• A
  • A
  • A

APT

The Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure (APT Committee)  is a standing committee of the Faculty Senate of the School of Medicine.

Policies of the Committee on Appointments, Promotions and Tenure Committee of the Stony Brook University School of Medicine.  The APT Committee will be guided by the Policies of the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York.

Types of appointment or promotion considered by the APT Committee. The APT Committee makes recommendations to the Dean after consideration of proposals for the following:

  • Granting of tenure
  • Appointment or promotion to associate professorship or professorship on tenure- and non-tenure tracks
  • Voluntary clinical appointments, Adjunct Research, and Joint Appointments as requested by the Dean

Requirements for consideration of proposals by the APT Committee. The APT Committee accepts a proposal for consideration from the Chair of the candidate’s department.  A file that contains all APT related requirements can be downloaded here .

The APT Committee Checklist  outlines the items required for an appointment or promotion package.

The promotion package must be submitted with one hard copy of each document:

  1. A letter from the Chair of the candidate's department to the Dean that formally proposes consideration of the desired action. The Chair's letter should specifically address the track and title of the proposed appointment or promotion as well as the ways in which the candidate meets the criteria for the proposed appointment or promotion. The candidate's professional citizenship must also be specifically addressed in the letter.

  2. A tally sheet  indicating departmental approval for the candidate.  The tally sheet should include the summary of votes for, against and abstaining as well as the signatures of the faculty who voted, but should not specify how each individual voted.  Department chairs are not permitted to vote.  In addition, only individuals who are at the same or higher rank and tenure status may vote on a candidate's appointment/promotion/tenure. Each department should determine the approach that will be used to voting.  For example, a large department may choose to have a departmental APT committee vote on appointments and promotions whereas other departments may choose to obtain votes from all eligible faculty.  A department may also choose to have a departmental APT committee vote on non-tenure appointments or promotions but obtain votes on tenure track appointments and promotions from all eligible faculty.  Regardless of what approach is chosen by the department, it must be applied consistently to all candidates and the tally sheet must include a description of how the department determined who was eligible to vote (e.g., "Eligible voters included all faculty at or above the rank and tenure status of the candidate (with the exception of the department chair)," "Eligible voters included members of a standing departmental APT committee").  In addition, there must be a minimum of 3 individuals voting on any candidate. Thus, for small departments, individuals from another department may need to be added to the departmental APT committee to assure an adequate number of voting faculty.

  3. A curriculum vitae  in the specified format.

  4. The form entitled, "Contribution to the School of Medicine Teaching and Patient Care Programs"  must be included.

  5. An optional Personal Statement. If included, the personal statement should be limited to three pages. The personal statement should discuss the candidate’s responsibilities and accomplishments, and may discuss other information that would give the committee additional perspectives on the candidate's career path or productivity.

  6. An Educator Portfolio  for promotions on the Educator Scholar Track. As described in the instructions for the educator portfolio , this document should focus on teaching activities, program development, teaching evaluations and education-related outcome studies. An educator portfolio can also be submitted, but is optional, for candidate on other tracks.

  7. A Scholarly Activity Portfolio  for promotions to Associate Professor on the non-tenured Clinical Educator and Basic Science Educator tracks. It can also be submitted for promotions on other tracks if the candidate's extent of scholarly activities would not be clear from the curriculum vitae.  As described in the instructions for the scholarly activity portfolio , this document is aimed at describing the candidate's role in each scholarly activity and providing additional details on scholarly activities that are not in an electronic journal or readily available to the committee for review.

  8. A copy of the announcement of candidacy  (only for an initial tenure-track promotion, not for initial appointments or subsequent promotions of already tenured individuals).

  9. Sample letter from the department chair to the referees  (1 letter only), which must include a statement from the UUP Agreement (Article 31) regarding the candidate reading the letter.

  10. A summary list of referees for the proposed appointment or promotion.  The list should be divided into two sections: referees chosen by the Chair from a list supplied by the candidate and referees chosen independently by the Chair without input from the candidate.  Detailed requirements for letters are listed below.

  11. All letters from referees need to meet the following general requirements:

    • The letter must include the specific academic rank and tenure status to which the candidate is being appointed or promoted.

    • The letter must state the referee's academic rank and tenure status, which must be equivalent to or higher than that proposed for the candidate.

    • The letter must specifically state whether the letter can be read by the candidate, whether the letter can be read by the candidate if all identification as to its source is deleted, or whether the letter cannot be read by the candidate. (If no statement is included, the letter will be kept confidential.)

    • The letter must state whether the referee has worked with the candidate and the capacity in which they have worked together (e.g., papers, grants, mentor, colleague).
      The letter should discuss the referee's current knowledge of and assessment of factors relevant to the proposed appointment or promotion including the candidate's character, national reputation, teaching ability, clinical ability, service contributions, and scholarship quality and productivity.

    • The letter should state whether or not the referee supports the appointment/promotion to the specific rank and tenure status proposed for the candidate.

    • The letter should state whether or not the candidate would likely meet the criteria for appointment/promotion to this rank and tenure status at the referee's institution.

Additional requirements for letters are specific to the appointment/promotion track, as follows:

For tenured or tenure-equivalent positions

  • A minimum of 6 letters are required
  • At least 4 of the letters must be outside letters.
  • At least 1 of the letters is from a referee chosen by the candidate
  • At least 3 of the outside letters must be from referees not chosen by the candidate who have had no direct association with the candidate as substantive collaborators or mentors. If the appointment is for a candidate coming from an institution outside Stony Brook or its affiliates, these letters must be from persons who have had no direct association with the candidate as a substantive collaborator or mentor and who are outside the institution at which the candidate has been working. (In the event of questions about whether a collaboration or mentorship is substantive, the committee will follow the guidelines used by NIH for grant reviewers: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/Grant-Reviews-508.pdf)

For non-tenured or non-tenure-equivalent positions

  • For Research Faculty (non-tenured)A minimum of 4 letters will be required

    • At least 1 of the letters is from a referee chosen by the candidate
    • At least 3 of the letters are from referees not chosen by the candidate
    • At least 2 of the letters must be from referees not chosen by the candidate who are outside Stony Brook or its affiliates and have had no direct association with the candidate as a substantive collaborator or mentor.  If the appointment is for a candidate coming from an institution outside Stony Brook or its affiliates, these letters must be from persons who have had no direct association with the candidate as a substantive collaborator or mentor and who are outside the institution at which the candidate has been working.

  • For Clinical Educator (non-tenured track, full time faculty) and for Basic Science Educator (non-tenure track, full-time faculty)

    • A minimum of 4 letters will be required
    •  At least 1 of the letters is from a referee chosen by the candidate
    • At least 3 of the letters are from referees not chosen by the candidate
    • At least 2 of the letters must be from referees who are outside of the candidate's department in the Stony Brook SOM.
    • Letters may come from individuals who have worked with the candidate as a mentor or colleague and may be from individuals at Stony Brook or any of its affiliates. If the appointment is for a candidate coming from an institution outside Stony Brook or its affiliates, outside letters must be from persons who were outside the candidate's department at the prior institution.
  • For Voluntary Faculty (non-tenured track)

    • A minimum of 4 letters will be required
    • At least 1 of the letters is from a referee chosen by the candidate
    • At least 3 of the letters are from referees not chosen by the candidate
    • Letters may come from individuals who have worked with the candidate as a mentor or colleague and may be from individuals at Stony Brook or any of its affiliates.

Promotion Tracks at Stony Brook Medicine

Two major paths for promotion exist in the School of Medicine at Stony Brook:

  1. Tenure Track
    • Research Scholar
    • Clinical Scholar
    • Educator Scholar
  2. Non-Tenure Track
    • Researcher
    • Clinical Educator
    • Basic Science Educator

Tenure Track: The Research Scholar Track applies to individuals whose primary focus is research, typically supported by funding from NIH or other public and private agencies/foundations.  The Clinical Scholar Track applies to clinicians whose primary focus is clinical care but who also have a record of investigator-initiated research, often supported by funding from NIH or other public and private agencies/foundations. The Educator Scholar Track applies to individuals whose primary focus is teaching and who also have scholarly activities related to teaching.

Non-Tenure Track: The Researcher track applies to individuals whose primary focus is research and who may or may not have independent investigator-initiated funding. The Clinician Educator Track applies to individuals whose primary focus is clinical care but who are also involved in clinical teaching. The Basic Science Educator Track applies to individuals whose primary focus is education related to the basic sciences.

Promotion Tracks at Stony Brook Medicine

Title Track Tenure Minimum Points
Minimum scholarship Additional Requirements
Associate Professor Research Scholar yes 5 3  
 
Professor Research Scholar yes 7 3  
 
Associate Professor Clinician Scholar yes 5 2  
 
Professor Clinician Scholar yes 7 2  
 
Associate Professor Educator Scholar yes 5 2 Requires educator portfolio
 
Professor Educator Scholar yes 7 2 Requires educator portfolio
 
Research Associate Professor Research no 4
2  
 
Research Professor Research no 5 3  
 
Clinical Associate Professor Clinical Educator no 4
1a
Requires scholarly activity portfolio
 
Clinical Professor Clinical Educator no 5 1b  
 
Associate Professor
Basic Science Educator no 4 1a Requires scholarly activity portfolio
At least 2 points, related to teaching
 
Professor
Basic Science Educator no 5 1b At least 2 points, related to teaching

Points Assessment Guidelines
Research/Scholarships Levels

For promotion from Associate Professor to Professor on non-tenure or tenure tracks, ongoing scholarship will be assessed since the faculty member's most recent promotion.

Points Criteria
1

For promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor on the Clinical Educator track (non-tenure) or Basic Science Educator track (non-tenure):  The candidate must demonstrate an on-going pattern of scholarly activity. Such activities involve the creation or synthesis of knowledge to generate a scholarly product.  Scholarly activity may be disseminated through print or alternative media (e.g. video, audio, web-based formats). Although it is recommended that scholarship be published in peer-reviewed journals, other dissemination formats may also be considered (e.g., book chapters, monographs, abstracts presented at national meetings, published curricula, computer software). Scholarly activities may involve scientific, clinical, and/or educational research.  They may also include, but are not limited to, quality improvement initiatives; creation of educational materials for patients, families or the public; construction and testing of rating scales or other instruments for clinical assessment; or development of clinical practice guidelines or evidence-based health policy documents. The specific intellectual contribution of the faculty member to each scholarly activity must be made clear by submission of an electronic portfolio that includes a copy of each scholarly activity (or active web-link) and a description of the role that the faculty member played in the key elements of each activity (e.g., conception, design, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, drafting or critical revision of written materials) or in any funded grants.


1b
For promotion from Associate Professor to Professor on the Clinical Educator (non-tenure) or Basic Science Educator track (non-tenure):  The candidate must participate in a research program or demonstrate a pattern of scholarship leading to publications in peer reviewed journals. The publications may involve scientific, clinical, and/or educational research or other forms of recognized scholarship. The specific role in collaborative work and publications must be made clear. Case reports or course materials generally will count for little here unless appearing in critically reviewed journals with a clearly defined and significant contribution from the candidate.  *
2
The candidate must conduct a research program or demonstrate a pattern of scholarship with a steady or improving rate of publication in critically refereed journals. This could include significant review articles, book chapters, monographs, published curricula, computer software, and other modes of scholarship amenable to peer review. There should also be evidence of invited lectures at major symposia and professional or scientific meetings.
3

The candidate supervises an independent, productive research program or demonstrate a pattern of scholarship that addresses major and significant problems or topics. There should be a solid record of original and important publications in top peer-reviewed journals in the candidate’s field, or first or senior author publications in books, or other recognized intellectual products that can be objectively evaluated on a retrospective basis. The candidate should also attract students and fellows. There must be evidence of a strong national reputation and respect among peers documented through such vehicles as letters of recommendation, invited lectures, extensive citation or use of published work, as well as serving as a Principal Investigator of a competitively reviewed grant; a lead investigator in a significant study; or equivalent, such as an independent, essential contribution to highly collaborative research.

4

In addition to the above, the candidate should achieve a wide national and international reputation for research or other scholarly contributions and be recognized as a major influence in his/her academic discipline. Recognition can take the form of national awards and honors.

 

 

Teaching Levels

Points Criteria
1

The candidate must contribute to the university’s teaching mission and should carry out teaching duties in a competent, effective and responsible fashion. He/she must relate well with learners and teaching colleagues. The candidate may submit comparative quantitative and qualitative evidence from student, peer and course director evaluations.

2 The candidate must present evidence that he/she is an exceptional instructor with substantial teaching responsibility. The former can be shown by receipt of university awards for teaching or through comparative quantitative and qualitative evidence from student, peer and course director evaluations.  Substantial teaching responsibility should be documented with syllabi, lesson plans, lecture notes, case presentations, etc.  In addition, the candidate should assume significant responsibility for course planning and administration.
3 In addition to the criteria in 2, the candidate should present evidence of innovative and creative teaching methods and/or curricular materials. Moreover, these materials must be publicly available and critically acclaimed either in professional publications or by external evaluators, or as evidenced by extensive use at other institutions.
4

In addition to 2 and 3 above, the candidate should achieve a wide national or international reputation for his/her educational contributions and be recognized as a having a major influence in the educational leadership of his or her field. Such recognition can take the form of national awards and/or honors.

Professional Service Levels

Points Criteria
1 The candidate must accept and perform well a reasonable share of clinical or administrative and governance duties and interact in a positive way with faculty and students.
2 The candidate should do substantial amounts of service and make an outstanding contribution to administration, governance, and/or clinical services at the university. He/she should also participate in significant professional service outside SUSB the university (i.e. membership in editorial boards of major journals, membership in standing NIH study sections, or a significant role in professional or scientific societies).
3 In addition to the criteria in 2, the candidate must show substantial evidence of leadership within the university and/or outside. This would include chairing important university committees, serving as an officer in a national professional organization, managing a major clinical service, etc.

APT Review Procedures
Criteria for Review of Faculty from Affiliated Institutions


All appointments of faculty members salaried by the Veterans Administration Medical Center at Northport and similar affiliated institutions, will be considered as though they were proposed for positions with continuing appointment at the School of Medicine. The descriptor "tenure-equivalent" will indicate that an individual working at an affiliate institution not supported by New York State has met the same qualifications as a tenured State employee.

Ad hoc Subcommittees. To facilitate effective function of the APT Committee, the Chair of the APT Committee will assign each proposal to an ad hoc subcommittee for thorough study before presentation to the plenary APT Committee.  Each subcommittee shall consist of at least three members, with representation from both basic science and clinical departments and one member serving as chair of the subcommittee.  All members of each subcommittee shall have academic rank and tenure status at least equivalent to those of the candidate.  Members of the subcommittee will communicate as required to reach a consensus. The subcommittee members may seek additional information from other sources as necessary. In addition, any initial appointment to a tenure-track rank of Associate Professor or Professor and any promotion with a new granting of tenure requires review by at least one outside academician. The subcommittee shall solicit such reviews of the candidate as required.  Upon completing their evaluation, the subcommittee will submit a detailed report to the Chair of the APT Committee with a recommendation for discussion by the entire committee.  If the ad hoc subcommittee is unable to achieve unanimity, the divided vote of the subcommittee will be reported to the APT Committee together with a minority report.

Action of the Plenary APT Committee. All members of the APT committee receive copies of pertinent materials that have been submitted to the Dean's Office by the Chair of the candidate's department in conjunction with the proposal for appointment, promotion, or tenure.  The report of the ad hoc subcommittee is presented at a meeting of the plenary APT Committee. The report of the Subcommittee is advisory and not binding upon the APT Committee. The APT Committee discusses the proposal and may agree with the Subcommittee or reconsider the proposed action.  A vote will be taken and recorded by tally. A list of those voting will be maintained, but there will be no recording of "yeas" or "nays" on a member by member basis. Members of the APT Committee may only vote if their rank and tenure-status are equal to or higher than that of the candidate. Members with tenure-equivalent status may also vote on matters of tenure. Members of the APT Committee who are also members of the candidate's Department may not be present for the discussion or voting and may not have a vote recorded on their behalf. A member of the APT Committee should also be recused from the discussion and the voting if he or she has a personal conflict of interest with the candidate.  Voting in absentia is not permitted.

Resubmissions: For a file to be resubmitted to the APT Committee there must be substantive additions to the original package of materials that had been submitted to the Dean. The Chair of the candidate's department must give the Chair of the APT Committee a letter that describes the changes that have been made in the package since its original submission. The Chair of the APT Committee will decide whether the new material is substantive enough to warrant re-examination by the APT Committee.

Concerns about the APT Process: The appointment/promotion process begins with a letter of recommendation from the Chair of an individual’s department.  If there is a disagreement between an individual and his/her department Chair over appointment or promotion issues, the Faculty Assistance Committee  of the School of Medicine Faculty Senate can be contacted for assistance in resolving the conflict. The Stony Brook University Ombudsman Office  may also be able to provide helpful resources aimed at addressing the faculty member's concerns.

 

 


 i These point criteria reflect modifications made by the School of Medicine Faculty Senate in February 2018.