Information to be Included in the Curriculum Vitae and/or Chair's Letter

1.   Scholarly Productivity

a.         Primary fields of interest in research and/or professional practice and how these relate to the present and future mission of the department

b.         Publications of new knowledge to the science and practice of public health, including publications of original works of a technical or analytical nature that have broad implications for public health. These may describe the organization or direction of innovative projects that contribute new knowledge at the local, national, or international level, and the formulation of analyses, policies, and programs that substantially advanced public health practice.

c.         Bibliography which may include:

-          Articles in respected journals, especially peer-reviewed articles

-          Authorship of major texts and invited reports synthesizing knowledge in the field

-          Invited presentations

d.         List of current grants and awards (title, awarding institute, date and duration) in which the individual is principal investigator or in which he/she participates.

e.         Evidence of leadership in the individual's field of interest, highlighting the nature and value of the individual's unique contributions to the expansion and/or application of knowledge.

f.          If part of a collaborative effort, evidence of the individual's unique leadership, independence and intellectual contributions.

2.   Educational Contributions (Some of this information will be routinely assembled in the Dean's office).

a.         Students advised, by degree category.

b.         Postdoctoral fellows and professional practice interns trained and supervised, including a description of the training program and documentation of the trainee's productivity.

c.         Academic programs developed and/or directed

d.         Titles of courses for which the individual has had primary responsibility.

e.         Titles of courses in which the individual has participated in teaching.

f.          Participation in continuing education programs.

g.         Development of new educational materials.

h.         Student assessments of formal courses.

i.          Letters from student advisees.

j.          Special studies directed.

k.         Participation in preliminary oral examinations.

l.          Participation in final oral examinations.

m.        Service on departmental and School academic committees

3.   Service Activities

a.         Service on School, University, professional society, Federal, state and local government committees.

b.         Consultations and collaborations with community, national, international, public, and private sector organizations

In a separate letter to the Dean, the chair will outline plans for the financial support of the candidate.  The candidate's financial support will not be a concern of the ad hoc committee except as it reflects the person's reputation among peers.  Thus, for example, receipt of an outstanding priority rating from peers reviewing a grant application would be of interest to the Committee but not the proportion of salary support received from the award.  Similarly, recommendations for appointment or promotion at the rank of professor are to be evaluated in terms of scholarship alone, apart from implications for tenure.

At its first meeting, the ad hoc committee will review the information provided in order to identify gaps that must be filled in order for an informed decision to be made. A principal consideration at this stage is the choice of referees to be sought. It should be recognized, however, that referees typically supply better information about research quality and productivity than about teaching and service contributions of the individual under review. Since qualifications in these areas are also of interest, care must be taken to obtain the needed information, for example from present or former students.

Solicitation of Referees

The choice of referees to be solicited is critical.  The ad hoc committee should make every effort to identify a limited number of knowledgeable individuals who are able to make truly informed judgments about the candidate's scholarship.  Letters may also be solicited from the list of graduated students (graduated over two years ago) who were advised by the candidate faculty member.

The list of suggested references submitted by the department is an important starting point.  The department chair, in consultation with the candidate, can be expected to have a clear picture of the knowledgeable referees.  The chair should not have pre-screened the individuals listed to ensure their favorable response.  Ad hoc committee members are likewise expected to be knowledgeable of the field, and they are free to select from and add names of their own to the list of referees.

Departments are discouraged under usual circumstances from soliciting their own referee letters regarding faculty members who are already at the School.  In exceptional cases, when the views of peers outside the University are necessary for the department to decide whether to initiate a recommendation for action, the A&P and ad hoc committees are to be given a list of all referees who were contacted (whether or not they replied).

Processing of Information Requests

Names of references and other information to be sought will be submitted by the ad hoc committee to the Dean's office, which will process the requests with the suggestion that responses be submitted within four weeks of the date of request.  The ad hoc committee is free to modify the form letter that is sent out requesting a reference. Initial follow-ups of non-respondents will be made by the Dean's office.  In exceptional cases when the initial follow-up is unsuccessful and the information is considered vital, the chair of the ad hoc committee or of the A&P Committee may contact a referee outside of Johns Hopkins.  Only the chair of the A&P Committee may make such contacts within the Johns Hopkins institutions.

Final Ad hoc Review

Within approximately seven weeks after its initial meeting, the ad hoc committee should meet again to review the information and to make its recommendation.  The committee should be sure that it has ample evidence to support its recommendation.

When a decision has been reached, the ad hoc committee chair will draft a report to the A&P Committee stating the recommended action and the reasoning behind it.  The report should highlight items of available information that weighed most heavily in the final decision.  Any judgments rendered, favorable or unfavorable, should be supported by substantive evidence that is objectively verifiable.

The report should indicate whether or not the committee is unanimous in making its recommendation.  All members of the committee should review the report and endorse its contents, but only the chair need sign it.

With the approval of the chair of the A&P Committee, the ad hoc committee may under special circumstances meet with the chair of the department to discuss its final report.  The chair of the A&P Committee is also invited to this meeting.

If the ad hoc committee is seriously delayed at any point in its processes or deliberations leading to its final report, the chair of the A&P Committee will alert the department chair to the general situation; the department chair can then communicate with the candidate.

A&P Committee Action

The report and all supporting information will be forwarded to the A&P Committee for action.  The chair of the ad hoc committee, who is necessarily a member of the A&P Committee, will summarize the ad hoc committee's deliberations and respond to any questions the A&P Committee may have about the report.  The members from the candidate's department will also contribute information to the discussion and answer questions from the Committee.  When the A&P Committee is satisfied that it is ready to begin evaluative discussions and take action, the members from the candidate's department and anyone else with a potential conflict of interest will absent themselves from the meeting.  After evaluative discussions, remaining members of the Committee will vote whether or not to endorse the recommended appointment or promotion.

If the majority of the A&P Committee supports a favorable recommendation of the ad hoc committee, the endorsement goes to the Advisory Board for action.  If the majority of the A&P Committee supports an unfavorable recommendation of the ad hoc committee, the A&P Committee chair informs the department chair, who may withdraw their recommendation or appeal to the Advisory Board.

If the majority of the A&P Committee disagrees with the recommendation of the ad hoc committee or desires further information, it will meet with members of the ad hoc committee to secure the additional information or resolve the differences.  If differences in judgment remain, the A&P Committee forwards its recommendations to the Advisory Board, along with the report of the ad hoc committee and an explanation of the disagreement.

Timetable

The processing of requests for appointment and promotion should be both thorough and expeditious.  As suggested in the guidelines below, the elapsed time between departmental submission of the request and A&P Committee action should normally be about three

months.  Occasional delays are unavoidable, of course, but total processing time should seldom, if ever, exceed seven months.  Committee staff will maintain a running record of the status of each request, and whenever an element in the process exceeds the maximum time indicated in the guidelines, the chairs of the ad hoc committee and the A&P Committee will be alerted to consider action that might be taken to expedite the processing.  The chair of the A&P Committee should notify the department chair of any substantial delay.