July 24, 2017
-Guidelines for choosing comparison peers. Peer sets should be selected to allow calibration of a candidate's distinction and recognition across a broadly defined field. All peers should be scholars who would be able to receive tenure at Stanford and who have tenure at an institution comparable to Stanford. Peers should be at or above the proposed rank of the candidate. Please include dates of highest degree conferral, academic recognition and awards, and other relevant distinctions that illustrate the quality of the comparison peers so that it is clear to reviewers these are appropriate peers in the field. Individuals selected for the peer set should be external to Stanford. In certain cases, comparison peers may also be used as referees. When soliciting referees who are also used as comparison peers, please remove the names of these individuals from the listed peers in the referee solicitation letter sent to them. Please review the School of Medicine Evidence Tables to see which faculty actions require comparison peers.
-Protected FTE for MCL Faculty. The only requirement for protected FTE for MCL faculty is a minimum of 20% FTE for scholarly research. There is no policy on minimum or required FTE for clinical care, teaching and, if relevant, administrative duties. MCL Assistant Professors, Associate Professors and Professors with a fixed term of appointment are expected to discuss the proportionality of their contributions at annual counseling meetings with their department chair (or designate); this proportionality should be recorded on the annual counseling meeting form.
-Faculty Search Practice in Search Reports. The new Provost’s guidelines for faculty searches require search committee members with conflicts of interest to step down from the committee to avoid any bias (real or perceived) in the selection of a top candidate. All searches going forward will need to adhere to this new policy (please consult OAA specifically case-by-case about small, focused searches where this practice may be difficult to adhere to). All concluding searches and searches that have already closed with the long form currently being finalized will understandably not be compliant with this required practice. In the search narratives for these cases, please indicate that the search was conducted according to School policy at the time, which required search committee members with conflicts of interest to be recused from discussion and voting on candidates with whom there was conflict. It is important that this is noted in the search narrative for successful review at the University level.
-Faculty Lead on a Long Form. In general, the faculty lead for a long form review should not be a collaborator or mentor of the faculty candidate. In cases where this is unavoidable, please ensure that the letters soliciting referees and trainees be authored by a non-mentor/non-collaborator to avoid any possible appearance of bias to evaluators. Additionally, the scholarly review section should preferably not be authored by a collaborator. If the scholarly role section is authored by a collaborator, please ensure that the article chosen for review is not one on-which this person collaborated.
-Review of Long Forms in Joint/Courtesy Departments. For faculty members with joint or courtesy appointments in other SoM departments, the faculty member’s primary department takes the responsibility of appointment, reappointment and promotion actions.
· Faculty with joint appointments must be reviewed by both their primary and their joint department(s), and Chairs from these respective departments must countersign the long form. It is recommended that members from both departments are on the evaluation committee. Faculty with courtesy appointments may have their courtesy appointment(s) renewed by FASA action if their long form is not reviewed and countersigned by the Chair of the courtesy department(s).
· For joint appointments: After the action is considered and voted upon by the primary department, the long form is reviewed by the secondary department in accordance with that department’s standard procedures (e.g., a standing Appointments and Promotions Committee).
· For courtesy appointments: The Chair of the courtesy department countersigns the long form. Individual departmental procedures may be established to inform the Chair’s decision (e.g., the Chair may have all courtesy faculty under review be reviewed by their Department A&P, or the Chair may simply review the long form themselves without A&P input – the Chair should establish a procedure and apply this to all files).
-Search and Evaluation Committee voting practices. Members of search and evaluation committees can also vote at department A&P review. Members of search and evaluation committees can also author the evaluation of candidate and/or candidate’s role sections of the long form. However, members of search and evaluation committees cannot provide letters of recommendation for the candidate under review.
-Administrative roles that need FASA Actions. Certain faculty administrative appointments are tracked by the Provost’s office, and consequently need FASA actions to document these terms. These include appointments to Dean, Senior Associate Dean, Associate Dean, Vice Dean, Chair, Director of Centers, or Director of Institutes. All other administrative appointments do not need to be submitted via FASA.
-Mentors for Assistant Professor in Long Forms. All long forms for Assistant Professors (appointments and reappointments) must include the faculty mentor(s) noted in the file. We ask that mentor(s) be named explicitly to ensure that junior faculty have a senior faculty member who can provide advice and support regarding scholarship, teaching, and/or clinical activities.
-Optional and omitted sections in Long Forms. Certain long forms may not include content in all sections, either by design or by happenstance. For example, counseling memos are optional for particular actions and may not have been included in a long form, or teaching evaluations may not have been available and could not be included in a long form. In these cases, please include a brief annotation in the respective section indicating the reason for the absence of these materials (e.g., ‘a counseling memo is optional for this action and is not included;’ ‘teaching evaluations from the candidate’s previous institution were requested but could not be attained’). This additional information will help assure reviewers that the long form review was exhaustive and conscientious.