Appointments, Promotions and Tenure (APT)

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

Policies of the APT Committee of the Renaissance 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 page that contains links to all APT-related documents can be accessed here.

Annual reviews are due in the Office of Faculty Affairs by June 1 each year. By August 15, chairs need to notify the Dean's office of promotion packages that will be submitted that fall.  Packages for promotions from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor with tenure need to be submitted by October 1; all other promotion packages need to be submitted by November 30. Faculty will be notified of promotion decisions by September of the following year.  Appointment packages should be submitted as soon as possible after the arrival of the faculty member.

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

The promotion package must be submitted through Interfolio and should include the following:

  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. For candidates who hold a joint appointment, a letter from the chair of that department is also required. The candidate's professional citizenship must also be specifically addressed in the letter. In this context, professional citizenship refers to interactions and participation as a member of the department, school, and university community and not the country of citizenship.
     
  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. When voting in person is not feasible, the department may vote electronically and note this on the tally sheet rather than obtaining individual signatures from each voting member.
     
  3. A curriculum vitae in the specified format.
     
  4. The form entitled, "Contribution to the Renaissance 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 is optional but is suggested 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 candidates on other tracks.
     
  7. A Scholarly Activity Portfolio can be submitted 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. 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. A copy of the Renaissance School of Medicine point criteria should be sent to referees but does not need to be included with the candidate's package.
     
  9. 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. For each referee, the following information should be included: Name, Degree, Rank, Tenure status (if applicable), Department, Institution, Email address, and relationship to the candidate (e.g., mentor, collaborator, no substantive relationship). Detailed requirements for letters are listed below.
     
  10. The following general requirements apply to letters from referees:

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

    • Must state the referee's academic rank and tenure status (if applicable), which must be equivalent to or higher than that proposed for the candidate.

    • Must state whether he or she has worked with the candidate and the capacity in which they have worked together (e.g., papers, grants, mentor, colleague).

    • Should 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 this information is not specifically stated, the letter will not be able to be read by the candidate.

    • Should discuss the referee's current knowledge of and assessment of factors relevant to the proposed appointment or promotion.

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

    • Should describe how the candidate’s achievements compare to those of others in a similar position and career stage.

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.)

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-tenured 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 Renaissance School of Medicine.
    • 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):
     
    • Requirements for referees letters will be the same as those for the corresponding full-time faculty rank and tenure status as described above.
       

Promotion Tracks at Stony Brook Medicine

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

  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

  Minimum Points
Title Track Tenure Total Scholarship Teaching Service
Associate Professor Research Scholar Yes 5 3 1 1
Clinician Scholar Yes 5 2 1 1
Educator Scholar Yes 5 2 1 1
  Research No 4 2 1 1
Clinical Educator No 4 1 1 1
Basic Science Educator No 4 1 1 1
Professor Research Scholar Yes 7 3 1 1
Clinician Scholar Yes 7 2 1 1
Educator Scholar Yes 7 2 1 1
  Research No 5 3 1 1
Clinical Educator No 5 1 1 1
Basic Science Educator No 5 1 1 1

Points Assessment Guidelines

For promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor on non-tenure or tenure tracks, scholarship, teaching and service will be assessed from the time of the faculty member’s appointment to the Assistant Professor rank.

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


Research/Scholarships Levels

Points Criteria
1

The candidate must demonstrate evidence of scholarly activity, involving the creation or synthesis of knowledge to generate a scholarly product. Scholarly activities may be scientific, clinical, and/or educational in their focus and may be disseminated through print or alternative media (e.g. video, audio, web-based formats). In addition to scholarship published in peer-reviewed journals, other formats include book chapters, monographs, case reports, published curricula, and computer software. They may also include, but are not limited to, abstracts presented at national meetings; 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, consensus statements, or evidence-based health policy documents. The specific role and intellectual contribution of the candidate to the listed scholarly activity must be clear (e.g., through a scholarly portfolio).
2 In addition to the above, the candidate must conduct a research program or demonstrate evidence of scholarship with publications in peer reviewed journals. Scholarship could also 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 other academic institutions, major symposia, or professional or scientific meetings. The specific independent role and intellectual contribution of the candidate to the listed scholarly activity must be clear.
3

In addition to the above, the candidate supervises an independent, productive research program or demonstrates 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 are amenable to peer review. 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. The candidate should also show evidence of attracting learners or leading a research team.
4

In addition to the above, the candidate should achieve a wide national and/or international reputation for research or other scholarly contributions and be recognized as having had a major influence for these contributions. Recognition may take the form of national and/or international awards and/or honors.

 


 

Teaching Levels

Points Criteria
1

The candidate should contribute to the university’s teaching mission and carry out teaching and mentoring duties in a competent, effective, inclusive, and responsible fashion. The candidate must relate well with faculty, staff, and learners. The candidate may submit comparative quantitative and qualitative evidence from learner, peer, and course director evaluations.
2 In addition to the above, the candidate must present evidence of being an effective instructor with substantial teaching responsibility. Teaching effectiveness can be shown by receipt of departmental or university awards for teaching or through comparative quantitative and qualitative evidence from learner, peer, and course director evaluations. The candidate should also assume significant administrative responsibility for educational programs or activities.
3 In addition to the above, the candidate should present evidence of innovative and creative teaching methods and/or curricular materials. Moreover, these materials must be publicly available and/or critically acclaimed either in professional publications or as evidenced by extensive use at other institutions.
4

In addition to the above, the candidate should achieve a wide national and/or international reputation for educational contributions and be recognized as having had a major influence for these contributions. Recognition may take the form of national and/or international awards and/or honors.

 


Professional Service Levels

Points Criteria
1 The candidate must relate well with faculty, staff, and learners. The candidate should contribute to the university’s administrative, governance, mentoring and/or clinical missions and carry out duties in a competent, effective, inclusive and responsible fashion. The candidate, when applicable, must demonstrate an appropriate level of clinical performance, to be determined by the faculty member’s division/department.
2 In addition to the above, the candidate should make a significant contribution to administration, governance, mentoring, and/or clinical services at the university. This may include evidence of development of new techniques, therapies, devices, patient care practices, or approaches to health care delivery that have improved the health of patients or populations. The candidate should also participate in professional service outside the university (e.g., membership in editorial boards of major journals, membership in NIH study sections, committee membership or other significant role in clinical or scientific societies).
3 In addition to the above, the candidate must show substantial evidence of leadership within the university and/or outside, such as chairing important university or clinical committees, serving as an officer in a national clinical or scientific organization, serving as associate editor or editor-in-chief of a major scientific journal, or managing a major clinical service.
4 In addition to the above, the candidate should achieve a wide national and/or international reputation for professional service contributions and be recognized as having had a major influence for these contributions. Recognition may take the form of national and/or international awards and/or honors.

 

 

 

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. 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 Vice Dean for Faculty Affairs and the Faculty Assistance Committee of the Renaissance 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.

 

A list of APT Committee members is available by clicking here.

 

 i Last updated June 18, 2024.