Officers of Research Review Procedures

The Continuing Review is similar to the Major Review, in procedures and in the standards applied, but letters from external referees are not required, although the Dean may request such letters when deemed appropriate. The Continuing Review is to be conducted before the end of each five-year appointment, in the case of Senior Research Scholars, and before the end of the fifth annual appointment, in the case of Research Scholars, following the completion of the major review and may result in either continuation for up to an additional five years or non-renewal after a terminal year.

The Dean determines when a Research Scholar will be considered for promotion to Senior Research Scholar, based on the scholar’s record of accomplishment. Research Scholars are typically not considered for promotion to Senior Research Scholars before the fifth year after passage of the Major Review. The review for promotion follows the same guidelines as the Major Review, described above, and requires at least 10  letters from external referees. The standard for promotion is the same as the standard for passage of the Major Review by Senior Research Scholars: achievement of distinction in the appropriate field and wide recognition for that achievement, as well as a meaningful contribution to SIPA. In rare cases, at the discretion of the Dean, promotion from Research Scholar to Senior Research Scholar can be considered during the Major Review of the Research Scholar.

The first year of service serves as a probationary period and a decision must be made whether or not to extend the initial appointment. Reviews of full-time research officers in their first year of service are confirming reviews and are conducted by the Dean or Vice Dean of Academic Affairs. Those who successfully complete the probationary period may be extended for an additional 12 months. Those who do not are notified by the Dean in writing at least three months before the end of their appointment.

The Major Review evaluates whether or not a candidate is a leading figure in a field that is vital and important to the School and the University. The School is under no obligation to conduct a Major Review, and the passage of the Major Review is approved only if an individual of widely recognized excellence is found to fill a research need that is demonstrably vital to a policy field or area of practice and central to SIPA’s purposes. 

Major Reviews follow the general guidelines for reviews stated above. In addition, for the Major Review the school solicits letters of evaluation from recognized experts in the candidate's specialization. The SIPA Dean and Vice Dean select referees, in consultation with the chair of the review committee, and the Dean solicits the referee letters. In accordance with the Columbia University Faculty Handbook the Dean solicits at least ten letters of evaluation from established scholars outside the University who are familiar with the candidate’s field of specialization.  Of these ten letters, at least six must be from those who have not collaborated with the individual. In cases of candidates whose work is practice-oriented (e.g., diplomat, public official, officer of a research institution or think tank, etc.), the Dean and Vice Dean will ensure that the request for letters is appropriate to the professional field and experience of the candidate. The process of soliciting letters is confidential.

The review committee’s evaluation is based on a review of the candidate’s research, contributions to the field and qualifications in the area of expertise desired by the School. The report also should discuss whether the candidate’s field is vital and important to the School and the University, and whether the candidate has made a meaningful contribution to the School. To pass the review, candidates must demonstrate the capacity to make – and show promise of continuing to make – significant contributions in their field. In the case of Senior Research Scholars, successful candidates must be widely recognized for their distinction. The review committee’s report should provide guidance regarding the normal professional standards for successful passage of a review within the candidate’s field of research or practice. The report should also address where the candidate fits within the overall context of the School and its academic mission. For those candidates whose work is practice-oriented (e.g., diplomat, public official, officer of a research institution or think tank, etc.), the committee will use standards appropriate to the professional field of the candidate. In every instance, the review must both describe the School’s criteria for determining sufficient qualifications and establish how the candidate meets those expectations. Recognition may be demonstrated through the following or through other accomplishments appropriate to the field or profession: citation of their work by others active in the field; presenting work at conferences and symposia; testifying before relevant government bodies; serving as formal or informal consultants or advisors to relevant officials or leaders in the public, private or nonprofit sectors; being interviewed by journalists about their area of expertise.

The Dean makes the final decision at SIPA, based on the candidate’s dossier, recommendations of the review committee and CAP, and fit with the academic mission of the School. The Dean’s decisions on Major Reviews are subsequently reviewed by the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. In rare cases in which a candidate still appointed at the Associate Research Scholar level undergoes a Major Review, for instance if the review timeline is accelerated and no Critical Review is performed, the candidate is promoted to Research Scholar upon passage of the Major Review. After passage of the Major Review, Research Scholars, as well as Senior Research Scholars, are subject to Continuing Reviews, as described below.

Research Scholars who have passed the Major Review are eligible, in accordance with University policies, for a term of up to 12 months, which is renewable. Research Scholars may be renewed up to five consecutive years without further review. Before renewing a Research Scholar beyond five years, the School conducts a Continuing Review, described below. Senior Research Scholars who have passed the Major Review are eligible for renewable contracts of up to five years, subject to a Continuing Review, to be conducted no later than the year prior to the end of their appointment. A Senior Research Scholar on a five-year appointment, for example, would be reviewed during her or his fourth year; if she or he did not pass the review, the appointment would terminate at the end of the fifth year.

The Continuing Review is similar to the Major Review described above, in procedures and in the standards applied, but letters from external referees are not required, although the Dean may request such letters when deemed appropriate. The Continuing Review is to be conducted before the end of each five-year appointment, in the case of Senior Research Scholars, and before the end of the fifth annual appointment, in the case of Research Scholars, following the completion of the major review and may result in either continuation for up to an additional five years or non-renewal after a terminal year.

The Dean determines when a Research Scholar will be considered for promotion to Senior Research Scholar, based on the scholar’s record of accomplishment. Research Scholars are typically not considered for promotion to Senior Research Scholars before the fifth year after passage of the Major Review. The review for promotion follows the same guidelines as the Major Review, described above, and requires at least 10 letters from external referees. The standard for promotion is the same as the standard for passage of the Major Review by Senior Research Scholars: achievement of distinction in the appropriate field and wide recognition for that achievement, as well as a meaningful contribution to SIPA. In rare cases, at the discretion of the Dean, promotion from Research Scholar to Senior Research Scholar can be considered during the Major Review of the Research Scholar.