Sponsor Call Letter

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AFFAIRS 9500 GILMAN DRIVE TEL: (858) 822-1506 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92093-0043

TO: Mentor SUBJECT: Academic Reviews Effective July 1, 2017 (Merits, Reappointments, Promotions, and Appraisals)

As the mentor/sponsor, it is your responsibility to provide a “Mentor Letter” (using the attached TEMPLATE) recommendation to your Director for the proposed action. If your scholar is being considered for a promotion, career review, or above scale, you will also need to provide 4-6 Referee names. The requirements for this “Mentor Letter” and referee information are described below, and series criteria are also provided.

We must have complete and up-to-date records that reflect the scholar’s performance and achievements since their last academic review. (Appraisals, Promotions, and Advancements to Step VI and Above-Scale will additionally require a full career review). The main area for evaluation is research and creative activities, and depending on the series, university and public service. These activities should be reflected in your recommendation. Your Scholar has been notified of this review process and has been encouraged to take an active role in the preparation of their review by providing relevant materials by June 10th, and to discuss any concerns pertaining to the pending review with you.

Because there are a large number of reviews to process for Organized Research Unit’s, and because the final deadlines for submission of review files are strictly enforced by the Vice Chancellor, your Director must have a sufficient amount of time to act on your recommendation before the final campus deadlines set by the Vice Chancellor, or we will not have time to review the file to meet those deadlines.

The deadline for submitting your Mentor Letter Recommendation is in the email you received with this attachment, and you should submit it to me via email or by using the ORU/AP Drop Box, at https://ratpcsws.ucsd.edu/dropbox.

The review process and academic appointee rights during the review are described in the Academic Personnel Manual (APM), Sections 160, 210-1, and 220. You have access to and may review at any time the relevant sections of the APM available on the Web at: http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/ Local policies are also available in the UCSD Policy & Procedure Manual at: http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/PPM/docs/230-28.HTML

The following is a checklist of the points required in your recommendation. You may also contact Catherine Schumacher at 858-822-1506 or [email protected], directly with any questions.

Instructions for Recommendation Letter – PLEASE USE THE ATTACHED “TEMPLATE” FOR YOUR LETTER

Proposed actions you may use: -Normal Reappointment with Merit Advancement -Promotion -No Change/Reappointment (only in those cases where no progress has been made – clear justification must be provided) -Acceleration (with merit or promotion). Must include evidence of outstanding achievement in all areas/criteria at “twice” the expected level

Percent of Effort: Normally “100%”, but you may request a variable percentage of effort based on funding availability, or reduce down to 0% (non-salaried), or “0%-100% Variable”. (Except in the cases of H1B and J1 Visa status’ which have salary minimums)

Effective Dates: This action will have an effective date of July 1, 2017. You will also need to specify an end date. Normal service is two years for Assistant and Associate Project/Research Scientists, and 3 years for Full Project/Research Scientists. You may also specify a shorter service period, but justification must be provided (such as funding restrictions). Appointments can then be extended through the normal service period if a grant is received.

Evaluation: Using the attached TEMPLATE, Summary of the research project, analysis of the contributions and progress made by the scholar, including level of independence and creativity (especially important for Assoc and Full Research Scientists), significance of the work and goals in the future.

Publications: NEW Bibliography Form Section B.IV Additional Major Research Products (Please list other work of significant impact to your Academic Field. [e.g., patents (List US Patent Number), patent licenses; software, databases, websites; devices, hardware, structures, fabrications; research leading to legislative action, policies, business processes].) List from oldest to newest.

Please be sure to describe the significance of anything that your mentee has listed in the new Section B.IV of the Bibliography Form

University & Public Service: Analysis of university or public service

Referees (for Promotions and Above Scale only, Step VI):

Referees must be independent of the candidate and should hold an appointment of at least Associate Professor for promotions to Associate Project/Research Scientist. For Promotion to the full Project/Research Scientist level, referees should hold an appointment of at least full Professor. For appointments to Assoc and Full Research Scientists, Referees MUST be fully independent from the candidate.

For Asst-Full Project Scientists and Asst Research Scientists, Letters of evaluations may be obtained from individuals who are not professionally independent from the scholar or who are not external to UC San Diego. However, it is preferred that at least 1-2 letters be independent, if possible.

Referee information must include:

 Name  Title  Institution  Email address  Qualifications/relationship to the candidate as a reviewer

Please provide detail of the individual’s area of expertise, national/international stature and why they are in a position to evaluate your scholar’s activity.

Statement regarding any comments from PSSRP or CAP committee letters from last review needing to be addressed at this time. When preparing your documents for submission, please focus on documentation regarding any prior committee comments here from the prior letters provided. Please add a paragraph that clearly addresses any progress resulting from PSSRP or CAP Review Committee comments from the last Review. NEW: Bibliography Formatting Changes and Expectations: For July 1, 2017 Academic Files

Review - for academic review files effective July 1, 2016, and thereafter, the expectation is that candidates will use the newly revised form and that items listed in the Bibliography section (Section III of the form) be re- formatted as follows:

 A “summary of work above the line” format. Here, work listed “above the line” and already credited in the most recently completed academic review, a candidate will summarize the number and type of publication just above where the line begins. In this case the candidate would maintain the previous format for all items “above the line,” and each of these would have descriptors (research article, conference proceeding, etc.; see form instructions). At the very end of the “above the line” section, the candidate would then summarize the numbers of each type of work. See an example of this format below Appendix II:

SUMMARY EXAMPLE Appendix II A. Primary Published or Creative Work

This section should include original peer-reviewed work that appears in the open literature and can be reasonably expected to be found in libraries outside UCSD, or an appropriately documented listing of creative endeavors such as performances or shows of artistic works. In addition to published work, this section may include items that are “in press” (i.e., accepted for publication in final form) or formally “accepted” (i.e., the publisher’s binding acceptance of entire corpus has been received). Such items should clearly indicate “in press” or “accepted” somewhere in the citation. Do not include items that have been submitted for consideration but have not yet been accepted. Materials associated with items in this section should be submitted with the file. Items listed above the line: ….. A. 23 XXXXXXXXXX RESEARCH A. 24 XXXXXXXXXX BOOKARTICLE A. 25 XXXXXXXXXX BOOK CHAPTER

20 Refereed Research Articles (A.I.), 2 Review Articles (A.II.), 3 Book Chapters (A.III.), etc. Then, for new work listed “below the line” and to be considered in the current review period, the candidate would list the work out in subsections. Work in each subsection would be listed in chronological order.

Then, Reset numbering of new work below the line of previous work within each subsection and/or subcategory (see below) or you may resume numbering for each subcategory as summarized above the line. For example, the first number for the new subcategory book chapters would be 4.

I. Original Peer-Reviewed Work or Listing of Creative Endeavors (subsection) 1.

II. Review and Invited Articles

III. Books and Book Chapters a. Books (subcategory)

b. Book Chapters

IV. Refereed Conference Proceedings

The same formatting would follow for Sections B and C: If work has been since published, provide the relevant data. For those works in Section C that will remain in that section, provide a status update even if the status is the same.

Policy Links Regarding Appointments and Advancements http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/ppm/docs/230-20.pdf (Appointments Policy PPM 230-20) http://adminrecords.ucsd.edu/ppm/docs/230-28.pdf (Advancements & Reappointments PPM 230-28) The Professional Research (Research Scientist) Series The performance criteria for the Professional Research (Research Scientist) series (hereafter referred to as the Research Scientist series) are the same as for the Professor (Ladder-Rank) series in the area of research and creative activity. The appointee must be continuously and effectively engaged in independent research and creative activity of high quality and significance, equivalent to that expected of the Professor series. Associate and Full Research Scientists are expected to engage in University and/or Professional service, such as service on research review boards. Assistant Research Scientists are recommended to participate in service activities and should document activities in the UCSD Bio-Bibl Form. Appointees in the Research Scientist series at UCSD) function as independent investigators, have complete responsibility for their research programs, and are leaders or have the potential for leadership in their fields. The ability to sustain an independent research program is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for appointment as a Research Scientist. Research Scientists normally are fully self-funded Principal Investigators. Occasionally, Research Scientist appointments will be given to candidates who meet the criteria for research quality and independence, but who are not Principal Investigators. Typically these individuals will be funded by large center or program project grants that support many independent investigators. Assistant Research Scientists also may be funded as Co-Principal Investigators on grants. They should demonstrate strong potential to become independent and distinguished researchers and should work independently on grants.

The Project Scientist Series Criteria for advancement and reappointment in this series are demonstrated significant, original contributions to a research project or creative program. Appointees in this series need not demonstrate the same leadership ability, independence, or scholarly breadth as members of the Research Scientist or Professor Series. University and public service are recommended. At the time of academic review, the Project Scientist’s supervisor (normally the principal investigator) should evaluate the Project Scientist and submit his or her written evaluation and recommendation to the department Director. Project Scientists may serve as Principal Investigators only with PI Exception, but may serve as Co-Principal Investigators with members of the Professor or Research Scientist series. An appointee in this series who carries a significant teaching load must concurrently hold an appropriate instructional title, following campus review procedures for such appointments. For Project Scientists who demonstrate strong potential for independent research, the Vice Chancellor for Research Affairs will consider requests from department chairs for exceptions to the Principal Investigator eligibility policy. The award of Principal Investigator status does not in itself justify a change in series to the Research Scientist series.