Chapter 13G.4

The P.I. should suggest, for approval by the divisional/SEAS associate dean, a two-person review committee composed of individuals at the tenure-track, tenured, or senior non-ladder faculty ranks, or at the rank of Senior Research Fellow. The P.I. should not serve as a member of the committee. 

• For internal promotions to Research Scientist, a two-person committee is required.
• For internal promotions to Senior Research Scientist, a three-person committee is required. 

The committee requests the following materials from the candidate.

• For internal promotions to Research Scientist:
  • a curriculum vitae (including a list of publications)
  • a research statement
• For internal promotions to Senior Research Scientist, the committee asks the candidate (who should have a strong record of scholarly publications) to submit:
  • a curriculum vitae (including a list of publications)
  • a summary research statement of no more than three to four pages
  • a list of experts in the field whom the department may wish to consult about the review or any experts the candidate feels should not be consulted, with an accompanying explanation. At least three letter writers should be "arm's length" letter writers. "Arm's length" means that the evaluator is not a past or present advisor, mentor, collaborator, co-teacher, or other role in close relationship to the candidate, as assessed by the divisional dean/ dean’s office. If the candidate prefers, the candidate may provide this explanatory information to the department chair. The candidate may also consult with the associate dean.

The committee reviews the candidate’s materials. These materials should include: 

a. All materials gathered from the candidates, listed above

b. A letter from the P.I., describing: 

• what the candidate has been doing
• what the impact of the candidate’s work has been
• the expected length of the candidate’s project and the stability of its funding, and
• why it is important for the candidate to remain at Harvard rather than pursue an independent career.

c. Seven evaluative letters for Senior Research Scientist candidates only

In addition, evaluative letters about the candidate must be obtained by the committee before any offer can be made. The committee takes into consideration the suggestions of the candidate (as submitted with the candidate’s materials in the Materials Request step above), but the committee has final authority in deciding who it will ask to write letters. At least five of the seven letters must be from letter-writers external to Harvard; one letter can be from the Harvard department seeking to make the appointment (or, for candidates from SEAS, this letter can be either from the SEAS area seeking to make the appointment or else from SEAS more broadly); and one letter can also be from Harvard, but must be external to (as applicable, depending on the candidate’s primary affiliation) the Faculty of Arts and Sciences or the John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 

All seven letters should be from experts at the tenured ranks; it may be appropriate to include highly accomplished senior researchers from corporations or research institutes, or well-established museum professionals or practicing artists. At least three letter writers should be arm’s-length letter writers.

The letter soliciting external evaluations, which should first be approved by the divisional/SEAS associate dean, should include: 

• the criteria for appointment to the position;
• an indication that the University will make every effort possible to keep the response confidential and will make it available only to individuals involved in the formal review process; and
• the deadline for receipt of responses and contact information. 

With the letter, the committee should include the candidate’s curriculum vitae (including a list of publications) and research statement.  

After reviewing all materials, the committee votes on the case and informs the P.I. or the department. After a favorable vote, the committee drafts a short case statement and sends a dossier to the divisional/SEAS associate dean for review. The dossier includes:

• The case for promoting the candidate, including a summary of the candidate’s qualifications and contributions, an explanation of how the candidate meets the criteria for the position, a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the candidate’s case as noted in the external (in the case of Senior Research Scientist candidates) and internal evaluations and the internal deliberations of the review committee, and the committee’s signatures, with an indication of the primary author of the statement.
• A curriculum vitae (including list of publications)
• The candidate’s research statement
• Copies of the letter soliciting evaluations, and the letters received (for Senior Research Scientist candidates only)
• Copy of the P.I.’s letter describing the candidate’s work, impact, expected project length and funding, and the rationale for the candidate continuing at Harvard.

 If the appointment is granted:

• For Research Scientists: Following approval, the committee may inform the P.I. or the department of the successful review. The offer letter is issued by the P.I., who should cc the divisional/SEAS associate dean.
• For Senior Research Scientists: Once the dossier has been reviewed by the associate dean, the final dossier will be submitted to a subcommittee of the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP). The CAP subcommittee reviews the dossier, and the divisional dean decides whether to approve the promotion. If approval is granted, the offer letter is issued by the P.I., who should cc the divisional/SEAS associate dean.

If the offer is accepted, the final dossier is sent to the Appointments Office via Aurora with the offer letter, and the appointment is processed in the Aurora system by the department.