T
H E N I H C A T A L Y
S T |
M
A R C H A P R
I L 2004 |
|
CTC
CLARIFIES CRITERIA FOR TENURE
AT NIH
|
by
Arlyn Garcia-Perez,
Ph.D.
Assistant
Director, OIR
Executive Secretary, Central Tenure Committee
|
"To
ensure a strong tenure system that provides the intramural research program
with creative and productive scientists, an NIH-wide Tenure Committee, advisory
to the Deputy Director for Intramural Research . . . should be established to
review and recommend for approval (or rejection) all potential appointments
to tenure."
NIH
IRP Report of the External Advisory Committee, Directors Advisory Committee,
Nov. 17, 1994
On
January 5, 2004, nearing the 10th anniversary of its inception, the NIH Central
Tenure Committee (CTC) conducted its first-ever retreat for a look back
and a future vision. Invitations to all past and present CTC
members, scientific directors, and members of special panels advisory to
the CTC were extended, and fully 70 percent gathered together enthusiastically
for a meeting in Building 1, Wilson Hall.
Michael
Gottesman, deputy director for intramural research (DDIR) and CTC chair,
presented summary data on the tenure
rate at NIH since 1994.
For the cohorts of investigators
who started on the tenure track in 1994 and 1995, 56 percent and 58 percent,
respectively, achieved tenure. Since more than 20 percent of investigators who
started in 1996 and subsequent years are still on the tenure track, the overall
tenure rate for those cohorts is still changing.
Review by the CTC is the
last step in the review process for tenure, and nearly all candidates who reach
that point are indeed approved for tenure: 90 percent of all tenure-track investigators
reviewed by the CTC since 1994 received tenure (in the same period, 91 percent
of all outside candidates reviewed by the CTC for tenure also received it).
Thus, nearly all individuals who do not achieve tenure from the tenure track
fail to do so before they are reviewed by the CTC.
After questions on the
data, the DDIR introduced an outline of criteria for tenure that the CTC has
traditionally valued as fundamental. The ensuing thoughtful exchange and lively
dialogue produced a draft that ultimately resulted in the consensus document
printed on this page.
CRITERIA
High quality, originality, and impact of scientific contributions to
a specific field and biomedical research more generally
quality of studies, including scientific rationale and methodological
rigor
innovation and originality in the form of new ideas, approaches, discoveries
and paradigms that open lines of further inquiry, including discovery
and development of technological approaches, as well as design, development,
and implementation of clinical trials and population studies
scientific, clinical, and/or public health impact of published work
upward trajectory expected following tenure
Independence
independent research as evidenced by primary and senior authorship on
original research publications
for team research, clear evidence of distinct intellectual contribution
to the research; members of research teams should demonstrate peer recognition
of their specific contributions and some publications should highlight
their distinctive research
Productivity relative to resources
quality and quantity of publications (e.g., an original paper in a high-impact
journal is considered more consequential than several papers in specialty,
lower-impact journals)
reputation of journals in which peer-reviewed papers are published,
including specialty journals appropriate to the candidates field
patents and CRADAs
timely deposition of data (in particular, large data sets) in freely
available public databases; recognition given to high-quality data made
available electronically to the research community, in some cases not
directly linked to conventional journal publication(s)
|
National/international recognition and leadership
peer recognition for developing an important body of work with a unifying
theme, evidenced in letters of recommendation from the leaders in the
field
invited lectures and publications
membership on editorial boards or as invited journal reviewer
participation in grant review panels for NIH or other funding organizations
ability to forge multidisciplinary partnerships, taking advantage of
the breadth and depth of the NIH scientific and clinical environment
honors and awards
election to scientific societies
IC programmatic need that evidences distinct and important contributions
to the mission of NIH may be considered
Mentorship abilities and activities
success in training and mentoring junior colleagues at all levels as
evidenced by their professional progress, competitive funding, and/or
publications
High ethical standards and integrity in directing
and conducting research
NIH citizenship and collegiality
IC or NIH-wide activity or committee participation (e.g., Scientific
Interest Group, IRB, ACUC, WSAs, Faculties, etc.), clinical service,
and other activities that promote the scientific enterprise at NIH and
more broadly
|
DOCUMENTATION
TO ASSESS FULFILLMENT OF
THE CRITERIA
Updated and accurate C.V. and bibliography, including all necessary information
that addresses the criteria for tenure
Letters of recommendation from the leaders in the field (at least six
from noncollaborators)
BSC reports, with particular emphasis on the most recent one (must be
within the past two years for the Central Tenure Committee)
Recommending memorandum from the Laboratory/Branch Chief or Scientific
Director, through IC Director, specifically addressing the recommendation
for tenure
Report of the IC Promotion & Tenure Committee (only for tenure-track
candidates)
Report of the DDIR-approved Search Committee (only for outside candidates)
The five publications that the candidate considers most important
Description of future research plans by the candidate (no more than five
pages)
Detailed description of the resources (budget, personnel, space, other)
available to the candidate from the beginning of the tenure track to date,
with a timeline of changes during the tenure track (only for tenure-track
candidates)
|
Return to Table of Contents