Research Performance Review

From U of M Internal Medicine Wiki
Policies
Policy: Research Performance Review
Policy Nr: Sec 06 - 02
Target Review Date: 2017-12-31
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.

The committee will fill out this form/checklist.

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 as follows:

  • < 25%-All members of the department, as academic of faculty, are expected to participate to some extent in the scholarly activities of the department. For largely clinical of faculty such participation will normally include supervision or facilitation of student or resident clinical research projects, generation of case reports and reviews, participation in clinical trials with industry or other outside sponsorship, and participation in locally-generated and internally funded research projects and quality-improvement efforts. These activities will not normally be reviewed; however, for members whose activities have expanded to include competitively-funded research leading to peer-reviewed publication of original research, review by the committee may be requested by the member, the relevant Section Head, or by the Department Head.
  • 25-49%-In addition to the requirements listed under <25%, at this level of research commitment, expectations would include sustained funding for the support of the individuals research activities from at least local or regional funding agencies for a full-time technician, research associate or clinical research nurse, and supervision of one or more part-time research trainees such as residents/fellow projects or BSc Medicine students. Publication expectation would be in the 1-3/year range. 50-74% -Productivity for individuals with this level of research commitment (and normally with a commensurate level of University or external support) will be assessed in accordance with the specified level of commitment. Those at the higher end of this range would be expected to have a research program supported by national competitive funding organizations such as CIHR or one of the organ-system-based foundations, and possibly other sources of funding such as provincial funding agencies. At the higher end of this range there would be an expectation of having one or more full-time research trainees, or at least one EFT in part-time students or as principal supervisor for a clinical fellow in the research year of their program. Publication record would depend on the level of commitment, but would be in the range of 2 -4 publications yearly, with 1 -2 appearing in relatively high impact journals in each 2 year period.
  • >75%-At this level of research commitment, sustained funding from one or more national agencies would be the expected target, along with possible additional funding from local sources; having one or more full-time research trainees would also be expected, generally with additional part-time trainees or supervision of clinical fellows in their research year. Publications, again depending on actual level of commitment, would be in the range of 3 -5 publications/year with 1 or more in a high impact journal.

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: