be academic in pursuit and, as with other areas of program development, efforts in advocacy should be goal-directed, with impact and outcomes demonstrated by rigorous assessment of relevant data.  Participation alone is not sufficient.

[1] Subject to the review process and to the considerations that may provide faculty members with an additional one to three (1-3) year term; both outlined above under Reappointments.

[2] Ward, K. Faculty Service Roles and the Scholarship of Engagement, 2003.

[3] Ellison, J. and Eatman, T.K. Scholarship in Public: Knowledge Creation and Tenure Policy in the Engaged University, 2008.