The DOM APT office will need the names of individuals who can offer an impartial review of the promotion dossier. This office will contact potential reviewers directly to ask for their willingness to write a letter supporting a candidate's nomination for promotion. These letters, and the identity of the reviewers, are considered confidential within the APT review process. The candidate for promotion will not need to contact potential reviewers directly.
Specific criteria for each promotion are provided below.
When asked to provide the list of 10-12 names who can offer an impartial external review of your promotion dossier, ensure the individuals meet the criteria set by the School of Medicine. Submitting names that do not meet the criteria could lead to significant delays in the promotion process.
| DO | DON'T |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There should be no potential perceived conflicts of interest (former colleagues, supervisors, mentors, and trainees; shared grant funding; etc.).
When the SOM reviews the list of publications, the promotion candidate's name and the requester's name should not be listed as authors on the same publication.
When asked to provide the names of 10-12 people who can offer an impartial review of your promotion dossier. When submitting names of reviewers, please ensure the individuals meet the required criteria set by the Duke School of Medicine listed below. Submitting names that do not meet the criteria could lead to significant delays in the promotion process.
- Select individuals from institutions external to Duke. Do NOT select individuals who are employed by Duke. *There should be no potential perceived conflicts of interest (former colleagues, supervisors, mentors, trainees; shared grant funding; etc).
- Provide names of individuals who have an academic rank equal to or greater than the promotion you are seeking. Do NOT provide names for individuals who have an academic rank lower than the promotion you are seeking. Do NOT provide names for individuals who have Emeritus status.
- List individuals with whom you have not collaborated in the past 7 years. Do NOT list individuals with whom you have collaborations.
Provide the names of 10-12 people who can offer an impartial review of your promotion dossier. When submitting names of reviewers, please ensure the individuals meet the required criteria set by the Duke School of Medicine listed below. Submitting names that do not meet the criteria could lead to significant delays in the promotion process.
- Please provide a list names to evaluate your scholarly contributions. Three (3) names can be current professional associates, but preferred non-collaborators. The other seven (7) names should be of individuals external to Duke and should NOT be co-authors of publications, thesis advisors, current or past direct mentors in the past 7 years. None of these individuals should be a personal or family friend.
- Provide names of individuals who have an academic rank equal to or greater than the promotion you are seeking. Do NOT provide names for individuals who have an academic rank lower than the promotion you are seeking. Do NOT provide names of individuals who have Emeritus status.
- If a reviewer does not have academic rank, they must have an administrative leadership title (i.e. director, president, etc.).
Provide the names of 6 individuals who can offer an impartial review of your promotion dossier. When submitting names of reviewers, please ensure the individuals meet the required criteria set by the Duke School of Medicine listed below. Submitting names that do not meet the criteria below could lead to significant delays in the promotion process.
- Provide a list of 6 names to evaluate your academic contributions. The individuals can be internal or external to Duke. None should be a personal or family friend.
- Provide names of individuals who have an academic rank equal to or greater than the promotion you are seeking. Do NOT provide names for individuals who have an academic rank lower than the promotion you are seeking.
- If a reviewer does not have academic rank, they must have an administrative leadership title (i.e. director, president, etc.).
- All reviewers are expected to be sufficiently independent without a direct, vested interest (i.e., absence of a personal relationship, direct mentoring responsibilities).