This document is designed to supplement the University promotion and tenure policies, and to provide context regarding the academic responsibilities of the diverse faculty in the School of Dental Medicine, so that promotion dossiers are treated objectively and equitably during tenure deliberations at the University level.

The University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine standards for promotion within the tenure track recognize excellence in scholarship, teaching, and service within the framework of the School’s unique clinical teaching and research environment.

Contributions in the areas of scholarship, teaching, and service are usually evident from general University guidelines. However, the University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine places special demands on its faculty relative to the profession and the community it serves. In particular, teaching activities encompass clinical supervision as well as classroom and laboratory instruction, and service activities often include patient care. In addition to scholarship, the School of Dental Medicine recognizes contributions to the teaching of clinical dentistry and service activities involving the management of patient care clinics.

Scholarship for some faculty may involve basic science research; for others, it involves applied clinical, educational, behavioral or health policy research.  Similarly, teaching may be focused predominantly in a classroom, in a research laboratory, or in a clinical environment. Service commitments might reflect areas of scholarship as well as educational programs or clinical care. In many cases, faculty have strengths across all three domains. However, the diversity among our faculty in terms of those responsibilities requires that each candidate be evaluated on an individual basis.

The balance between achievements in scholarship and teaching may vary considerably from one faculty member to another. Nevertheless, regardless of a faculty member’s activities and areas of focus, academic advancement signifies attainment of a recognized threshold of significant academic and professional accomplishment and the promise of continued professional growth. The granting of tenure is a recognition of significant accomplishment and never merely a reward for years of service. 

Each candidate for promotion shall be evaluated relative to scholarship, teaching, and service criteria (refer to Appendix 1 for example evaluation criteria). All candidates are expected to demonstrate unambiguous and unequivocal achievement in all three areas. To attain tenure, a faculty member's academic work must be recognized as important and valuable to the University. For the School of Dental Medicine, that threshold is at least at the level required by other American dental schools in peer or aspirant institutions (preferably AAU public research universities).

Professional or administrative service, community service, and clinical activities are considered with any decision regarding an award of tenure. However, such activities in the absence of significant accomplishments in both scholarship and teaching do not provide sufficient basis for an award of tenure.

• Scholarship. Scholarship is the ongoing, systematic study of phenomena or events that leads to mastery of one or more of the dental or related disciplines, and is the primary consideration for the awarding of tenure. Scholarship involves advanced study that leads to the acquisition of knowledge in a particular field, along with accuracy and skill in investigation and demonstration of critical analysis in interpretation of that knowledge. Scholarship includes discovery that generates new knowledge as well as application, integration, and dissemination of existing knowledge in original ways. The candidate's scholarship must provide convincing promise of continued creativity with respect to those endeavors.
• Teaching. Candidates must show evidence of teaching effectiveness and a capacity for continued growth as a teacher. Excellence in teaching includes modeling professional conduct for students, colleagues and patients, and recognition by students and colleagues for teaching ability.
• Service. Candidates must demonstrate evidence of ongoing participation in service activities. Examples might include committee and governance activities at the department, school, and university levels, as well as for professional organizations. Membership on scientific review committees and editorial boards, provision of clinical care, and service to the community also might provide evidence of commitment to service.

Candidates for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor must hold an appropriate terminal degree or have equivalent scholarly or professional accomplishments. They must also demonstrate significant achievements in teaching and scholarship extending well beyond those involved in the attainment of the doctoral degree or its equivalent. In all cases of proposed tenure as an Associate Professor, the candidate must have demonstrated a consistently high level of performance as a scholar and teacher, and sustained participation in service activities, with the potential to meet requirements for eventual promotion to Professor. Evaluation of the candidate's work must be supported by substantial evidence of peer review that has been carried out in a manner characteristic of and appropriate to the discipline.

In addition to meeting the criteria for the rank of Associate Professor, candidates for promotion to the rank of Professor must demonstrate continued achievement in their areas of expertise, and should have established a national or, where appropriate, an international reputation for leadership in their fields. They must demonstrate excellence in scholarship and in teaching, and show evidence of significant, sustained service activities. Faculty members holding this title have the primary responsibility for the scholarship of the University, and their recognition as scholars in their disciplines must be of the first rank.

School of Dental Medicine Promotion and Tenure Processes and Procedures (12/5/23).

Candidate’s Guide to Dossier Preparation.

Chair’s Guide to Dossier Preparation.

University Policies and Procedures.

These standards were reviewed by the School of Dental Medicine Promotion and Tenure Committee and approved by the SDM Executive Council on December 5, 2023. The document was created based on the Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion and Tenure, State University of New York at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine, approved by the Voting Faculty of the School of Dental Medicine in May, 1996, and serves as its replacement. It also borrows heavily, with permission, from the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences Policies, Procedures and Criteria for Faculty Promotion adopted by its Faculty Council June 24, 2020. 

Evaluation Criteria for promotion include (but are not limited to):

1. Impactful seminal and groundbreaking contributions to one’s field.
2. Impactful contributions to the health of the community and reduction of health disparities.
3. Senior authorship  on publications indicative of independent work, and collaborative publications recognizing unique contributions.
4. Participation as an investigator or co-investigator on nationally competitive research grants, clinical trials and awards.
5. Presentations, lectures, and seminars at regional, national or international level, commensurate with experience.
6. Major contributions to scientific or educational conferences and symposia.
7. Teaching, mentorship, and training of students, residents, and others to attainment of advanced degrees, as appropriate, and career success.
8. Service contributions to the profession, university or school, such as committees or governance.
9. Recognition for research, teaching, or service through awards and honors.

These are examples only, and are not to be interpreted as inclusive.

This document outlines the University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine standards for promotion within the Qualified Academic (non-tenure) track. The school distinguishes between two designations: Clinical Educator and Research Educator (the criteria and process for promotion for faculty in the Volunteer track, not specifically referenced in this document, are identical to those for the Qualified Academic track). Clinical Educator ranks are recognized by SUNY titles of Clinical Assistant Professor, Clinical Associate Professor, and Clinical Professor. Research Educator ranks are recognized by SUNY titles of Research Assistant Professor, Research Associate Professor, and Research Professor (refer to Appendix 1 for complete list of tracks and titles).

Faculty appointed to Qualified Academic ranks (those with the prefix clinical or research) make essential contributions to the teaching, research, and service missions of the School of Dental Medicine. Although the positions and titles are qualified as being "clinical" or "research," faculty members in those ranks are academicians.

• Clinical Educator. The primary contributions of Clinical Educators are in clinical teaching, including predoctoral, postgraduate or graduate students, and mentoring of junior faculty. Promotion is based on distinction in teaching, scholarship, and service, with emphasis on teaching and service activities at school, university, profession, and community levels.
• Research Educator. The primary contributions of Research Educators are in scholarship. Promotion is based on distinction in scholarship, teaching, and service, with emphasis on scholarship and evidence of efforts to obtain research funding. The Research Educator also is expected to participate in the teaching of predoctoral, postgraduate or graduate students and mentorship of junior faculty, as well as in service activities at the dental school, university, profession, and community levels.

All faculty members in Qualified Academic titles are expected to contribute to teaching, scholarship, and service. Regardless of activities and focus, academic advancement signifies attainment of a threshold of meritorious academic and professional accomplishment. Thus, promotion is a recognition of significant accomplishment and never merely a reward for years of service.

Each candidate for promotion shall be evaluated relative to scholarship, teaching, and service (refer to Appendix 2 for examples of evaluation criteria). To be promoted, a faculty member's academic work must be recognized as important and valuable to the School of Dental Medicine. The Research Educator and Clinical Educator designations recognize the diversity of faculty; because of this diversity, the balance between achievements in scholarship and teaching may vary considerably from one faculty member to another. However, all candidates must provide evidence of significant contributions to scholarship, teaching, and service. The quality of those activities should be unambiguous and unequivocal.

• Clinical Associate Professor. Promotion to Clinical Associate Professor should signify an emerging reputation. Candidates should demonstrate significant professional achievement well beyond that involved in the attainment of the doctoral degree or its equivalent, as well as the potential to ultimately achieve promotion to Clinical Professor. They must show a consistently high level of performance in teaching and service, including clinical activity where appropriate. Candidates also must demonstrate evidence of participation in scholarly and creative activity.
• Research Associate Professor. Promotion to Research Associate Professor should signify an emerging reputation. Candidates must demonstrate significant professional achievement well beyond that involved in the attainment of the doctoral degree or its equivalent, as well as the potential to meet requirements for eventual promotion to Research Professor. Candidates must demonstrate a consistently high level of performance in scholarship, including evidence of efforts to obtain external funding. The candidate must also show evidence of teaching and mentoring students or junior faculty, and participation in service activities.
• Clinical Professor. Promotion to Clinical Professor should signify an established reputation. In addition to satisfying the criteria applicable to the rank of Clinical Associate Professor, candidates must be clearly established, with a regional (or, where appropriate, national) reputation. Candidates must show evidence of teaching effectiveness and a capacity for continued growth as a teacher. Excellence in teaching includes modeling professional conduct for students, colleagues and patients, and recognition by students and colleagues for teaching ability. Candidates must also demonstrate evidence of sustained participation in service activities and in scholarly and creative activities.
• Research Professor. Promotion to Research Professor should signify an established reputation. In addition to satisfying the criteria applicable to the rank of Research Associate Professor, candidates must demonstrate continued achievement in their areas of expertise, and should have established national or, where appropriate, international, leadership in their field. There must also be clear and compelling evidence of increased productivity as a researcher, and the expectation that this growth will continue. Candidates must also demonstrate evidence of teaching effectiveness and sustained service activities.

NOTE: Promotion dossiers for candidates for Research Professor are reviewed by the President’s Review Board, and therefore the promotion process to this rank likely will be more rigorous. Consequently, candidates should refer to the SDM Standards for Faculty Promotion in the Tenure Track.

These standards were reviewed by the School of Dental Medicine Promotion and Tenure Committee and approved by the SDM Executive Council on December 5, 2023. The document was created based on previous guidelines and borrows heavily, with permission, from the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences Policies, Procedures and Criteria for Faculty Promotion adopted by its Faculty Council June 24, 2020. The previous version consisted of a) SDM Guidelines for Promotion in the Qualified Tracks, which was approved by the Voting Faculty in 2015 and subsequently revised in 2018, 2021, and 2023. Those were formulated based on b) qualified tracks guidelines from the Guidelines for Appointment, Promotion and Tenure, State University of New York at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine, approved by the Voting Faculty of the School of Dental Medicine in May, 1996.

The University at Buffalo School of Dental Medicine recognizes three faculty tracks, as specified by the State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY). Titles within tracks indicate rank.

1. Academic Track (tenure)
   1. Faculty in the Academic Track are recognized by SUNY titles of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor.
2. Qualified Academic Track (non-tenure)
   1. Two designations are used in the Qualified Track: Research Educator and Clinical Educator. Research Educator ranks are recognized by SUNY titles of Research Assistant Professor, Research Associate Professor, and Research Professor. Clinical Educator ranks are recognized by SUNY titles of Clinical Assistant Professor, Clinical Associate Professor, and Clinical Professor.
3. Volunteer Track
   1. Two designations are used in the Volunteer Track: Researcher and Clinician. Volunteer Researcher ranks are recognized by SUNY titles of Research Assistant Professor, Research Associate Professor, and Research Professor. Volunteer Clinician ranks are recognized by SUNY titles of Clinical Assistant Professor, Clinical Associate Professor, and Clinical Professor. Faculty who serve in the Volunteer Track are reviewed for promotion according to the criteria for Qualified Academic Track.

Evaluation Criteria for promotion include (but are not limited to):

• collaboration on clinical, interdisciplinary or translational research
• publication of scholarly articles
• participation as investigator or co-investigator on research projects
• participation in journal clubs or treatment planning courses
• development of new treatment modalities or clinical guidelines
• teaching, mentorship, and training of students, residents, or others
• director of a required course or postgraduate/residency program
• development and dissemination of innovative teaching methods or materials
• service contributions to the profession, university or school, such as committees or governance
• invitations to speak locally on clinical topics (e.g., CE courses)
• leadership in professional, licensing, or certifying bodies
• leadership in regional or national professional organizations
• service on editorial boards, or review activities for journals or grant review bodies
• recognition for research, teaching, or service through awards or honors

These are examples only, and are not to be interpreted as inclusive.

The purpose of this document is to provide specific guidance to faculty in the School of Dental Medicine regarding promotion and tenure processes and procedures. For more specific information, please refer to the University at Buffalo’s Policies, Procedures, and Criteria for Faculty Personnel Actions.

Accessed 1/24/20 from UB Office of Provost.

All faculty members receive an initial appointment to a specific faculty track- either Tenure or Non-tenure. All appointees must be notified of their faculty track and the employment conditions that will be applied for future promotion considerations. It is the responsibility of the department Chair to notify new faculty, in writing, of the School's and University's criteria for promotion.

Faculty members should meet with the Chair to discuss academic advancement at least annually, and preferably more frequently when working toward promotion. Those discussions should focus on strengths and areas that might be improved, as well as the anticipated timeline for promotion. The primary responsibility for initiating the promotion process rests with the individual faculty member. The procedures below should be followed for any faculty member being recommended for promotion.

The promotion procedures for faculty in the Volunteer track, not specifically referenced in this document, are identical to those for the Qualified Academic track.

Promotion to the rank of Assistant Professor in either track is made at the department level, with final approval by the Dean.

• Non-Tenure (Qualified) Track
  • Dossiers for promotion to Clinical Associate Professor, Clinical Professor, and Research Associate Professor are evaluated sequentially within the School of Dental Medicine at the levels of the Department, Promotion and Tenure Committee, Executive Council, and Dean. The Dean provides the final approval.
  • Dossiers for promotion to Research Professor are evaluated within the School of Dental Medicine by the same process as above, but with additional review at the university level. The dossier, with the Dean’s recommendation, is submitted to the university for sequential review by the President’s Review Board (PRB), Provost, and President, who then provides final approval.
  • Timeline. There is no time limit on faculty review within the Qualified Academic ranks.

• Tenure Track
  • Dossiers for promotion to Associate Professor and Professor with tenure are evaluated sequentially within the School of Dental Medicine and university as noted above for promotion to Research Professor, except that the President forwards a recommendation to the SUNY Chancellor, who has final authority for the granting of tenure.
  • Timeline. Tenure review to Associate Professor is expected to be conducted and completed no later than the sixth year after initial appointment to Assistant Professor. Candidates with exceptional qualifications may be proposed for promotion and continuing appointment before the sixth year. There is no time limit on faculty review to the rank of Professor.

• Voting Eligibility
  • The University at Buffalo policy adheres to “rank on rank” voting for all faculty personnel actions that require a vote. This means that only those faculty holding the same or higher rank as the action being considered may vote on a faculty personnel action. All voting within the School of Dental Medicine is by closed ballot.
  • Non-tenure Track. Those eligible to vote for promotions to non-tenure track (i.e., qualified) ranks include tenure and non-tenure track faculty members holding the same or higher rank. That is, for promotions to the rank of Clinical or Research Associate Professor, faculty members holding a qualified or unqualified rank of Associate Professor or Professor may vote. For promotions from Clinical or Research Associate Professor to Clinical or Research Professor, faculty members holding a qualified or unqualified rank of Professor may vote.
  • Tenure Track. Only tenured or tenure track faculty are eligible to vote on promotions of tenure track faculty.  For promotions to the rank of Associate Professor, faculty holding that rank or the rank of Professor may vote; for promotions to the rank of Professor, only faculty members holding that rank may vote.

The promotion process involves review of the candidate’s dossier and a series of votes, sequentially at the Department, Promotion and Tenure Committee, and Executive Council within the School of Dental Medicine. Additional review at the University level occurs for promotions within the Academic ranks above Assistant Professor, and for candidates being considered for promotion to Research Professor. The responsibility for preparation of the promotion dossier rests with the candidate’s primary department, and consists of elements prepared by both the candidate and the Chair (refer to the Candidate Guide to Dossier Preparation and Chair’s Guide to Dossier Preparation for guidance). Dossiers submitted for review at the University level also include a recommendation letter by the Dean of the School.

• Department Level
  • Nominations for promotion emanate from the Chair of the department in which the individual holds his or her primary academic appointment. The Chair presents the dossier for review by departmental faculty qualified to vote on the candidacy (refer to Voting Eligibility, above), and results are reported as part of the Chair’s nomination letter, to be forwarded to the School's Promotion and Tenure Committee and accompanied by the complete dossier.
  • ad hoc Committee. If there is not a sufficient number of eligible faculty at the appropriate rank within the department, an ad hoc committee is established, in consultation with the Dean and/or relevant Associate Dean, to substitute for the departmental voting body. This ad hoc committee is comprised of the appropriate rank faculty members of the department as well as appropriate rank faculty from within the School who are able to assist with evaluating the candidate’s scholarship, teaching and service.
  • ad hoc Chair. If the Department Chair is not of the same or higher rank as the proposed action (e.g., a Chair who is an Associate Professor in the case of a promotion to Full Professor, or a Chair holding a non-tenure track faculty position in the case of a proposed promotion to Associate Professor or Professor with tenure), the Chair may write the Chair’s letter summarizing the case and conveying the views of the appropriate rank departmental faculty or ad hoc committee, but may not vote and may not make an independent recommendation. The department may designate, in consultation with the Dean, a faculty member who holds the same or higher rank as the proposed action to serve as ad hoc Chair in such instances.

• School Level
  • Promotion and Tenure Committee. The dossier, together with the Chair’s nomination letter and departmental/ad hoc committee voting results, is forwarded to the chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee. The Promotion and Tenure Committee reviews the information submitted, and votes on the case. The committee’s recommendation is then forwarded to the Executive Council of the School of Dental Medicine.
  • Executive Council. The candidate’s dossier is made available to Council members prior to the meeting at which a vote is made. The candidate’s chair summarizes the candidate’s qualifications and makes the case for promotion. A vote of eligible members is taken, and the results are forwarded to the Dean of the School of Dental Medicine.
  • Dean. The dossier, together with all previous vote results, is reviewed by the Dean, who makes a decision in the case of promotion to Clinical Associate Professor, Clinical Professor, and Research Associate Professor.

• University Level
  • Dean’s Letter. In cases of promotion to Research Professor or tenure track promotions to Associate Professor or Professor, the Dean considers the outcome of all previous reviews. If the recommendation at any level of review is positive, the dossier, together with the Dean’s recommendation letter, is forwarded for review at the university level. The Dean’s letter must include a record of votes at all levels (department, Promotion and Tenure Committee, Executive Council). This record should appear in either the first or last paragraph of the letter.
  • President’s Review Board and Provost. The President’s Review Board (PRB) is a faculty committee that serves as an advisory body to the Provost and President on matters related to promotion. The Board reviews all recommendations for promotion to the ranks of Professor or Research Professor and the granting of tenure at any rank. It advises the Provost and President whether, in the members' judgment, promotion of the candidate will contribute to the development of excellence in the university, and whether or not the candidate would be appointed, promoted, and/or granted continuing appointment under the standards generally applied in the candidate's discipline, profession, or area of expertise at leading public research universities. The chair of the PRB prepares a written report of the Board’s recommendation and submits it to the members of the Board, the Provost, and the President. The Provost then formulates a recommendation to the President.
  • President. All promotions, and the granting of tenure, require positive action by the President except in those instances in which final authority has been expressly delegated to the Provost. The President's action is based on review of prior recommendations at each level. Final authority to approve continuing (tenured) appointments rests with the Chancellor, upon recommendation of the President. The President delegates authority to the Provost for approval of most other academic appointments.

• Negative Recommendations
  • If recommendations for promotion in the Qualified Academic ranks are negative at both the department and school levels, the promotion is denied. If recommendations for promotion in the Academic ranks are negative at both the department and school levels, the dossier shall not be forwarded to the PRB unless the candidate or Provost so requests. The Provost has been designated the final authority to reject a candidate's bid for promotion or tenure in those cases in which the cognizant faculty and officers at all prior levels of review have recommended against such promotion or tenure. In such cases, the Provost may decide not to grant promotion or tenure, and the dossier is not considered by the President.

• Advocacy
  • In making decisions so important to the university and the individual faculty member, the various review bodies must provide full and fair consideration of each case. To assure this, candidates must have an opportunity to designate an advocate of their choice. At any stage of these procedures, candidates may select an advocate to meet with the appropriate parties to discuss their case. The advocate may provide support and assistance to the candidate, but has no official authority in the promotion process.

• Withdrawal
  • A candidate who wishes to withdraw from the review process must send a written request for withdrawal to the administrative officer before whom the case is then pending, with copies to the administrative officers who have completed action on the case. For example, if the candidate wishes to withdraw after a case has been forwarded from the department to the Promotion and Tenure Committee, the letter of withdrawal should be sent to the Chair of the Promotion and Tenure Committee, with a copy to the Department Chair. If it has been forwarded from the Promotion and Tenure Committee to the Executive Council, the letter should be sent to the Chair of the Executive Council. The administrative officer receiving a letter of withdrawal shall acknowledge receipt of the request and approve it by letter to the candidate, with copies to the administrative officers who have already taken action and to the next higher level of review. Candidates may withdraw at any time during the process, until such time as the dossier goes to the President.

This document was reviewed by the School of Dental Medicine Promotion and Tenure Committee and approved by the SDM Executive Council on December 5, 2023. The document follows the University at Buffalo Policies, Procedures, and Criteria for Faculty Personnel Action and was created to provide specific guidance to faculty members in the School of Dental Medicine regarding the promotion and tenure process.

Dossiers are prepared by the primary department. Following discussion between the candidate and the department chair regarding academic accomplishments and appropriateness for promotion, the candidate next prepares their portion of the dossier and submits that to the Chair (see Candidate’s Guide to Dossier Preparation).

The candidate is responsible for the following components of the dossier:

1. Statements on:
   1. research, scholarship and creative activity;
   2. service; and
   3. teaching.
2. Teaching portfolio, consisting of:
   1. the teaching statement;
   2. a summary table of courses taught;
   3. a table summarizing results of quantitative teaching evaluations;
   4. and an appendix of supporting documentation, including the individual course quantitative and qualitative teaching evaluations.
3. Curriculum Vitae (CV)

The chair or designee then completes the dossier assembly by adding the following elements:

1. Completed Checklist for Promotion Dossiers Prepared after September 2000 (see Note to Dossier Assembler, below) as cover sheet.
2. Letters of evaluation, with signed Evaluation Access Permission Forms, from external and internal reviewers solicited by the Chair (see below).
3. Background information on letters:
   1. statement of how reviewers were selected.
   2. sample copy of letter to reviewers seeking evaluations of scholarship or creative activity, the teaching portfolio, and public service contributions.
   3. list of those to whom letters were sent.
   4. list of those failing to respond.
   5. current biographical sketches or brief curriculum vitae of reviewers.
4. Unsolicited material, if applicable (clearly identified as such).
5. Candidate’s conditions of employment letter, with salary information redacted.
6. Candidate’s Personnel Transaction Form, which indicates the recommended tenure or promotion action, with salary information redacted.
7. Chair’s letter summarizing the dossier information and supporting the case for promotion (see below).
8. Advocate’s statement, if applicable.

Note to Dossier Assembler: The sequence of each dossier component is important, and each section requires a separate divider sheet. Please refer to the university guidelines for the Checklist for Promotion Dossiers and for specific assembly guidance.

• Selection of Evaluators
  • Evaluators may be selected by an ad hoc faculty committee appointed by the Chair, or by the Chair in consultation with faculty colleagues in the candidate’s field of expertise. The Chair is encouraged to seek the counsel of leading scholars from other peer institutions who work in the candidate’s field as well as those within the candidate’s department or school. The evaluators should hold a rank equal to or above the rank to which the candidate would be promoted.  
  • Internal Evaluators. The Chair should seek evaluators who can best comment on the extent and quality of the candidate’s research or creative activity, teaching capabilities, ability to work with students, willingness and skill in working with colleagues and serving on committees, and other public or professional service as appropriate.
  • External Evaluators. The role of an external evaluator is to assess the candidate’s accomplishments, stature in the field, and future promise. Because the academic fields are small, it is possible that the evaluator may know or have worked with the candidate. However, evaluators should be disinterested; they should not be perceived as having a close personal or professional relationship with the candidate: friends, students, former teachers, and mentors, i.e., those who may potentially gain from the promotion in the form of “reflected glory.” If the chair includes materials from such interested people, they should be in addition to the required letters. In all such instances the chair must explain the rationale for their inclusion and why the assessments can be presumed important to the case.
• Number of Evaluators
  
  • Tenure Track. There must be at least four letters from external reviewers (i.e., evaluators from outside of the University at Buffalo) and at least two letters from colleagues at the University at Buffalo or affiliated faculty, where applicable.
  • Qualified Track. There must be at least four letters, at least one of which is from an external reviewer (i.e., an evaluator from outside of the University at Buffalo).
• Materials to be Provided to Evaluators
  • All individuals who agree to write an evaluation letter should be provided with the appropriate promotion standards (tenure track or qualified track), a list of specific questions to answer (see below) and an Evaluation Access Permission Form to be signed and returned with the letter. They also should be asked to provide a current copy of their biosketch and given a deadline by which to respond.

These guidelines also apply to candidates being considered for promotion to Research Professor.

• External Letters. There must be at least four letters from external evaluators. The evaluators should be disinterested distinguished scholars or professional practitioners from leading public or private research universities, preferably those institutions holding membership in the Association of American Universities. 
• Internal Letters. There must be at least two letters from colleagues at the University at Buffalo. 

The Chair’s letter to evaluators should request that reviewers address the candidate’s suitability for promotion by addressing several topics, including but not limited to the following:

1. What is your relationship, if any, to the candidate? Have you had any current or prior collaborative or supervisory associations with the candidate?
2. Has the candidate's scholarly and/or creative work gained national or international recognition of excellence? What is the importance of this work within the candidate’s area of specialization? Can you comment on the candidate's role in any collaborative work?
3. Does the candidate's scholarly and/or creative work compare favorably with individuals at the same phase of their career at your institution or at other leading institutions? What is your estimate of the candidate's potential for future growth and continuing scholarly/ creative contribution?
4. If applicable, how would you assess the candidate's public and professional service, the application of the candidate’s academic expertise towards improving society's welfare or the welfare of the profession?
5. In your opinion, are the candidate's accomplishments of the same caliber as those in the discipline who have recently been promoted to associate professor/full professor in departments and professional schools at your institution? Would the candidate be eligible for promotion to associate professor/professor at your university?

Each letter to evaluators must indicate that the evaluation letter will be held in strict confidence unless the evaluator gives written permission for the candidate to see it.  An Evaluation Access Permission Form is to be enclosed with each letter of solicitation, with the evaluator indicating which of three options is preferred: that the entire letter be held in confidence; that the letter be available to the candidate with all references to the author deleted; or that the candidate may see the letter in its entirety. This form must be signed and returned with the evaluator’s letter and current biosketch. All letters received in response to the solicitation should be included in the dossier.  Refusals or disregarded requests should be noted as well. Evaluation letters not accompanied by the EAP form or received with an incomplete form shall be considered confidential and not shared with the candidate.

Note Regarding Promotion to Research Professor: Research Professor promotions are reviewed by the President’s Review Board, so it is recommended that the School’s Standards for Faculty Promotion in the Tenure Track, as well as the university’s guidelines for promotion in the tenure track, be followed.

• External and Internal Letters. There must be at least four letters: at least one external (i.e., from an evaluator outside the University at Buffalo) and at least three internal (i.e., from colleagues at UB). 

The Chair should seek evaluators who can best comment on the extent and quality of the candidate’s research or creative activity, teaching capabilities, ability to work with students, willingness and skill in working with colleagues and serving on committees, and on other public or professional service as appropriate. External reviewers for a Clinical Educator promotion are more likely to be local than those for a Research Educator promotion. The latter are expected to be more national or international. In every case, external evaluators must be disinterested.

The letter to evaluators should request that reviewers address the candidate’s suitability for promotion by addressing several topics, including but not limited to the following:

1. What is your relationship, if any, to the candidate? Have you had any current or prior collaborative or supervisory associations with the candidate?
2. If the candidate is involved in research, has their scholarly and/or creative work gained national or international recognition of excellence? What is the importance of this work within the candidate’s area of specialization? Comment on the candidate’s role in any collaborative work, if relevant. If the candidate is not directly involved in research, do they stay current with the literature, for example through study groups, journal clubs, or application of evidence-based dentistry to clinical teaching or practice?
3. If you can comment on the candidate’s teaching, please indicate the extent of the candidate’s knowledge and mastery of the subject matter, skill in communication and presentation, and ability to stimulate and challenge the intellectual capacity of students.
4. To what extent do the candidate’s service activities contribute to the overall mission of the school? These might include active participation on University, School, or Department committees, presentation of continuing education programs, and public service in organized dentistry or on government task forces and advisory groups, as well as health-related community service organizations.
5. Please indicate your overall assessment of the candidate, and whether you support the promotion based on the School of Dental Medicine promotion guidelines (enclosed).

Each letter to evaluators must indicate that the evaluation letter will be held in strict confidence unless the evaluator gives written permission for the candidate to see it.  An Evaluation Access Permission Form is to be enclosed with each letter of solicitation, with the evaluator indicating which of three options is preferred: that the entire letter be held in confidence; that the letter be available to the candidate with all references to the author deleted; or that the candidate may see the letter in its entirety. This form must be signed and returned with the evaluator’s letter and current biosketch. All letters received in response to the solicitation should be included in the dossier.  Refusals or disregarded requests should be noted as well. Evaluation letters not accompanied by the EAP form or received with an incomplete form shall be considered confidential and not shared with the candidate.

The Chair’s letter should provide a balanced evaluation of the candidate and must consider the performance expected in relation to the responsibilities assigned. This letter of endorsement transmits the dossier to the Promotion and Tenure Committee, Executive Council, and Dean and, for tenure-track and Research Professor positions, to the President’s Review Board and University. It represents the Chair’s recommendation and should include the quantitative vote (by secret ballot) on the candidate’s promotion by the department (or ad hoc committee) and the date of the vote. The Chair should include commentary on how the vote should be understood in terms of weight and degree of departmental support. The Chair’s letter is critical, as it is the summary document at the level of the discipline. It should interpret and contextualize the candidate’s work for subsequent reviewing bodies outside the discipline and be written with great care and clarity.

The Chair’s letter should address three areas of the candidate’s contributions:

• Scholarship and Creative Activity.  A thorough description of the candidate’s work, including an explanation of the impact of the work on the discipline; any limiting or mitigating factors; the quality of publications and other scholarly endeavors; past accomplishments and future promise. Chairs should recognize the special nature of cross-disciplinary scholarship and ensure that the candidate’s degree of contribution is considered.
• Teaching.  A description and analysis of the candidate’s teaching contributions based on student evaluations and materials contained in the candidate’s Teaching Portfolio, as well as any assessments of teaching made by internal evaluators.
• Service. Describe contributions to professional or public service that draw upon the candidate’s professional or scholarly expertise as it is applied to improving society’s welfare. Include descriptions of the candidate’s contributions to the profession itself: participation in professional organizations, editorial responsibilities, etc. Summarize any administrative and committee service within the university and, if relevant, to the community.  

Please note the following deadlines for dossier submission to the President’s Review Board. Dossiers are due absolutely no later than these dates; earlier submissions are strongly encouraged.

All additional dossiers must be submitted no later than February 1. This is not a due date, but the last possible date for consideration of review for the academic year. Earlier submissions are strongly urged. Dossiers for all actions are accepted on a rolling basis; Full Professor cases should be prepared with this understanding in order to meet the October 1 deadline each year.

Adapted from UB Procedures for Appointment, Promotion and Tenure. Accessed 7/19/23 at Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs website.

• Background
  • All faculty should be notified in writing by their Department Chair of the School's and University's criteria for academic advancement. Discussion of promotion should be made periodically, and at least at the annual meeting between the Chair and each member of the faculty who is eligible for promotion within the ranks of the Academic (i.e., tenure) and Academic Qualified (i.e., non-tenure) tracks. However, it is important to note that the primary responsibility for initiating the promotion process rests with the individual faculty member.
• Are You Ready?
  • For information on the School of Dental Medicine’s promotion criteria, process, or procedures, please refer to the links at the end of this document.
• It All Begins with You
  • If you believe that you are ready for promotion to the next rank, you should first discuss this with your department chair.  The next step is to prepare the promotion dossier. Most of a dossier preparation is done by others. However, the promotion process is initiated by the candidate, and there are several key elements that the you must prepare to begin the process.
• Complete Your Part of the Dossier
  • Your role in the process is to create and assemble the following pieces of the dossier and provide them to your department chair. Guidance on each area is provided below. You have no further role in the process unless you decide to choose an advocate or to withdraw your candidacy (refer to School of Dental Medicine Promotion Procedures document).
    • Statements on Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity; Service; and Teaching
    • Teaching Portfolio, consisting of the teaching statement and appendix of supporting documentation
    • Quantitative and Qualitative Teaching Evaluations
    • Curriculum Vitae (CV)

Each of these elements is described in detail below.

These are intended to be reflective statements and not simply a restatement of the curriculum vitae. You might consider addressing the following questions: Why are you doing these things? What are your goals? Where is this leading? Each statement should be concise, following the page limits listed below.

• Statement on Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity (limit: 3 pages) 
  • This statement is an opportunity to provide a context for your research that may not otherwise be evident in the dossier. It should focus on your research or the literature regularly utilized in your teaching or clinical practice. This may include participation in journal clubs or review of the literature to keep up-to-date in the field, continuing education related to research, or incorporation of evidence-based dentistry into clinical teaching or practice. If you are on the tenure track or in the non-tenure track Research Educator classification, you should describe how the research differs from work completed for your graduate degree(s); provide evidence of the influence the work has had in the field; and include plans for further development and new work.
• Statement on Service (limit: 2 pages)
  • This should be a concise description of your service activities and why you are doing them, as well as your goals and aspirations for future service. The university recognizes three categories of service, and the Statement on Service should be constructed accordingly. In order of importance for the promotion review, these are: Professional and Public Service, University Service, and Community Service.
  • Professional and Public Service. There are two kinds of service encompassed by this category. The first refers to work that specifically draws upon one’s professional academic expertise and is applied to some aspect of society’s welfare and improvement. The second kind is work that contributes to the improvement of the profession itself, e.g., editing journals, magazines, or newsletters; holding office in a professional organization, organizing conferences and symposia.
  • University Service. This includes contribution to the University, School, and Department communities. Its most common form is service on committees, review panels, task forces, and other working groups at all levels of the University. It also includes service in various administrative capacities.
  • Community Service. This includes contributions to local social service and community organizations. Although this form of service is highly valued because it benefits the good of the whole, it cannot substitute for distinguished performance in the categories of Professional and Public Service or University Service.
• Statement on Teaching (Limit: 3 pages)
  • This should include your teaching philosophy, accomplishments, strengths, and goals. It should focus on courses taught and the relationship to and impact of these courses on academic programs, as well as innovations in teaching and scholarly activity related to teaching and learning (e.g., conference presentations or invited lectures). Some things you could address:
    • your conception of how learning occurs.
    • how your teaching facilitates student learning.
    • reflect on why you teach the way you do.
    • goals you have for yourself and your students.
    • your interests in new techniques, activities, and types of learning.
    • These suggestions are from Vanderbilt University’s Center for Teaching. 

The teaching portfolio includes the teaching statement (described above) as well as an appendix that selectively documents course material and provides evidence of innovative teaching and other supporting materials. The entire portfolio, including the teaching statement, should be no more than 20 pages.

Appendix: This should be selective, representing your best and most important teaching accomplishments. Be focused and economical about what documentation to include. Examples:

• samples of syllabi, assignments, tests, student resources;
• evidence of student learning or other measures of success (e.g., test scores, honors projects, outstanding student accomplishment or recognition);
• documentation of teaching and learning innovations (e.g., development of new teaching techniques, significant interactive learning strategies, creative and effective application of information technology to enhance learning);
• external funding awarded for teaching and learning development activities.

Results of course or teaching evaluations by students should include both quantitative and qualitative evaluations of teaching effectiveness, and be presented in a standardized summary or tabular form. Classroom or clinical teaching, courses pertaining to critical review of the literature, and Continuing Education courses are all considered important teaching activities. In most cases, this should include only those courses taught within the last five years. This section must include the following:

1. A list (preferably a table) of courses taught (past 5 years), with a brief description of both the course and your role (limit 1 page). An example table is provided below.
2. Quantitative and qualitative student evaluations for courses in which you are course director or have significant teaching responsibility. This should involve a synthesis or summary, rather than a mere “data dump” from the university or departmental evaluation system. Averaged results from others in your department or the school should also be presented as a comparison with other faculty in the unit.
3. Quantitative student evaluations, in table or graphical format, for courses taught over the past three to five years (limit 3 pages). Only those items that apply directly to your teaching should be included. At minimum, the following items from the university evaluation system should be included:
   1. Course content helped learning
   2. Overall instructor rating
   3. Instructor presented material clearly
   4. Instructor welcomed students to seek help
4. Qualitative student evaluations, generally in the form of open-ended responses, from these courses (limit 2 pages). These may be accessed through the university or departmental evaluation system. Include three to five examples of both “most effective elements” and “suggestions to improve the course.”

The following may also be included, if appropriate (limit 5 pages):

1. Continuing Education course evaluations from the past three years.
2. Unsolicited feedback provided directly to you (e.g., email, notes) from students regarding teaching effectiveness.
3. Letters from course directors for courses in which you serve as an instructor, but for which you are not evaluated by students, that specifically address teaching effectiveness.

DO NOT, under any circumstance, include syllabi, raw data or otherwise unedited or unabridged course evaluations. The dossier is reviewed at several levels, and such a “data dump” makes it very difficult to find and review essential pieces of the dossier.

The curriculum vitae, or CV, represents your academic and professional history, and is an essential part of the promotion dossier. It must be up-to-date, clear, and accurate. It should not include personal information such as marital or religious status, number of children, etc. The following guidance is excerpted from Section III, Dossier Preparation, from the University’s Procedures for Appointment, Promotion and Tenure:

The CV should include the following information:

• full name, campus address, home address
• employment history, including names of employing institutions, titles held and inclusive dates of employment
• professional and academic honors
• organizational memberships and offices held
• service, divided into three areas as applicable: 1) Professional/Public Service, encompassing both public service and service to the profession, 2) University Service, and 3) Community Service
• bibliography, with separate headings for books, monographs, articles, reviews, scholarly or other pertinent publications, presentations, etc. Use full bibliographic style showing all authors and inclusive page numbers. Articles should be further subdivided as follows: 1) refereed journals, 2) non-refereed journals, 3) conference proceedings, and 4) contributions to books. Scholarship and exposition should be separated from writings not intended as scholarly contributions.
• list of courses taught and other teaching activities
• list of students supervised by the candidates and degrees conferred
• list of current and past grant support (including grant title, funding agency, effective dates, total and direct costs, and role on grant, e.g., PI, co-PI, consultant, or percentage of time)

The format of the CV is left to each individual. However, an annotated sample CV is included with the additional resources to give you an overall idea of how it might be structured.