A.1.3 Policies & Procedures for Appointment and Promotion of MBL Scientists

These procedures outline the reappointment process for Assistant Scientists referenced in MBL policy A.1.3.3.1

1. Process

Six months before the renewal date the Scientist should meet with their Center Director or designated Senior Scientist mentor to discuss the renewal process. Over the next two months the Scientist, working with their Center Director or designated Senior Scientist mentor, should prepare a CV annotated to highlight activities during the appointment period, and a research statement emphasizing accomplishments during the appointment period and plans for research and funding leading to promotion in the broader context of the Scientist’s overall research goals.

The Scientist should submit their reappointment material to their Center Director four months before the renewal date. The Center Director, after consultation with senior and associate scientists within the Center, will submit the package with a recommendation to the Director of Research. The Director of Research, after consultation with Center Directors and other senior scientists as appropriate, will submit a recommendation to the Director of the MBL. The Center Director, Director of Research, or Director of the MBL may solicit outside letters of evaluation, though these are ordinarily not required or expected.

2. Criteria

The purpose of the renewal process is to assess the Scientist’s progress establishing a successful independent research program and trajectory to promotion. Criteria are a combination of achieved and projected success in research results, publications, and grants. Unless specified by prior agreement with the Director of the MBL, other activities such as teaching, outreach, and service to the institution are not required or expected for reappointment.

3. Outcomes

Full review will be completed within two months. Assistant Scientists ordinarily will be either reappointed for three years with the expectation that they will be eligible for promotion to Associate Scientist, or receive a shorter terminal appointment. As part of the reappointment process the Scientist will receive a written evaluation of their progress toward promotion, and will meet with their Center Director to review the evaluation.

Procedures for Promotion of Scientists

These procedures outline the process of promotion for candidates for Associate Scientist and Senior Scientist referenced in MBL policy A.1.3.3.1 and A.1.3.3.2 1.

Process
If this process is unlikely to be completed before the end of the candidate’s current appointment a revised timeline should be determined with the approval of the MBL Director.

1.1. Twelve months before the end of the current appointment the candidate should meet with their Center Director or designated Senior Scientist mentor to discuss the renewal process. Over the next three months the candidate, working with their Center Director or designated Senior Scientist mentor, should prepare the documents specified in 4.1 below and schedule a public seminar (MBL Seminar Series, Informal Scientists’ Meeting, etc.) to be given no later than four months before the end of the current appointment. The seminar will be recorded for the benefit of the Promotion Committee.

1.2. Nine months before the end of the current appointment the candidate should submit their promotion material to their Center Director.

The Center Directors and the Director of Research will appoint a Promotion Committee made up of 4–5 resident and 1–2 external scientists; the committee will not include the sponsoring Center Director but may include other Center Directors or senior members of the candidate’s Center. The committee will review and approve the lists of potential external evaluators and may select an additional 3–4 so that there are at least 10 approved by the committee. The Center Director may advise the committee to resolve conflicts of interest of external evaluators. Guidance for selecting external evaluators is provided in 4.3 below.

The final list of outside evaluators should then be approved by the Director of Research and the Director of the MBL.

The Center Director will solicit letters from the external evaluators, and ensure that at least six return letters six months before the end of the current appointment. Guidance for the letter to external evaluators is provided in 4.4 below.

Upon receipt of letters from the external evaluators, the Center Director will consult with senior members of the Center according to Center protocols and present a recommendation to the Director of Research with the documents specified in 4.2 below.

If the Center does not recommend the candidate for promotion the Center Director, with the Director of Research as necessary, will present a written explanation of the decision to the candidate. The candidate may opt to proceed with the promotion application.

1.3. Five months before the end of the current appointment the Center Director will submit a letter of recommendation with the complete promotion package to the Director of Research, who will distribute the package to the Promotion Committee. The candidate may choose to provide an updated CV and/or Statements to the committee, in which case any differences from the versions sent to external evaluators should be noted or the original versions should also be provided. Guidance for the recommendation letter is provided in 4.5 below. The required documents are listed in 4.6 below.

1.4. Four months before the end of the current appointment the Promotion Committee will meet, discuss the candidate’s case, and draft a written report to the Director of the MBL including an evaluation and recommendation. Guidance for the report is provided in 4.7 below. The Director of Research will share the report with the candidate after redacting any information that would identify the authors of the evaluation letters. The candidate may provide a written response to any aspect of the evaluation that they feel is unrepresentative of their performance. The Promotion Committee may elect to alter the report until the Committee and candidate agree on the evaluation of performance; otherwise the candidate’s response will be included in the final package delivered to the Director of the MBL.

1.5. One month after receiving the final package the Director will return a decision.

2. Criteria
A candidate for promotion to Associate Scientist should have contributed significant and fundamental research in their field and demonstrate potential for sustained contributions of increasing importance.

A candidate for promotion to Senior Scientist should be widely recognized as a rising leader in their field, with a record of continued contributions since promotion to associate scientist, as well as evidence that the candidate will continue to lead their field for the foreseeable future. Promotion to the rank of Senior Scientist is not pro forma and some faculty may be reappointed at the Associate level indefinitely.

Factors to evaluate these criteria include a combination of success in research results, publications, and grants; the candidate’s contribution to the intellectual community and to the broader goals and activities of the MBL; and the candidate’s service to the MBL and to their field nationally or internationally. If there is an education or other specific service component to current appointment the candidate’s success in this activity should also be a factor in promotion.

3. Outcomes
Assistant Scientists ordinarily will be either promoted to Associate Scientist or receive a shorter terminal appointment. Associate Scientists may be promoted to Senior Scientist, reappointed at the Associate level for another term, or receive a shorter terminal appointment.

4. Documents
This section describes the documents necessary for the promotion package.

4.1. Documents to be provided by the candidate, working with their Center Director or designated Senior Scientist mentor, to the Center Director:

• A CV in any standard format, including separate headings for:
  • all peer-reviewed publications (in press, or published)
  • all peer-reviewed publications submitted or in revision. These manuscripts should ideally be submitted to bioRxiv or similar repository, or be made available to the Promotion Committee on request.
  • any non peer-reviewed publications (submitted, in revision, in press, or published).
  • invited seminars and presentations at national and international meetings since the last appointment.
  • grants received, including funding source, title, start and end dates, and role (PI, co PI, senior personnel, etc.).service to the MBL and the wider scientific community, including educational outreach, diversity and inclusion.
• A research statement emphasizing accomplishments and publications during the appointment period (this should not exceed 5 pages, including figures but excluding references).
• A statement of future research plans (this should not exceed 3 pages, including figures but excluding references). This can be combined with the research statement, in which case the total length should not exceed 8 pages (excluding references).
• If the Scientist’s appointment includes a teaching or other major service component, contributions to MBL and plans for future contributions should also be summarized in a separate statement (this should not exceed 2 pages). For other Scientists this statement is optional and its absence will not count against the Scientist during review.
• A list of 3–5 potential external evaluators, with contact information. The candidate may request specific individuals to be excluded from the final list.
• A list of colleagues with conflicts of interest, in NSF or NIH format.

4.2. Initial documents to be provided by the Center Director, working with senior members of the Center, to the Director of Research:

• The candidate’s package.
• A list of 3–5 potential external evaluators provided by the candidate.
• A list of 3–5 additional potential external evaluators.

4.3. List of approved evaluators to be provided by the Promotion Committee to the Center Director:

• The Conflict of Interest list provided by the candidate can be used as a guide in selecting evaluators, but the Promotion Committee should exercise their discretion in determining what constitutes a disqualifying conflict of interest. For example, co-authorship on large multi-author papers or other peripheral collaboration does not disqualify a potential evaluator. Ordinarily the final six evaluators should not be close current collaborators or former mentor/mentees, but the Committee may wish to solicit evaluation from these or other close collaborators in addition if it would be helpful to the review process.
• Evaluators should hold a rank at least equivalent to that sought by the candidate.
• The list of evaluators should reflect gender equity and diversity.

4.4. Letter to external evaluators, written by the Center Director:

• The letter should be clear about the proposed appointment rank and the criteria for promotion.
• Evaluators should be asked to identify any relationship or interaction with the candidate.
• Evaluators should be asked to evaluate the originality, rigor, and fundamental significance of the candidate’s research and impact on their field based on the candidate’s reputation and the material provided.
• Evaluators should be told of expectations for evaluation. If there is an education or other MBL service component to current appointment the Center Director should ask for an evaluation of that activity.
• The evaluator should indicate whether they would support the promotion of the candidate to the equivalent rank at their own institution.

4.5. The recommendation letter to be written by the Center Director to accompany the final package should include:

• A summary of the candidate’s major research contributions, including:
  • What has been the impact on science at the MBL?
  • What has been the impact in the broader field?
• An assessment of the balance between and contribution to unique original research and collaborative research.
• A summary of the candidate’s service to the Center, the MBL, and the field, including:
  • How does the candidate enhance the MBL community?
  • How does the candidate contribute to the broader goals of the MBL?
• Representative quotes from letters of evaluation. Evaluators should be referred to only by a letter code (Evaluator A, B, etc.) without other identifying information, as the recommendation will be read by the candidate.

4.6. The final package assembled by the Center Director to be delivered to the Director of Research and the Promotion Committee:

• The recommendation letter described in 4.5 above.
• The C.V. and statements described in 4.1 above. The candidate may choose to provide an updated CV and/or Statements to the committee, in which case any differences from the versions sent to external evaluators should be noted or the original versions should also be provided.
• The list of outside evaluators described in 4.3 above, annotated to indicate why any on the list had not been solicited and why any that had been solicited declined to provide an evaluation. The list should include the letter code used in the recommendation letter described in 4.5 above.
• A generic version of the letter to evaluators described in 4.4 above.
• At least six letters from outside evaluators.

4.7. The report to be written by the Promotion Committee to the Director of the MBL:

• The report should include a recommendation for promotion, reappointment for a set term, or a terminal appointment of a set term.
• The evaluation should delineate the candidate’s research field and summarize their contributions to that field. It is important that the field not be defined too narrowly. A positive evaluation should go beyond citations and other metrics to describe the candidate’s impact on their field, and how the field would be different without their contributions. This could include evidence that the research has paved the way for new research directions or opportunities adopted by others in the field. Invitations to national and international meetings should be highlighted, as well as the candidate’s role in organizing such national and international meetings. Successful organization of large research initiatives should also be highlighted.
• The evaluation may include critiques or suggestions that would benefit the candidate in the next stage of their career.

These procedures outline the reappointment process for Associate Scientists referenced in MBL policy A.1.3.3.2

1. Process
Six months before the renewal date the Scientist should meet with their Center Director or designated Senior Scientist mentor to discuss the renewal process. Over the next two months the Scientist should prepare a CV annotated to highlight activities during the appointment period, and a research statement emphasizing accomplishments as an MBL scientist and plans for future research and funding leading to promotion in the broader context of the Scientist’s overall research goals.

The Scientist should submit their reappointment material to their Center Director four months before the renewal date. The Center Director, after consultation with Senior Scientists within the Center, will submit the package with a recommendation to the Director of Research. The Director of Research, after consultation with Center Directors and other senior scientists as appropriate, will submit a recommendation to the Director of the MBL. The Center Director, Director of Research, or Director of the MBL may solicit outside letters of evaluation, though these are ordinarily not required or expected.

2. Criteria
The purpose of the renewal process is to assess the Scientist’s progress towards promotion or an additional renewal of 3–5 years. Criteria include a combination of achieved and projected success in research results, publications, and grants, and demonstration of recognition by the larger scientific community through invited seminars, presentations at professional meetings, etc. Additional criteria may include activities such as teaching, outreach, and service to the institution.

3. Outcomes
Full review will be completed within two months. The outcome of the review ordinarily will be 1) reappointed for 2–3 years with the expectation that the Scientist will work towards promotion to Senior Scientist; 2) reappointed for a term of 3–5 years, or, 3) a shorter terminal appointment. Associate Scientists may be reappointed repeatedly rather than seek promotion, and in consultation with their Center Director, may seek promotion at any time during a reappointment. As part of the reappointment process the Scientist will receive a written evaluation, and will meet with their Center Director to review the evaluation.