Appendix 5: Guidelines for Faculty Promotion Procedures: Tenure-track/Tenure, Non-tenure, and AMS Faculty Lines

The authority to award faculty titles at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth (Geisel) lies with the Trustees of Dartmouth College. The Trustees, however, act upon recommendations made by the Medical School and the administration of Dartmouth College. These guidelines outline the procedures for the consideration of appointment and/or promotion to senior rank (Associate Professor/Professor). Consideration for tenure at Geisel is made upon appointment or promotion to Professor for those individuals who are employees of Dartmouth College.

These guidelines focus on procedures for evaluation of appointments/promotions to senior ranks at Geisel. The substantive standards that govern all appointments, promotions and titles are found in the parent document entitled, "Academic Appointments, Promotions and Titles at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth."

I. Procedures for Promotion Consideration Prior to the Appointments, Promotions and Titles (APT) Committee Review.

Annual reviews and appropriate professional development of all faculty members are required by governing principles of the Medical School and by LCME standards for accreditation. Each member of the faculty will receive such reviews from their respective Chair or Director[1] (or the Chair’s designated official) and coaching, mentoring and sponsorship from the Chair and members of the Department’s/Institute’s Promotions Committee. These individuals are responsible, in conjunction with the faculty member, for guiding them along the appropriate trajectory for academic advancement.

While the specific components of each faculty member’s academic trajectory will vary with respect to the Line/Track to which they belong, each annual meeting should address progress in the following:

  1. Scholarship is integral to all faculty lines at Geisel. While the type of scholarship may vary, each individual should be assessed and guided with regard to meeting expectations for scholarly productivity and in being provided opportunities to develop the skills to be a productive scholar. All chairs, faculty mentors, and promotion committee members are asked to read/review the document “Rethinking Research Assessment: Ideas for Action” that provides five design principles to help universities and research institutions improve research assessment policies and practices. We also encourage all search committee members and hiring leadership to read and be aware of best practices in both evaluation of research and in search/promotion processes that have been collated by DORA and can be found in their resource library and repository of case studies.
  2. While formal didactic teaching may not be required for all faculty lines, active teaching (e.g., at the bench or bedside) is integral to all academic pursuits at Geisel. The array of learners is broad, and the APT Committee’s assessment of teaching is holistic (inclusive of a variety of evaluations and of learners at many levels and in many distinct geographic locations). As with scholarship, it is incumbent upon the Chair and the department to provide the opportunities to develop the skills to be an effective and excellent teacher.
  3. Research, in the broadest sense of inquiry, is foundational to all academic endeavors. Beyond inquiry itself, faculty members who are in research-intensive lines/tracks are expected to develop a robust and extramurally-funded research portfolio. Whether as an individual or part of a larger research team, each faculty member who has expectations for significant effort devoted to research activities should be provided with the opportunities to develop excellence in grantsmanship and in the specific research approaches essential to their discipline that will promote a trajectory on which they shall become a recognized leader in their particular field.
  4. For all faculty members, Chairs and senior faculty should have oversight to ensure that junior faculty are afforded proper acknowledgment on publications and grants as well as provide sponsorship for junior faculty (e.g., foster appropriate opportunities to give seminars, serve on boards, be nominated for awards and other professional metrics that are used to assess academic standing).
  5. For all faculty members, annual reviews should include information on how the faculty members have promoted the broader impact of their work through engagement and fostering diversity, equity, and inclusion as outlined in sections on Efforts to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion at Geisel and on Engagement as enumerated above.
  6. Clinical care: As noted above, excellence in clinical care is an essential characteristic by which we evaluate our faculty members who have clinical care responsibilities. While clinical productivity per se (RVUs referrals) is not germane to academic advancement, chairs and senior faculty should provide both appropriate avenues for clinical development and feedback on clinical performance that will guide the faculty member to becoming a complete and highly competent physician.

The department has the initial responsibility for determining whether or not to recommend a faculty member in the department for promotion based on a thorough and objective review. Considerations about faculty promotions at the departmental level are led by the Departmental Chair with the involvement of the Department Promotions Committee. Each department shall constitute an internal promotions committee according to its own composition and how the Chair/Department believe they will best be able to provide internal assessment of whether or not candidates should move forward to the APT Committee. Specifically, individual department may choose to constitute promotions committees that contain only members or their own department or share members across departments with similar types of academic expertise. Departments may also choose to include individuals at either Associate Professor or Professor to constitute this internal committee with the following restrictions:

  1. All members of the promotion committee must be at the rank of professor and hold tenure for recommendations to the Chair for individuals being considered for promotion to professor with tenure.
  2. All members of the promotion committee must be at the proposed rank of the candidate or higher. That is, for Assistant Professors being considered for promotion to Associate Professor, all committee members must be Associate Professor or Professor. For Associate Professors being considered for advancement to Professor, all committee members must also hold the rank of professor.
  3. In cases where the committee must comprise those at the rank of Professor, and the number of faculty at the rank of Professor within a single department is limited, more than one department may choose to form a combined review committee.
  4. Unless an exception is specifically approved by the Department Chair and the Dean for Faculty Affairs), all committee members must hold voting rights at Geisel (i.e., may not be members of the adjunct, clinical, honorary faculty lines or emerit). Exceptions to this requirement are expected to be rare.
  5. No person may serve on a departmental promotions committee who is a department chair (the Director of TDI is the equivalent of a departmental chair). Former chairs are eligible for service on department promotions committees.
  6. Departments should tally the total number of promotion committee members (anonymized) who vote and the for/against of the recommendation and convey that information to the Dean's Office when the portfolio is advanced, but that information should not be conveyed to any reviewers who provide assessment of the candidate. For tenure decisions, promotions committees should provide separate vote for a) promotion and b) tenure.

Departmental Review:

Department Chairs and their Departmental Promotions Committees must provide candidates and their mentors a list of the material required for departmental review at least two months prior to this review, to allow the candidates adequate time to prepare this material.

Extramural Reviewers

Number of reviewers: During the departmental review process, the departmental chair will solicit and receive a minimum of three (3) letters from outside (non-peer) reviewers who are qualified to assess the candidate's academic performance. Outside reviewers must not have an appointment at any institution where the faculty member holds an active appointment (e.g., if the candidate has an adjunct appointment at another institution) and must not have a personal (e.g., is married to) or financial (e.g., shared intellectual property) conflict of interest with the candidate.

Letters solicited for the departmental review, as well as those sent forward to the APT Committee, must come from outside reviewers who hold academic rank at or above the academic rank for which the candidate is being considered. Emerit faculty members at relevant rank may provide letters, but individuals who have retired should be those who are nonetheless able to still provide critical insight relevant to current best standards in any given academic field.

Selection of reviewers for Departmental Review: The candidate may provide the Chair with a list of up to five suggested outside reviewers, together with information about the professional relationship of the suggested reviewers to the candidate, if any, and the basis for their selection as individuals qualified to evaluate the candidate. In selecting the outside reviewers from whom letters will be requested, at least one of the minimum of three (3) letters must be from the list provided by the candidate.

The outside reviewers should be qualified to credibly assess the candidate's performance under the principles outlined in the document entitled, "Academic Appointments, Promotions and Titles at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth”. Because these principles vary depending upon the level of promotion under consideration and the nature of the candidate's portfolio, the credentials of the outside reviewers may vary depending on the particular situation. It is recognized that outside reviewers may not necessarily be personally familiar with specific aspects of a candidate’s portfolio (e.g., teaching or clinical care). The major role of these reviewers is to assess the professional reputation and standing of the candidate in the non-Dartmouth academic community relevant to the candidate's proposed rank and faculty line.

Solicitation of Letters; Departmental Assessment

To ensure consistency among departments and consistency between the departmental review and review by the APT Committee, the cover letter provided to reviewers should be the Chair Template Letter and the External Reviewer Template in this Appendix (Subappendix C). Each potential reviewer should receive the solicitation to review (template) letter which informs the reviewer of the Faculty Line (e.g., AMS, Tenure/Tenure-track) and Track (e.g., Clinician Scholar) and contains the appropriate url to direct the reviewer to the online information for that Line/Track in the APT document. The cover letter to reviewers should be agnostic as to whether or not the Chair or the senior members of the faculty support the candidate’s promotion.

The candidate should not be informed of the names of the outside reviewers selected by the Chair, and the Chair is responsible for informing the candidate that the candidate should not personally communicate with any of the candidate's suggested outside reviewers about the fact that their opinions may be solicited or the substance of the review.

As indicated below, all outside letters received shall be included in the candidate's portfolio that is provided to the Medical School’s APT Committee. In assembling this portfolio, the Department will provide a list of a) the reviewers suggested by the candidate and b) the reviewers suggested by the Chair, and will indicate on both lists the reviewers from whom responses were obtained.

Intramural Reviewers

The Chair will also solicit letters from at least two (2) inside (Geisel or most recent institution for new hires) peer reviewers.  These peer reviewers should be selected by the Chair without consulting the candidate. The peer reviewers may have a stronger basis than outside reviewers to assess the candidate's teaching abilities, clinical skills, and contributions to the Dartmouth/Geisel community. Peer reviewers should receive the same information as outside reviewers. Peer reviewers should hold a ladder faculty position (i.e., Assistant Professor, Associate Professor or Professor or equivalent).  While peer reviewers do not need to be at the same rank for which the candidate is being considered, and they may hold a prefixed appointment (e.g., Clinical Associate Professor), they do need to be able to have understanding of the criteria for rank that would allow them to assess if the candidate has met those criteria.


After considering the candidate's file, including the letters solicited by the Chair, the department's promotions committee will decide to recommend the candidate for promotion or decide not to forward the candidate's file for further consideration for promotion at the present time. In soliciting additional reviewers to meet the number of letters required by the APT Committee, reviewers who are asked for additional letters should not be informed of the deliberations or vote by the department committee (i.e., whether it was unanimous or not).

Note:  Departmental votes are not required for candidates who are recruited to senior ranks (i.e., Associate Professor/Professor).  While portfolios of these candidates must be reviewed by the APT Committee, the recommendation of the search committee constitutes the necessary approval process.  The department does not need to submit a vote tally to the Dean's Office, and the departmental vote is not forwarded to the Provost.

As noted in Appendix 2, external letters solicited at the time of a recruitment may be used for candidate's portfolio if they note that the candidate should be appointed at the rank of the hire (and if a tenured appointment, with tenure).  If the letters do not explicitly address these two aspects, the department may contact the reviewers to confirm that they would support these two motions and append that approval (e.g., email) to the search letters when forwarding to the committee.  All letters should unless there are exceptions granted) be consistent with the timeframe noted in the checklists in this appendix.

Transmittal of Recommendation for Promotion

The Chair will forward recommendations for promotion to the APT Committee, which will perform its own review. The Chair will transmit the following documents to the APT Committee:

  1. “Dean's” Letter from the Chair: A letter from the Chair to the Dean of the Medical School (Dean’s Letter) recommending promotion. The letter will include the following information and assessments:
    1. The first paragraph of the letter should contain the candidate's proposed rank (primary department listed first, if joint appointment). If the promotion is to the rank of Professor, the first paragraph should also specify whether this is a request for tenure or non-tenure;
    2. The effective date of the proposed appointment;
    3. Identification of the candidate's faculty line and track (see “Academic Appointments, Promotions and Titles at The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth” document);
    4. A breakdown of the estimated percentage of effort the candidate spends in clinical activities, research or other forms of scholarship, teaching, and engagement. These numbers are not based on official labor attestation and do not need to be exact; rather they are to provide the APT Committee with guidelines on how much to weight each of the candidate’s activities (teaching, research, clinical care, engagement) when considering their accomplishments in meeting criteria for promotion.
    5. A precise description of the candidate's field of specialty;
    6. A detailed explanation of the basis for the promotion recommendation, including:
      1. The professional and personal qualities of the candidate that merit consideration;
      2. The candidate's academic role in teaching, research, and (when applicable) clinical care;
      3. The candidate's contribution in areas of program development and engagement (as defined in the APT guidelines for each faculty line, as provided), including efforts to advance diversity, equity and inclusion at Geisel;
      4. The candidate's contribution to the department and the Medical School;
      5. Evidence of regional, national, or international recognition, as appropriate for the level of promotion and the portfolio.
      6. The Chair’s letter must address any negative input (e.g., letters that are not supportive; a less than unanimous vote of the departmental committee).
  2. A letter of approval from the Chairs of the non-primary departments in the cases of joint appointments (or the letter from the primary Chair may be jointly signed). For faculty members in large departments who also report to a Section or Division Chief, a letter of approval from that Chief should also be included.
  3. A current Curriculum Vitae of the candidate in the Geisel format: See Forms and Templates.
  4. Data supporting the Chair’s assertion that the candidate has achieved the criteria for promotion, including:
    1. One copy of the letter from the chair sent to reviewers (internal and external) framing the request to review
    2. Letters solicited from inside reviewers, including, where relevant, letters from colleagues attesting to quality of teaching, research, engagement, and, as appropriate, clinical accomplishments;
    3. A list of internal reviewers who provided letters;
    4. All letters received from outside reviewers (see vi below);
    5. A list of all outside reviewers suggested by the candidate and a list of all outside reviewers suggested by the chair; annotation as to which reviewers provided letters. Please include, if relevant, an explanation of the professional relationship of the reviewers to the candidate. The candidate may provide additional names for outside reviewers (beyond the five letters requested for departmental review). All letters need to be requested with the following criteria in mind:
      1. The requisite number of letters must be from individuals who hold the same (or equivalent) academic rank as that of the candidate;
      2. The majority of letters must come from the list provided by the Chair. If a letter appears on both the Chair's and the candidate's list, it will be attributed to the candidate. Thus, candidates should be judicious in their lists in recognizing that putting someone on their lists precludes that referee from counting towards the requisite majority from the Chairs;
      3. At least half of the required number of letters on the Chair's list and half of the required number of letters on the candidate's list must be from individuals who have not trained or been trained by the candidate within five years of the date of solicitation of the review;
      4. At least half of the required number of letters on the Chair's list and half of the required number of letters on the candidate's list must be from individuals who have not received joint funding (grants, foundation awards, clinical trials etc.) as PI or co-I with the candidate within the past five years; and
      5. At least half of the required number of letters on the Chair's list and half of the required number of letters on the candidate's list must be from individuals who have not published with the candidate in the past two years;
      6. If more letters than the required number are obtained, the department may indicate which letters they wish to "count" towards the required number, however ALL letters received must be included with the portfolio.
      7. Letters should be received within no longer than 1 year prior to review of the candidate by the APT Committee unless otherwise specifically approved by the Dean of Faculty Affairs.
          It is recognized that under certain and limited conditions, departments may find it difficult to obtain the requisite number of letters from individuals who meet the criteria above (e.g., if the candidate is heavily active in large clinical trials that incorporate comparably large numbers of investigators, it may be difficult to obtain letters from those with sufficient expertise who are not in conflict). If Chairs believe that the inability to obtain outside letters is unduly impeding the review of the faculty member, they may petition the Dean of Faculty Affairs at Geisel to see if criteria set out in ii -v above, may be waived for a limited number of letters;
    6. Teaching evaluations: course reviews, eVal and other metrics (required, for those who have teaching responsibilities in any Line). For candidates new to Geisel (i.e., appointments in rank), if metric teaching evaluations can be provided from the candidate's prior institution, they should be, but they are not required (narrative evaluations should be included).
    7. A list of weblinks for 3-5 publications that the candidate designates as their most significant or appropriate internet addresses for other web-based materials (please see Subappendix C: Chair template letter for external reviewers, with respect to these links); and,
    8. Material from other academic/non-academic institutions indicating the candidate’s accomplishments with respect to engagement where applicable.
  5. Evaluations from 10 individuals who have been taught by the candidate. These evaluations may include a combination of medical students, graduate students, residents and post-doctoral fellows, and undergraduate students or other learners; and,
    1. The Departmental Chairs will forward their recommendations for promotion and all supporting material to the APT Committee when all materials required for the portfolio are received. The Department's submission should include, as a separate document (not in the Chair's letter):
      1. Date the promotions committee met to discuss the candidate
  6. Summary of the review/voting by the departmental promotions committee (required by the Dean's office for all portfolios; required by the Provost for tenure portfolios).
    1. Number of voting members of the department promotions committee present (and whether this number meets a quorum of 50%; e.g., 5 of 8 potential members present); note committee members must be at or of higher rank than that being considered for candidate.
    2. tally of votes supporting the portfolio moving forward to the APT Committee: i) in favor; ii) opposed; iii) abstaining. (e.g., the vote was 10-2 in favor of promotion and, if in consideration, the vote was 10-2 in favor of tenure).
    3. an explanation of concerns raised by anyone voting no. Not needed if unanimous.

The complete portfolio (all materials) must be received in the Dean’s Office no later than 3 weeks prior to the scheduled date for the APT Committee review.

The APT committee meets monthly during the academic year, with a hiatus in July and August.

II. Procedures for Promotion at the APT Committee Level

The APT Committee reviews candidates for promotion who have been recommended by their respective departments. The Committee represents the interests and perspectives of the Medical School as a whole.

Committee Composition

The APT Committee consists of 11 members: The Dean of Faculty Affairs at Geisel and 10 faculty members who reflect the diversity of faculty in Geisel with regard to clinical care, teaching, engagement, and research (i.e., clinical and foundational departments). One of the faculty members of the Committee serves as Chair of the Committee and oversees each meeting. Members of the Committee, other than the Dean of Faculty Affairs, are chosen by the Dean of Faculty Affairs, in consultation with the Department Chairs and upon recommendation by the Geisel Faculty Council. Appointments are subject to approval by the Dean. Initial appointments are made for one year, with the ability to extend the term for an additional three to four years. No member of the Committee (other than the Dean of Faculty Affairs) may serve more than two consecutive terms. Faculty members who rejoin the committee after a hiatus may sign up for a three- or four-year term without the initial one-year period. The Chair of the APT Committee is appointed by the Dean or the Dean’s designated official (the Dean of Faculty Affairs at Geisel) from among the members of the Committee. The Chair serves as Chair for two years. Unless specifically approved by the Dean of Faculty Affairs, no one department shall provide more than one faculty member for concurrent service on the APT committee.

The Chair is responsible for chairing the meetings, working with the Administrative Assistant to assure that the Committee stays on schedule, and working with the Dean of Faculty Affairs at Geisel to make sure information regarding APT proceedings is conveyed to the Department Chairs in an accurate, helpful, and timely manner. The Dean for Faculty Affairs may also call on “reserves”: former members of the APT Committee identified by the Dean for Faculty Affairs who may be asked to perform reviews when a quorum is in question without their participation.

The Committee is assisted by the Coordinator for Faculty Affairs and the Director of Administration in the Geisel Administration. The Faculty Affairs Coordinator maintains the promotion files:

  1. Ensuring that all necessary documentation has been provided by the Departmental Chairs;
  2. Maintaining correspondence with outside reviewers, inside reviewers, and students;
  3. Keeping the APT member responsible for the file informed of the status of the file;
  4. Maintaining all APT documentation (both hardcopies and electronic documents for the committee’s use that are posted on protected internet sites; e.g., SharePoint or Interfolio);
  5. Ensuring that the candidate's file contains at least five letters from outside reviewers in the case of promotions to Associate Professor and at least seven letters from outside reviewers in the case of promotions to Professor. The majority of the required number of letters in the file should be solicited from outside reviewers who are not drawn from the list of suggested reviewers provided by the candidate and must not have a conflict of interest with the candidate;
  6. Providing administrative support to the APT committee and taking minutes at the meetings;
  7. Ensuring that copies of the letters to the Chairs from the Dean of Faculty Affairs at Geisel/Vice Chair of the APT Committee that summarize the APT Committee’s deliberations, as well as formal letters acknowledging appointments/promotions, are maintained in the candidates’ files.

Committee Meetings and Schedule

The Provost of Dartmouth College approves appointments and promotions at Geisel on a rolling basis (with the exception that promotions/appointments with tenure must be voted upon by the Board of Trustees). The APT Committee, therefore, meets on a year-round basis (usually with a hiatus in July and August). The number of portfolios ready for review, the availability of Department Chairs or their designated officials, and the availability of APT Committee members will set schedules. In general, the APT Committee meets once monthly. As noted above, complete portfolios are due to the Faculty Affairs Coordinator no later than 3 weeks before the scheduled meeting date.

Committee Operations

The Departments are responsible for obtaining all promotions materials. The Geisel Dean’s Office is responsible for assembling materials into portfolios for review by the APT Committee. The APT Committee is responsible for reviewing information regarding the candidates' qualifications for promotion in rank, assuring the objective assessment of the candidates' academic and professional achievements, and putting forward recommendations for advancement.

  1. The Dean of Faculty Affairs at Geisel assigns each candidate for promotion to one APT Committee member who will then be responsible for an in-depth review of the candidate’s file. This individual must not have a conflict of interest with the candidate (e.g., is in the same primary department, has written a letter for the candidate, has a familial relationship with the candidate, is a colleague with whom the candidate publishes, shares grant support or intellectual property, or is a mentor for the candidate through mechanisms such as PPG, COBREs etc.).
  2. While it is the responsibility of the department administrators and Geisel administration to ensure portfolios are complete, APT reviewers should nonetheless double-check to make sure all required letters and other components are assembled. If any document is missing, the reviewer should alert the Faculty Affairs Coordinator, and the review shall be rescheduled for a later date when the portfolio is complete.
  3. The APT Committee member responsible for a candidate may also request additional reviews from inside reviewers selected by the Committee member. Such requests need to be conveyed to the Faculty Affairs coordinator and such additional requests
  4. The Committee member responsible for a candidate will make a presentation of the candidate's file to the APT Committee and will participate in the Committee's deliberations. This presentation must be written using the standard APT template to ensure that comparable criteria are used for assessment of all candidates.. The presenter may include in their draft review the expected recommendation for or against advancement, but they should not make that recommendation known to the rest of the committee at the time they present the portfolio. Following a discussion and a vote of the committee, the presenter should amend their letter to indicate the committee vote and submit the final letter to the Administrative Coordinator for Recruitment and Faculty Affairs (vide infra).
  5. The Department Chair or their designated official is invited to attend the presentation of the candidate and to answer questions from the committee. Other key individuals (e.g., the Director of the Cancer Center or a Chair from a joint department) may also be invited to attend.
  6. Faculty members who hold the same primary appointment as the candidate or who have any other recognized conflict of interest shall leave the room during the presentation and subsequent voting. Such conflicts include, but are not limited to: co-authoring papers or grants within the past five years for grants; within the past two years for papers, being a co-holder of intellectual property with the candidate, being a current or former mentor, having written a letter of support for the candidate for their current promotion, or familial relationship. Individuals who hold secondary/tertiary appointments may participate in the discussion and the vote as long as they, in good conscience, are not in conflict. Any committee member who believes they have any other type of conflict that would bias their review should recuse themselves from the discussion and vote.
  7. After this initial discussion, the Chairs and their designated officials shall be excused. A motion to recommend for promotion/appointment shall be made and seconded. After the motion has been proposed, the Committee shall then discuss and vote on the motion:

a. Candidates who receive a “yea” vote to advance from greater than 50 percent of the APT Committee members present will be recommended for promotion/appointment. A quorum (six (6) members of the committee who do not have a conflict and can thus vote) must be present and vote for an action to be taken.

b. Candidates who receive a “yea” vote to advance from less than 50 percent of the APT Committee members will not be recommended for promotion.

c. A secret ballot can be called for by any member of the Committee at any time. Otherwise, voting will be performed by a show of hands.

In some cases, the APT Committee may find that more information is required before coming to a vote. In these cases, the motion shall be tabled, and the Department Chair shall be informed that no decision can be made until the portfolio can be re-reviewed with new information. The revised portfolio can be re-reviewed as soon as the requested information is in hand.

  1. The Committee's vote and a brief written summary of the reasons for the vote will be prepared by the Dean of Faculty Affairs at Geisel. This summary shall be sent to the Department Chairs(s) as soon as possible following the APT’s decision. Each note on the recommendation of the candidate should delineate the reasons why the recommendation carried or did not carry. If promotion/appointment was recommended, this note should also contain one of the following sentences:

As you know, our recommendation must be approved by the Dean of Geisel, the Dean's Academic Board (DAB), and the Provost of Dartmouth College. Therefore, please be advised that you must not let Dr. XXX or others know of these deliberations/discussions or of our decision until the promotion has been approved at all levels.

As you know, our recommendation and the award of tenure must be approved by the Dean of Geisel, the Dean's Academic Board (DAB), the Provost of Dartmouth College, and the Dartmouth College Board of Trustees. Therefore, please be advised that you must not let Dr. XXX or others know of these deliberations/discussions or of our decision until the promotion has been approved at all levels.

  1. The Dean of Faculty Affairs at Geisel will submit to the Dean the recommendations for each candidate reviewed by the APT Committee, the written summaries of the Committee's review, and the vote tabulation for each candidate.
  2. Throughout the review process, the APT Committee's procedures are confidential. Committee members shall not disclose any recommendation or any details of the process or discussion outside the APT meetings.
  3. Tenure is considered only at the rank of full Professor for individuals in the Tenure-track/Tenure Line (Dartmouth College employees). A separate motion and vote from promotion/appointment to Professor must be taken with respect to tenure.  Committee members will be asked to record the tallies from outside reviewers on their recommendation for tenure separately from their recommendation for promotion.
  4. All materials associated with a promotion portfolio are confidential.  If downloaded, they should be removed from personal computers after committee deliberations.  No documents associated with a promotions portfolio may be disseminated or discussed outside of the committee.
  5. All discussions and deliberations by the Committee, including any vote to recommend, not recommend, or table a portfolio, are confidential. They may not be discussed nor information on votes disseminated outside of the committee deliberations.  Communication with relevant chairs on portfolios and APT deliberations will be conveyed by the Dean of Faculty Affairs unless otherwise stipulated by the Dean.

III. Procedures for Promotion Following the APT Committee's Recommendation

Dean's Review

Upon receiving the APT Committee's recommendation, the Dean will review the recommendation. If the Dean so chooses, the Dean may add to the file their own views (positive or negative) on the candidate's promotion. The file of a candidate who has not been recommended for promotion by the APT Committee will receive no further consideration for promotion at that time.

If the Dean or their designated officials and the Chair of the Department feel that the candidate can address the deficiencies raised by the APT Committee that led the Committee to deny the recommendation to advance, the candidate may be reconsidered for advancement as soon as those deficiencies have been addressed. For Tenure-track/tenure Line faculty if, after consultation with the Chair by the Dean, the deficiencies are deemed to be too great for the candidate to be able to address (with regard to the specific criteria for appointment/advancement within their Faculty Line), the appointment of the faculty member shall not be renewed. Conditions for notification of termination of appointment and employment are addressed in Section III-Tenure-track/Tenure Line/C2.

Faculty members in the Non-tenure and AMS faculty Lines may receive renewed appointments if supported by the Chair and the Dean if there is appropriate support for continued employment.

DAB Review

The Dean will inform the voting members of the Dean's Academic Board (DAB) of the names of candidates who have been recommended for appointment and/or promotion by the APT Committee, and will request a vote by the DAB as part of the Personnel Agenda. Any member of the DAB who questions or has concerns about the recommendation may request that the promotion be tabled until further discussion with the Dean and/or the Dean of Faculty Affairs at Geisel.

A vote approving a recommendation to promote a candidate requires that the candidate receive at least 50 percent of the votes of all voting members of the DAB. The voting members of the DAB are the Dean and the Senior Deans of Geisel (the Dean of Faculty Affairs at Geisel, the Executive Dean for Administration and Finance, the Senior Associate Dean for Medical Education, the Senior Associate Dean for Research, and the Senior Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs); the Departmental Chairs and Major Center Directors of the Medical School; the President of Dartmouth-Hitchcock; and the Chief of Staff of the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in White River Junction. DAB members will hold the names of any candidates for promotion and any information they obtain about the candidates in strict confidence.

After all recommendations for promotion from the APT Committee have been voted on by the DAB, the Departmental Chairs have the option of informing the candidates within their departments who have not been recommended for promotion of their status.

Faculty members who present just cause that their academic freedom has been violated have redress with respect to the actions of Department Promotions Committee, the APT Committee, or the DAB through provisions set forth in the document entitled, “Organization of the Faculty of Dartmouth College (OFDC).”

Provost's and Board of Trustees’ Review

The Administrative Coordinator Faculty Affairs in the Geisel Administration shall transmit as outlined in Appendix 6 to the Provost’s Office for their review. When applicable (i.e., in cases of tenure) information as noted in Appendix 6 shall also be transmitted to the Board of Trustees of Dartmouth College.

IV. Normal Schedule of Procedures

  • The DAB meets monthly (with a hiatus in July and August). Complete portfolios must be submitted to the Dean’s Office no less than 3 weeks prior to the meeting date. All candidates recommended for promotion/appointment shall be included on the next DAB Personnel agenda unless unusual circumstances prevent this action.
  • For non-tenure decisions, the Provost’s Office will typically approve appointments within one to two weeks of receiving the DAB Personnel agenda. At this time, the Dean’s Office will inform the candidates in writing of their promotion/appointment.
  • For tenure decisions, material for consideration must be provided to the Provost’s Office at least a month prior to the meetings of the Board of Trustees (February, June, and November). Material required for submission to the Provost’s Office includes the complete portfolio of the candidate and the APT review committee’s synopsis
  • Promotions and appointments of new hires that require APT review shall be effected on the first day of the ensuing month, following Provost approval for Non-tenure and AMS Line faculty and for promotions in the Tenure-track-/Tenure Line that do not involve granting of tenure.
  • Promotions/appointments in which tenure is bestowed shall be effected on the first day of the ensuing month, following approval by the Dartmouth College Board of Trustees.
  • Adjustments in compensation associated with promotion will follow current policies established by the faculty member’s employer of record. Chairs and/or Department Administrators should consult the appropriate financial officers of the relevant employing entity to confirm standard promotion increases and/or whether there will be non-standard considerations for any specific individual prior to an increase being established.
  • For employees of Dartmouth College, estimates of projected promotion increases made during annual departmental budgeting processes do not constitute approved salaries for the individual faculty members. For each promotion, the Dean of Faculty Affairs and the Dean of Administration and Finance will consult with Chair of the relevant department to establish a salary that is consistent with the individual faculty members performance and with consideration of equity with other faculty members across the school.
  • For employees of Dartmouth College, faculty members will be eligible for annual merit increases in their compensation in addition to any promotion adjustment, if the faculty member’s promotion occurs prior to April 1 of the fiscal year.
  • Unless otherwise stipulated by the employer of record, changes in compensation will be effected on the first day of the ensuing month, following the date the promotion is conferred.
  • For employees of Dartmouth College, the Dean’s Office and the Department Chair shall provide the faculty member with a letter congratulating them on this promotion and informing them of changes in compensation associated with the promotion.
  • Annually the Dean’s Office shall also announce to the Dartmouth Community through public forums (e.g., the Geisel web site, email to the Geisel community) those candidates who have been promoted or appointed to senior rank so that they may be acknowledged for their accomplishments.
  • Appendices A and B provide a checklist of material required for submission to the Dean’s Office. This information should be used in conjunction with the parent documents entitled, “Academic Appointments, Promotions and Titles at The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth” and “APT Guidelines and Structure.”



[1] Directors/Institutes which have Chair/Department standing hereafter are encompassed within the terms Chairs/Departments