7.2.1. Promotion to Professor

Section 7 Table of Contents

All faculty members, regardless of their appointment status as Full-time or Part-time, are evaluated by the same criteria for promotion.

Initiating the Promotion Process

Institutional and departmental review processes incorporate an evaluation of the candidate’s Faculty of Medicine CV and assessment as to whether the academic criteria for promotion appear to be met. For those candidates whose primary appointment is in the Basic and Social Sciences, review for promotion to Professor takes place before the 11th year after appointment to the voting faculty or before the 5th year after appointment as Associate Professor, whichever comes first. In addition to approval by the department leadership for advancing to a promotion review, the Preclinical Chairs (PCC) must approve candidates appointed in the Basic Science Departments and the Social Science Council (SSC) must approve those appointed in the Departments of Global Health & Social Medicine and Health Care Policy. Candidates in the Department of Biomedical Informatics may be reviewed by the PCC or SSC, depending on their particular expertise.

For faculty members in all other HSDM and Clinical departments, there is no required time by which a promotion must be considered. After the Department Head recommends moving forward to review for promotion to Professor, the candidate’s nominating letter, CV, annotated ten (10) most significant scholarly works, and list of potential evaluators are brought to the appropriate departmental executive committee for review and approval.

Faculty members are encouraged to periodically discuss their eligibility for promotion with appropriate department leaders such as mentors, Division Chiefs and/or Department Heads.

If the appropriate executive committee recommends review for promotion to Professor, the Department Head prepares and submits to the Office for Faculty Affairs (OFA) the required dossier that begins the promotional process at HMS. At any time in the process, the OFA may seek confidential consultation from the Council of Academic Deans (CAD), PCC, or SSC (whichever is appropriate to the candidate) regarding the proposed promotion.

Process:

Step 1: Department assesses candidate’s qualifications for promotion

The process begins with a meeting of the Department Head (or designee such as a mentor or Division Chief) and the candidate, ideally as part of the annual career conference, to discuss the process and review the candidate’s Faculty of Medicine CV in consideration of the academic criteria for promotion to Professor
Academic Department Heads are the only individuals who can propose candidates for promotion to Professor
Candidate prepares CV and annotated list of ten (10) most significant scholarly works in the required Faculty of Medicine format
Department Head determines readiness for promotion and develops a rationale for advancement in the candidate’s Area of Excellence. Significant Supporting Activities, as appropriate, are noted as well. Department works to prepare the “recommended reviewers list” of comparands, external letter writers, internal letter writers and ad hoc committee members

Step 2: Department Head proposes candidate to Executive Committee, Preclinical Chairs (PCC) or Social Science Council (SSC)

The Department Head prepares a letter of nomination recommending the candidate for promotion
The Department Head proposes the candidate to the Department Executive Committee, or in the case of the Basic Science preclinical faculty, to the PCC, or, in the case of the Social Science preclinical faculty, to the SSC
The members of these committees provide feedback to the Department Head on the proposed candidate and may recommend that the Department Head obtain additional information, delay consideration pending achievement of additional academic accomplishments by the candidate, or recommend moving forward with the promotion review
These committees evaluate and approve the recommended reviewers list of comparands, external letter writers, internal letter writers and ad hoc committee members. See step 5 below for specific requirements for letters
The Executive Committee makes a formal recommendation in writing to the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine supporting the candidate’s promotion. If there is any dissent or abstention, the letter to the Dean includes the reasons for either dissents or abstentions

Step 3: Department Head submits materials to the OFA

Please submit materials electronically to the OFA at: Professorial.materials@hms.harvard.edu
Letter of nomination that outlines the candidate’s accomplishments and contributions, attests to the candidate’s integrity and professionalism, and establishes the case for promotion
For candidates in Basic and Social Science departments, documentation of approval by the PCC or SSC
For candidates in clinical departments, documentation of approval by the appropriate Departmental Executive Committee
Candidate’s CV in the Faculty of Medicine format
Annotated summary of the candidate’s ten (10) most significant scholarly works
Candidate’s ten (10) most significant scholarly works as PDFs
If significant scholarly works are not in electronic format, contact the OFA at (Professorial.materials@hms.harvard.edu) to arrange for alternative submission
A recommended reviewers list from the Department, approved by PCC or SSC or appropriate Executive Committee, outlining suggestions for letter writers, comparands and ad hoc Committee members. This list must be submitted on the appropriate original Excel template; fields cannot be modified

Step 4: OFA initiates promotion process at Harvard Medical School

Upon receipt of the candidate’s materials, the OFA will:

Provide access to a confidential milestone website for tracking the status of the promotion available only to the candidate, the Department Head and the department promotion coordinator
Send an email to the candidate, with a copy to the department, to alert them that the materials have been received, the HMS evaluation process has started, and the website is available
Request modifications or additions as needed from the department or the candidate
Document on the milestone website when all materials are complete, i.e., that any revisions/additional material requested by the OFA in support of the professorial evaluation have been received (revisions may include modifications to the Faculty of Medicine CV, nominating letter, annotated bibliography and ten (10) most significant scholarly works, and the recommended reviewers list, among other requests that may be appropriate to assist in completion of the package)
Review the recommended reviewer lists submitted by the Department Head. Identify advisor(s) from inside or outside Harvard to assist the Dean’s office regarding the appropriateness and completeness of the lists. Once that review is complete, a final list is proposed to the department

Step 5: OFA solicits letters of evaluation

After sharing the final list of evaluators with the Department Head, the OFA solicits letters by email. The OFA contacts letter writers regularly to follow up on requests. Candidates and Departments should not contact letter writers or potential letter writers directly; inquiries from letter writers should be directed to the OFA. Letters will be solicited from the following:

Minimum of 12 leaders (generally Professors) in the candidate’s field whose appointments are outside Harvard. These evaluators, at least half of whom should not be colleagues or collaborators, will be asked to compare the candidate to 3-5 Professors in the field who are typically at a similar stage of their careers as the candidate (i.e., promoted to Professor within approximately the past five (5) years) and who are not appointed at Harvard
Six Professors at Harvard who are not appointed in the candidate’s local department but who are familiar with the candidate’s field, and often their achievements in other relevant areas (administrative service, teaching, and perhaps other Significant Supporting Activities)
In some cases, additional letters may be solicited if the initial pool of letter writers does not yield sufficient information

Step 6: Department leadership reviews dossier

Once the letters of evaluation are received, the OFA prepares a confidential dossier that is shared with the candidate’s Department Head. For Basic and Social Science departments, the Department Head may ask all Professors in the department to review the letters
After receiving the candidate’s dossier, the department leadership makes a recommendation to the Dean regarding whether to move forward with formation of an ad hoc Committee. Approval by the Department Head is an absolute requirement before a case advances to an ad hoc Committee
The Department Head has an opportunity to revise and update the original nominating letter to incorporate information from or address issues raised in the letters of evaluation, and/or to submit the candidate’s most recent Faculty of Medicine CV

Step 7: Senior Appointments Committee reviews dossier

In clinical departments based at HMS/HSDM institutions that have Senior Appointments Committees, those committees will evaluate the dossier and make a recommendation to the Dean as to whether they support moving forward with formation of an ad hoc Committee
For institutions that do not have Senior Appointment Committees, the Council of Academic Deans (CAD) will serve as the Senior Appointments Committee
For faculty in the Basic and Social Science departments, the dossiers are reviewed by either the PCC or the SSC, depending on the candidate’s discipline
Approval by the Senior Appointments Committee is an absolute requirement before a case advances to an ad hoc Committee

Step 8: Dean’s office appoints ad hoc Committee

Incorporating recommendations from the Department and Senior Appointments Committees, HMS appoints an ad hoc Committee to review all evidence assembled and to make a recommendation to the Dean. The ad hoc Committee typically consists of the following members, none of whom may be close colleagues or collaborators:

Chair, who is a Professor at HMS/HSDM and a member of the Subcommittee of Professors (SOP)
Two additional members of the senior faculty at Harvard, not from the candidate’s home institution or department, who have not already provided letters of evaluation or participated in assessment of the candidate up to this point
Three Professors from institutions other than Harvard who are experts in the candidate’s field and have not already provided letters of evaluation
HMS/HSDM Professors have the opportunity to provide confidential comments by email to the Dean. This confidential commentary will not be shared with department leadership, the candidate, the ad hoc Committee or the SOP. Any general concerns raised in these emails may be discussed, without attribution to their origin, with faculty and leaders involved in the promotion decision as appropriate

Step 9: Ad hoc Committee meets to review dossier

Generally, the ad hoc Committee meets in a single session unless the committee requests additional information. All proceedings of the ad hoc Committee are confidential.

The Committee reviews the dossier to determine the candidate’s achievements in the Area of Excellence, including evidence of impact on the field and of a national and often international reputation. The Committee also evaluates the teaching and training activities, service, and any other supporting activities described in the professorial dossier
The Department Head or department vice chair is invited to testify along with other leaders in the field whom the ad hoc committee chair believes will be in a position to provide helpful commentary to the committee
Following all testimony, the committee meets in executive session to review the qualifications for promotion. If the ad hoc Committee requires additional evidence before reaching a conclusion, the Committee is empowered to request that such additional data (e.g., additional letters of evaluation) be solicited by the OFA
At the conclusion of the meeting, the members will vote on the proposal
If the ad hoc Committee findings are unfavorable, the Department Head may withdraw the candidate’s application
The chair of the ad hoc Committee prepares a report summarizing the deliberations and presents the findings to the Dean and the SOP

Step 10: Subcommittee of Professors (SOP) reviews dossier

At the meeting:

The ad hoc committee chair presents the candidate to the SOP
A second member of the committee reviews the dossier and reports to the SOP
The entire SOP discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the case
Members of the SOP provide individual, confidential feedback and vote on the nomination

Step 11: Dean makes a recommendation to the University

The Dean of the Faculty of Medicine reviews all recommendations from the SOP
The OFA submits the Dean’s recommendation to the University
No decision is final until the University review is complete

Step 12: University renders a decision

The University reviews the proposed appointment
A final decision is communicated to the Dean’s office and the OFA

Step 13: Notification of approval

The OFA informs the Department Head and/or CEO/President of the outcome via email
Formal letter from the Dean is sent directly to candidate
Formal letter is sent from the University directly to candidate

Last updated June 2023