Research Performance Review

From U of M Internal Medicine Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Policies
Policy: Research Performance Review
Policy Nr: Sec 06 - 02
Target Review Date: 2021-03-08
Main Stakeholder: Research and Faculty Development Committee


This document outlines the processes by which the department undertakes periodic review of members who have, as part of their job description, a significant research component. This review has several purposes, among them:

  • determination of how best to support and enhance research efforts by department members,
  • assessment of members’ career development and how this might best be optimized,
  • assessment of the appropriateness of existing departmental resource allocation for research, and;
  • determination of whether commitment of additional departmental resources is likely to enhance members’ research productivity and aid in meeting the department’s research goals.


Timelines

  • Reviews will be undertaken once every three to five years for members whose job description contains a provision for a commitment of at least 25% of work time to research activities.
  • New faculty with protected research time will be reviewed by the department’s Research and Faculty Development Committee within 36 months.
  • Reviews can also be requested at any time by the Department Head, the Section Head, the department member or by the committee itself.
  • At the committee’s discretion, some faculty members may be given the option to extend beyond five years, a complete research review, or portions of the documentation, as outlined below.

Process of Review

Documentation

At the time of undertaking a review the committee will solicit one copy of the following documentation for subsequent consideration by the committee:

Current Curriculum Vitae which must include: A list of all research trainees in the past 3 years distinguishing part-time and full-time trainees and indicating the funding source. A bibliography of all publications, abstracts, meeting abstracts, book chapters and patent summaries within the last 3 years, including In Press and Submitted manuscripts, including their PUBMED ID, together with copies of letters from journals acknowledging acceptance for publication, or receipt of manuscript for review.

  • Grants held and Awarded in the Last Three Years: for each grant, a short statement of the reviewee’s individual role and contribution & a copy of the grant summary pages
  • Current Grant Submissions/Pending Submissions:for each grant, a short statement of the reviewee’s individual role and contribution & a copy of the grant summary pages
  • A written statement from the member, outlining current research activities and future plans. (synopsis format, 2 pages or less) The committee requires and arranges for a statement from the Section Head.
  • At its’ discretion, the committee may also solicit statements or reviews from colleagues within the department or from outside expert reviewers. All components listed above are required for the Review Committee and the review assessment.
  • In the event a member has a cross appointment to another department, the committee will seek input from that Department Head.

Composition of the Committee

The review committee will be comprised of the full Research and Faculty Development Committee.

Quorum for a review is five members, including the Chair and the Primary Assessor. For each review, one committee member will volunteer/be assigned to be the Primary Assessor. This individual will lead the discussion at committee.


Guidelines for Research Review by the Committee

Each file for review will be assessed by a Primary Assessor, and independently by at least one informed colleague, either from or outside the committee who will be asked to complete the assessment within four weeks. Written assessments will be generated by the informed colleague and the assessment will then be discussed by the Review Committee.

The Review Committee will also have the opportunity to interview the member prior to a report and set of recommendations for action by the department being produced by the Chairperson for presentation to and approval by the Faculty Development Committee. The focus of the assessment will be on the member’s research activity. For the purposes of this review, this will include peer-reviewed publications of original research, competitive grant funding, and training of full-time research trainees.


Interview Guidelines

Person being reviewed must come to the committee meeting prepared to give a 15-20 minute presentation on their current research work, past and present productivity, supervision activities, future plans, and outline any challenges being faced, and any support the department could offer.


Productivity Expectations

General levels of productivity expectation for different levels of research commitment as described in the member’s job description are outlined on the Academic Position Description page.


Reporting of the Research Review

The Research and Faculty Development Committee is advisory to the Department Head of Internal Medicine. Having received, discussed and approved the report of the review committee, the Research and Faculty Development Committee will provide recommendations to the Department Head which will include:

  • an assessment of the level of research performance by the member as it relates to the expectations indicated in the job description, recommendations regarding continuation, reduction or increases in the level of departmental support for the individual and the research program;
  • a suggested interval before the next review, and where possible, indications of how best to foster the member’s future research productivity or other career development where this would be in the individual’s and the department’s best interest. The report will also form part of the member’s personal departmental file, and will be made available to the Promotions and Tenure Committee. The Department Head will meet with the member to review the report from the Research and Faculty Development Committee. Any other documents that made up the review are confidential and will not be shared.


Related articles

Related articles: