Princess Margaret Cancer Centre

Research Appointments Committee
The Appointments Committee at Princess Margaret is a sub-committee of the Research Council on Oncology (RCO). The role of the Committee is to establish a system of performance review and evaluate individuals to determine whether they are eligible for appointment or renewal. The committee has at least 7 members who serve 3-year terms. The composition of the Committee can be altered from time to time based on recommendations made by the chair of the Appointments Committee as approved by the Research Council.

Clinical Division Heads may be invited to attend meetings at which a member of their staff is being reviewed.

Annual Activity Reports
All appointments to the Research Institute (i.e.: 3-year or 5-year terms at all levels) are contingent upon satisfactory performance as evidence by the Annual Activity Report.  These reports will determine the list of activities undertaken during the preceding calendar year and should include a list of grants, publications, invitations, meetings attended, courses taught and any other academic or scholarly activity.

Annual Review Process

i) Annual Activity Reports will be submitted to the Research Institute each year.
ii) Research Executive Committee members will conduct annual performance reviews for each Scientist in their Division.

iii) Review recommendations will be submitted to the VP Research. For full-time researchers this annual review process could lead to annual compensation adjustments. If the activity report leads to any concerns, a reasonable action plan with measurable outcomes will be put in place for identified performance areas. Depending on the nature of the issues identified, a review by the VP Research and the Research Appointments Committee could be triggered. Serious cases (e.g. failure to carry on an active, independent, extramurally funded research program) could lead to the loss of the appointment.

a) Scientist
 The initial appointment is for a 3-year term, pending satisfactory performance as judged by the Research Appointment Committee. In this case, satisfactory performance consists of building a credible cutting edge research program. It is the expectation that the full 3-year term will be completed. Scientists will be subject to the usual principles of employment law, but in addition, major problems, such as failure to submit grants or the failure to undertake experiments would be grounds for dismissal.

i) First Review (S3)
Prior to the end of the first term, the candidate must submit the following:

1. An up-to-date CV.  This should include separate sections with peer-reviewed publications, funding (approved and applied), industry collaborations and current status, awards, invitations (meetings and seminars), and patents from the last three (3) years. Please also supply any other relevant information that shows evidence for the maintenance of a high quality, productive research program. 
2. Research Plan. Please provide a brief report (not to exceed three (3) pages, single spaced) describing your research progress during the last three-years, your current projects, and your future plans.
3. References. Please provide the names of at least five (5) potential references (with contact details) in the scientific community familiar with your work.  These people must not have been a supervisor or collaborator.  The Research Appointments Committee will use this list, as well as other sources of information, to acquire letters of assessment. 

The Committee will review the application and recommend either passing the candidate and grant a second 3-year term or request an interview with the candidate.

At the interview the candidate will make a short presentation of past progress and future plans and answer questions posed by the Committee. The Committee will act on this information either by recommending that: [1] the candidate pass and be granted a second 3-year term; or [2] the candidate be reviewed again, following the same procedure in 1 year; or [3] that the candidate not be renewed.

Should a re-review be recommended, the Committee will outline specific goals that must be achieved by the time of the re-review.
Candidates that are not renewed will be given a working extension term not to exceed 1 year that will allow them reasonable time to find alternative employment, but will not be re-reviewed. All recommendations are brought to the Research Council for final approval.

ii) Second Review (S6)
Prior to the end of the second term, the second review is conducted. This review is conducted with the rigor of a tenure review and it is expected that only outstanding candidates will pass.
The candidate must submit the following:

1. An up-to-date CV.  This should include separate sections with peer-reviewed publications, funding (approved and applied), industry collaborations and current status, awards, invitations (meetings and seminars), and patents from the last six (6) years. 
2. Research Plan. Please provide a brief report (not to exceed three (3) pages, single spaced) describing your research progress during the last six (6) years, your current projects, and your future plans.
3. Top 3 publications.
4. References. Please provide the names of at least ten (10) potential references (with contact details) in the world-wide scientific community familiar with your work. These people must not have been a supervisor or collaborator. The Research Appointments Committee will use this list, as well as other sources of information, to acquire letters of assessment.
5. Candidates will also have the option of submitting up to five (5) names of individuals who the candidate does not wish to be reviewed by, including collaborators. Please explain why this person should be excluded.

The Appointments Committee and an external reviewer will convene a meeting at which the candidate will be asked to present a progress report, outline future directions and respond to questions posed. The Review Committee will recommend either promotion to the Senior Scientist level or not.

Candidates that fail to be promoted will be given a working extension term (not to exceed 1 year) that will allow them reasonable time to find alternative employment.

All recommendations are brought to the Research Council for final approval.

iii) Third Review (S9)
Normally, Scientists will be eligible for a maximum of two 3 year terms. The Research Council anticipates that, in most cases, 6 years will be sufficient time for the Institute to determine whether progression to the category of Senior Scientist is justified. However, it is recognized that exceptions may occur. Scientists may have lost significant research time because of illness, other Hospital/University activities, parental leave, or other similar legitimate activities that may contribute to their failure to achieve the category of Senior Scientist after two 3-year terms. The Research Council therefore retains the discretion to grant a third 3-year term to a Scientist. The review process in this case will be identical to the second review. Candidates that fail this review will be given a working extension term (not to exceed 1 year) that will allow them reasonable time to find alternative employment.
All recommendations are brought to the Research Council for final approval.

b) Senior Scientist (SS5)
The Committee will review these appointments prior to the end of the term. The Senior Scientist must submit:

1. An up-to-date CV.  This should include separate sections with peer-reviewed publications, funding (approved and applied), industry collaborations and current status, awards, invitations (meetings and seminars), and patents from the last five (5) years.
2. Research Plan. Please provide a brief report (not to exceed three (3) pages, single spaced) describing your research progress during the last five (5) years, your current projects, and your future plans.
3. References. Please provide the names of at least five (5) potential references (with contact details) in the scientific community familiar with your work.  These people must not have been a supervisor or collaborator. The Research Appointments Committee will use this list, as well as other sources of information, to acquire letters of assessment. 

The Committee will review the application and recommend either awarding the candidate another 5 year term or requesting an interview with the candidate.
At the interview the candidate will make a short presentation of past progress and future plans and answer questions posed by the Research Appointments Committee. The Research Appointments Committee will act on this information either by recommending that the candidate pass and be granted another 5 year term, or that the candidate be re-reviewed in 2 years.
After 2 years the candidate will undergo the same process as outlined for the "tenure" (S6) review. The number of external referees will be at the discretion of the Committee. Candidates that fail to pass this review will be given a working extension term that will allow them reasonable time, not to exceed 1 year, to find alternative employment. All recommendations are brought to the Research Council for final approval.

c) Affiliate Scientist
 The Research Appointments Committee will review Affiliate Scientists every 3 years. The criteria for renewal will include evidence of research productivity commensurate with the employment agreement of the affiliate member and evidence for significant interaction with other members of the Institution.
The Affiliate Scientist must submit the following:

1. An up-to-date CV.  This should include separate sections with peer-reviewed publications, funding (approved and applied), industry collaborations and current status, awards, invitations (meetings and seminars), and patents from the last three (3) years.
2. Research Plan. Please provide a brief report (not to exceed three (3) pages, single spaced) describing your research progress during the last three (3) years, your current projects, and your future plans.
3. Letter of Support.  Please provide a letter of support from the host Senior Scientist

Letter requirements:

• A justification of the candidate’s qualifications
• Candidate’s current and future salary sources
• Candidate’s space allocations
• Commitment to cover resources for reappointment term (3-years)

The Committee will review the application and recommend either awarding the candidate another 3 year term or terminating the appointment.