To initiate the process for promotion to this position, the relevant Department Chair or Center Director, with the approval of the Director of Research, forms an Ad Hoc Review Committee to consider and prepare the case for promotion. This occurs at least six months prior to the termination of the Assistant Scientist's appointment. The Chair of the Ad Hoc Review Committee is from a Department other than the candidate's, and other members consist of the candidate's Department Chair (ex officio) and three others. The Committee is selected by the Department Chair in consultation with the Director of Research. The chair of the Committee should not have had a prior supervisory or working relationship with the candidate. The Ad Hoc Review Committee solicits opinions from outside referees, interviews Associate and Senior Scientists in the candidate's Department, and prepares the file. Its Chair presents the case to the Appointments and Promotions Council which advises the President and Director, who presents his or her recommendation to the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees for its decision, which is binding.
The process for an initial appointment to Associate Scientist without tenure does not include an Ad Hoc Review Committee. The process is identical to the appointment to Associate Scientist with Tenure, except for the external Ad Hoc Review Committee.
The file for Associate Scientist without tenure is comprised of an updated curriculum vitae; the candidate's personal research statement (normally four page maximum) and copies of five recent publications; letters from at least six external referees; a statement from the Associate Director for Education about the candidate's participation in the Institution's Education Programs; and, in the cases of promotion, the report of the Ad Hoc Review Committee (which should include comments developed through interviews of Associate and Senior Scientists in the candidate's Department). In the case of appointment, letters from internal referees are included in the file. The letters from scientists at other institutions are a very significant element of the file. At this stage in the candidate's career they address the significance and influence of the candidate's research, demonstrated independence and originality, judgment and discrimination in interpreting results, comparison to peers, promise for future growth, and promotability at the respondent's institution.
If at any point in the process of promotion to Associate Scientist without tenure, the Department determines it should not proceed with the appointment, the Chair, in consultation with the Director of Research, will discuss reasons with the candidate. The candidate may then elect either to withdraw the file or have the process completed and the file presented to the Appointments and Promotions Council.
If promotion or appointment is recommended by the President and Director and approved by the Executive Committee, the Department Chair will communicate recommendations resulting from the Ad Hoc Review Committee and Appointments and Promotions Council discussion to the candidate verbally and in writing, with a copy to the Director of Research. If promotion is not approved, the Department Chair and Director of Research will meet with the candidate upon request, and discuss the decision. The unsuccessful candidate's appointment will usually be extended a reasonable amount of time, normally up to a year, to relocate.
Associate Scientists without Tenure are evaluated after the second year of their appointments by their Department Chairs and members of the Scientific Staff most familiar with the individual's research. The results of the review are communicated to the Associate Scientist verbally and in writing, with a copy to the Director of Research. At least six months before the end of the four-year term appointment, the Chair will initiate the process of considering promotion to Associate Scientist With Tenure, in consultation with the tenured scientists of the candidate's department. The Chair will discuss the results of the Department's deliberations with the candidate. If the Department or candidate desires to proceed with preparation of the file, the candidate is asked to provide names of individuals familiar with his or her research, and to consent to the solicitation of confidential opinions about his or her work.