Academic Review Process 

The academic review process ensures the continuing quality of our school’s faculty and academics. All faculty and academics are eligible to be considered for a reappointment, merit advancement, or promotion at varying intervals, at which time their performance will be examined in several areas. Academic review involves a peer examination of the body of work of a faculty or academic and may also require review by additional School of Medicine or University committees to ensure that the individual is meeting the standard of quality expected at UC San Diego. In addition to the role of reviewers and committees, both departments and faculty/academics themselves play an active role in the process through the submission of documents that create a standardized review file.  

Preparation for an academic review begins with submission of required documents. Depending on the series of the applicant and the proposed action, several documents are required. These files are typically submitted to and assembled by the Academic Resource Center (ARC) staff with input from both the Department/School and candidate. Once a file has been prepared by the candidate, in consultation with an ARC analyst, the Department Chair/Dean, at a minimum, will review the file before ARC submits it to reviewers.  

Reviewers/committees generally review files to ensure that the proposed action is warranted based upon fulfillment of the key criteria of the series which may include:  

• Research and Creative Activity  
• Teaching (Academics are exempt)  
• Professional Competence and (Clinical) Activity (if applicable)  
• University and Public Service (Project Scientists are exempt) 

A proposed action can be approved, modified, or denied.  

The first step in the process of submitting an academic review file is preparing the required documents. Depending on the series, a review file may require different forms (e.g. some may require PDFs of publications, or internal/external referee letters). An analyst in the Academic Resource Center (ARC) will assemble the documents into the review file with input from the Department and the candidate. This input is usually in response to one of several "call for materials" emails that will specify which documents to submit to ARC. To contact ARC with specific questions related to your case, please submit a case via the ARC Service Portal. If you have an ARC case number for your academic review, please include it in the subject line of your message. 

An academic review file will typically consist of the following candidate-submitted documents: 

• BioBib 
• Teaching Effort Document 
• Candidate’s Self-Assessment 
• Teaching evaluations 

Below is a table outlining the general timeline for regular academic advancement. For more information on this timeline or specific questions, please contact the Academic Resource Center (ARC) via the ARC Service Portal.

Faculty and academics at the Assistant rank above 50% effort are on a probationary clock and must promote to the Associate rank within eight years from the start date of their initial appointment. Note that those at the Assistant rank may promote to the Associate rank during any review cycle if they meet their department’s stated criteria. Please note that any requests for promoting early should be made in accordance with your department’s review timeline. Assistant rank faculty and academics typically spend two years at Steps I-IV, and they may spend one or two years at Steps V and VI in some scenarios. 

Faculty and academics at the Associate rank typically spend two years at Steps I-III, and up to three years at Steps IV and V. Faculty and academics are typically eligible to promote to Step I at the Full rank after two years at Associate Step III. At Associate Steps IV and V, faculty and academics can promote to Full Steps II and III, respectively. Candidates at the Associate rank may be eligible to promote early, in what is called an Accelerated Promotion, if their review file contains evidence of exceptional productivity exceeding expectations for the Associate rank. 

At the Full rank, there are nine steps; candidates typically spend three years at each step at this rank. Step VI is a barrier review, where reviewers assess the entirety of a candidate’s academic career. At Step VI, candidates generally undergo a more rigorous review and most departments require three or more letters of support from senior faculty and leaders. At Step IX, candidates are typically eligible for advancement to Above Scale, which includes the conference of the Distinguished Professor title. Advancement to Above Scale generally requires exceptional productivity and meritorious service in all areas of review. 

Referees

All promotion actions typically require letters of support from senior faculty and leaders in a candidate’s field. For those at the Assistant rank promoting to Associate, a minimum of five letters are required. For all other promotions, at least three letters are required. Potential referees should meet the following criteria: 

• At the equivalent rank or higher than the rank the candidate is promoting to; referees without an academic rank may be suitable referees depending on the amount of time they have been in practice 
• No current or former mentor or supervisory relationship 
• No ongoing collaborations on research grants or papers, including pending projects; no research collaborations within the last five years 
• For HS Clinical faculty only: referees should be within UCSD, but outside of the candidate’s Department or Division 
• For all other series: referees should be outside of UCSD 
• Candidates should not communicate with the potential referees about their letters