The Princess Margaret (PM) Cancer Centre is the largest integrated cancer research, teaching and treatment centre in Canada. Its research institute, formerly known as the Ontario Cancer Institute (OCI), includes internationally recognized researchers, cutting-edge research infrastructure and the Campbell Family Institute for Breast Cancer Research. The Centre focuses on cancer research across various fields including genomics, informatics, molecular biology, signalling, structural biology, health services and biophysics. PM’s laboratories and facilities are primarily located at the Centre itself (610 University Avenue) and at the Princess Margaret Cancer Research Tower (in the MaRS Centre).
PM Cancer Centre’s researchers are grouped into the following programs based on their research:
| PROGRAMS | CHAIRS |
| Cancer Biology and Imaging | Razq Hakem |
| Computational Biology and Medicine | Benjamin Haibe-Kains |
| Genetics and Epigenetics | Hansen He |
| Immuno-Oncology | Pam Ohashi |
| Protein Structure and Function | Brian Raught |
| Stem Cells | Catherine O'Brien |
| Supportive Care | Camilla Zimmermann |
The Princess Margaret (PM) Cancer Centre is the largest integrated cancer research, teaching and treatment centre in Canada. Its research institute, formerly known as the Ontario Cancer Institute (OCI), includes internationally recognized researchers, cutting-edge research infrastructure and the Campbell Family Institute for Breast Cancer Research. The Centre focuses on cancer research across various fields including genomics, informatics, molecular biology, signalling, structural biology, health services and biophysics. PM’s laboratories and facilities are primarily located at the Centre itself (610 University Avenue) and at the Princess Margaret Cancer Research Tower (in the MaRS Centre).
PM Cancer Centre’s researchers are grouped into the following categories based on their research program:
- Cancer Biology and Imaging
- Computational Biology and Medicine
- Genetics and Epigenetics
- Immuno-Oncology
- Protein Structure and Function
- Stem Cells
- Supportive Care
| Director, Research | Aaron Schimmer |
| Associate Director, Research | Gang Zheng |
| Executive Committee | Benjamin Haibe-Kains |
| Medical Director, Cancer Program | Mary Gospodarowicz |
| Head, Medical Oncology and Hematology | Amit Oza |
| Head, Psychosocial Oncology | Gary Rodin |
| Head, Radiation Medicine | Fei-Fei Liu |
| Head, Medical Oncology and Hematology | Amit Oza |
| Head, Surgical Oncology | Gelareh Zadeh |
| Medical Director, Laboratory Medicine Program | Runjan Chetty |
| Head, Cancer Clinical Research Unit | Amit Oza |
| Chair, Department of Medical Biophysics | Thomas Kislinger |
| Representative, Senior Advisory Group | Mathieu Lupien |
| Senior Vice President, UHN and Executive Lead, PM Cancer Centre | Marnie Escaf |
| Executive Vice President, Science and Research | Bradly Wouters |
- Appointments and Promotions Committee
- New Faculty Search Committee
- Research Space Committee
- Core Facility and Equipment Committee
- UHN Genomics Steering Committee
The PM Appointments and Promotions Committee (APC) conducts regular reviews on the research activities of each appointed PM scientist to ensure that each scientist is meeting the scientific standards as defined in the ‘PM Scientific Standards - Guidelines’ document. Scientist reviews follow the terms outlined in the document 'PM Requirements and Procedures for Progression'.
The APC also reviews new Affiliate and Adjunct Scientist appointment applications to the Research Institute as required. All applications for these appointments must be submitted to the PM Research Director and to appointments coordinator Susannah Moore (susannah.moore@uhnresearch.ca).
Affiliate and Adjunct Scientist Guidelines
Any queries regarding appointments at PM can be sent to susannah.moore@uhnresearch.ca.
- PM Categories of Appointment
At Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM), there are six (6) types of appointments depending on protected time for research. Below is a description of each type of appointment.
The categories of Scientist and Senior Scientist are designed for individuals whose primary commitment within PM is research. Normally this will be reflected by a substantial time commitment to research, but will also be obvious from their research accomplishments and overall academic profile.
a) Scientist
These are initial appointments for researchers who have demonstrated the potential to develop independent research programs. Scientist appointments are analogous to an Assistant Professor position within a University. Such individuals will have undergone significant research training and will have the intention to establish a strong, internationally recognized research program. Individuals will be appointed to the Scientist category for a 3-year term, and are subject to a review at the end of this term, which, if successful will lead to a second 3-year term. It is expected that during this appointment, these individuals will acquire peer-reviewed funds, produce independent work that is published in peer-reviewed journals, and demonstrate involvement in PM Research Institute activities. After six years as a Scientist, and an appropriate review, individuals may progress to a Senior Scientist position.
b) Senior Scientist
These are accomplished individuals who have established strong, extramurally funded research programs and have made significant and original contributions to research. Their productivity must be well documented by publications in peer-reviewed journals, grants, invitations, awards, etc. The Senior Scientist will have established a research program that is capable of achieving long range goals and is based upon stable and consistent grant support. These individuals will make significant contributions to the life of PM and to the scientific community at large. They will have established reputations as Scientists of significance both within and outside of PM. Senior Scientists are appointed for 5-year terms that are renewable subject to review.
c) Affiliate Scientist
The category of Affiliate Scientist is designated for individuals with strong research interests who make valuable contributions to the research efforts of PM but do not already have a formal scientific appointment within PM. Affiliate Scientists will have access to institutional resources based on employment agreements reached between them and the PM Research Director, and as outlined in the documents “PM Affiliate and Adjunct Scientist Guidelines”, and subject to the approval of the Research Council on Oncology. Affiliate Scientists are appointed for 3-year terms, and are subject to a review. The criteria for renewal will include evidence of research productivity (publications, grants, presentations) and evidence of close collaboration and significant interaction with other members of PM.d) Adjunct Scientist
The category of Adjunct Scientist is used to define Scientists who have a primary appointment at another research institutes but who are embedded in PM projects with strong collaborative research ties to a PM Senior Scientist in good standing. This appointment will not allow the candidate to hold external grants through UHN nor apply for internal PM grants. Adjunct Scientists are appointed for 3-year terms, and are subject to a review. PM will have no more than five (5) Adjunct Scientists at one time.e) Emeritus Scientist
The category of Emeritus Scientist is used to define retired eligible UHN Research Faculty, who, prior to their retirement from the organization held a rank of Senior Scientist for at least two terms of 5-years and were deemed to have satisfactorily maintained the standard outlined for this appointed rank. Emeritus Scientists are appointed for 3-year terms, and are subject to a review.f) Member of the Cancer Clinical Research Unit (CCRU)
This category is designated for individuals with combined clinical and research interests. Such individuals actively participate in clinical trials, funded both by the peer-reviewed funding agencies and industry. Members of the CCRU are required to be full members of their division, and will have full access to all of the resources provided by the CCRU. All clinical research conducted by the CCRU is expected to meet the highest scientific and ethical standards. - PM Requirements and Procedures for Progression
Research Appointments and Promotions Committee
The Appointments and Promotions Committee (APC) at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) is a sub-committee of the Research Council on Oncology (RCO) and reports to the Director of the Research Institute. The role of the APC is to establish a system of performance review and evaluate individuals to determine whether they are eligible for appointment or renewal. The APC has at least seven (7) members who serve 3-year terms, renewable once. The composition of the APC can be altered from time to time based on recommendations made by the chair(s) of the APC as approved by the RCO.
Clinical Division Heads may be invited to attend meetings at which a member of their staff is being reviewed. Research appointments for clinician scientists are tied directly to their clinical appointments and loss of clinical appointment would automatically lead to loss of research appointment.Research Institute appointees are reviewed at an Annual Activity Review and go through term Scientist Reviews (i.e. S3, S6, SS5) according to the fixed review timelines. In the instance that a scientist must take a prolonged amount of time off for sickness, maternity/paternity leave or other equivalent leave, their review will be delayed by the same amount of time.
Annual Activity Review
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 list the activities undertaken during the preceding calendar year and include a list of grants, publications, invited lectures, courses taught and any other academic or scholarly activity.
Annual Activity Review Process
i) Annual Activity Reports are submitted to the Research Institute each year.
ii) Research Executive Committee members conduct annual performance reviews for each scientist in their group.iii) Review feedback is submitted to the EVP of 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 EVP of Research and the Research Appointments and Promotions 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 appointment.
Scientist Reviews
a) Scientist
The initial Scientist appointment is for a 3-year term. During this time, the appointed Scientist is expected to establish a successful independent research program. The Scientist should complete the full 3-years; however, they will be subject to the usual principles of employment law, and major problems, such as failure to actively pursue independent funding, or the failure to undertake experiments are grounds for dismissal.i) First Review (S3)
Prior to the end of the first term, the candidate will be asked to submit the following to the Research Directorate:- An up-to-date CV. This should include separate sections with peer-reviewed publications, patents, funding (approved and applied), trainee supervision, collaborations, awards, and oral presentations at/or invitations to meetings and seminars from the last 3-years. Please also supply any other relevant information that shows evidence for the maintenance of a high quality, productive research program.
- Research Plan. Please provide a brief report (not to exceed three (3) pages, single spaced) describing your research progress during the last 3-years, your current projects, and your future plans.
- References. Please provide the names of at least three (3) potential references (with contact details) in the scientific community familiar with your work. These individuals must be at arm’s length and must not have been a previous supervisor, a collaborator, or a co-author on any publications. The Appointments and Promotions Committee (APC) will use this list, as well as other sources, to acquire letters of assessment.
The Appointments and Promotions Committee (APC) will review the application and [1] recommend passing the candidate and grant a second 3-year term, or [2] request an interview with the candidate.
At the interview, the candidate will make a short presentation (20 minutes maximum) of past progress and future plans, and answer questions posed by the APC. Identified mentor(s) may be asked to attend. The APC will act on this information and either recommend that [1] the candidate pass and be granted a second 3-year term, or [2] the candidate not be renewed.
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 on Oncology 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 or highly rated strong contributor candidates will pass.
The candidate will be asked to submit the following to the Research Directorate:- An up-to-date CV. This should include separate sections with peer-reviewed publications, patents, funding (approved and applied), trainee supervision, collaborations, awards, invitations (meetings and seminars), and leadership/administrative activities from the last 6-years.
- Research Plan. Please provide a brief report (not to exceed three (3) pages, single spaced) describing your research progress during the last 6-years, your current projects, and your future plans.
- Top 3 publications.
- 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 individuals must be at arm’s length and must not have been a previous supervisor, a collaborator, or a co-author on any publications. The Appointments and Promotions Committee (APC) will use this list, as well as other sources, to acquire letters of assessment.
- 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 and Promotions Committee (APC) and an external reviewer will convene a meeting at which the candidate will be asked to give a 20-minute presentation on their progress, current projects, and an outline of their future directions. They must also respond to questions posed by the APC. The APC will either recommend that [1] the candidate be promoted to a Senior Scientist, or [2] the candidate not be promoted. [3]*
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 but will not be re-reviewed.All recommendations are brought to the Research Council on Oncology for final approval.
*In rare circumstances, up to three (3) additional years as a Scientist may be granted.
iii) S6 Re-review
Normally, Scientists will be eligible for a maximum of two (2) 3-year terms. The Research Council on Oncology (RCO) anticipates that in most cases, 6-years will be sufficient time for the Research Institute to determine whether progression to the category of Senior Scientist is justified. However, it is recognized that exceptions may occur. The RCO retains the discretion to grant up to three (3) additional years as a Scientist. The review process at the end of this term, will be similar 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 but will not be re-reviewed.All recommendations are brought to the RCO for final approval.
b) Senior Scientist (SS5)
The Appointments and Promotions Committee (APC) will review these appointments prior to the end of the 5-year term. The Senior Scientist will be asked to submit to the Research Directorate:- An up-to-date CV. This should include separate sections with peer-reviewed publications, patents, funding (approved and applied), trainee supervised, collaborations, awards, invitations (meetings and seminars), and leadership/administrative activities from the last 5-years.
- Research Plan. Please provide a brief report (not to exceed three (3) pages, single spaced) describing your research progress during the last 5-years, your current projects, and your future plans.
- References. Please provide the names of at least five (5) potential references (with contact details) in the scientific community familiar with your work. These individuals must be at arm’s length and must not have been a previous supervisor, a collaborator, or a co-author on any publications. The APC will use this list, as well as other sources of information, to acquire letters of assessment.
The APC will review the application and recommend that [1] the candidate pass and be granted another 5-year term, [2] the candidate be re-reviewed in 2-years, or [3] the candidate not be renewed. An interview with the candidate may be requested to assist with the decision.
If interviewed, the candidate may be asked to make a short presentation (20-minute maximum) of past progress and future plans, and will answer questions posed by the APC.
If being re-reviewed at 2-years, the candidate will undergo a review similar to the last review but the candidate will be asked to give a 20-minute presentation on their progress, current projects, and an outline of their future directions. An external reviewer may be invited to attend the re-review.
Candidates that fail to pass this review or the re-review 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 on Oncology for final approval.
c) Affiliate Scientist (AF)
The Appointments and Promotions Committee (APC) will review Affiliate Scientists every 3-years. The Affiliate Scientist will be asked to submit to the Research Directorate:- An up-to-date CV. This should include separate sections with peer-reviewed publications, funding (approved and applied), trainee supervision, collaborations, awards, invitations (meetings and seminars), and patents from the last 3-years.
- Research Plan. Please provide a brief report (not to exceed two (2) pages, single spaced) describing your research progress during the last 3-years, your current projects, and your future plans. This should highlight your PM collaborations.
- 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)
If this designation is for appointed Campbell Family Institute for Cancer Research (CFIBCR) Scientists, the letter must come from the Director of the CFIBCR.
The APC will review the application and recommend either [1] awarding the candidate another 3-year term, or [2] terminating the appointment.
All recommendations are brought to the Research Council on Oncology for final approval.
d) Adjunct Scientist (AJ)
The Appointments and Promotions Committee (APC) will review Adjunct Scientists every 3-years. The Adjunct Scientist will be asked to submit to the Research Directorate:- An up-to-date CV. This should include separate sections with peer-reviewed publications, funding (approved and applied), trainee supervision, collaborations, awards, invitations (meetings and seminars), and patents from the last 3-years.
- Research Plan. Please provide a brief report (not to exceed two (2) pages, single spaced) describing your research progress during the last 3-years, your current projects, and your future plans. This should highlight your PM collaborations.
- Letter of Support. Please provide a letter of support from the host Senior Scientist.
Letter requirements:
- A justification of the candidate’s qualifications
- Commitment to cover resources for reappointment term (3-years)
The APC will review the application and recommend either [1] awarding the candidate another 3-year term, or [2] terminating the appointment. PM will have no more than five (5) Adjunct Scientists at one time.
All recommendations are brought to the Research Council on Oncology for final approval.
e) Emeritus Scientist (ES)
Emeritus Scientists appointments are granted for 3-years terms and are renewable at the discretion of the Research Director and approved by the Research Council on Oncology.
Media Folder:
Review_Process_Sept_2018.pdfPDF of this document can be found here.
- PM Scientific Standards - Guidelines
THREE-YEAR SCIENTISTS (S3):
At the end of the first 3-year term, the Scientist is subject to a review (S3). This review is used as a check point to ensure the Scientist is on the right track to establishing a successful research program with international impact. This review may identify where the Scientist can benefit from additional mentoring, and to guide them on building a strong program and to prepare them for their S6 promotional review at the end of the second 3-year term.
Candidates will need to achieve a ranking of “A” or “B” to continue on to a second 3-year term.
Ranking Score
Outstanding or Strong Contributor
Strong Contributor or Developing/Expecting More
Developing/Expecting More or Unsatisfactory
“A” Range is from A+ to A-
“B” Range is from B+ to B-
C
Grants:
At least one major grant that is peer reviewed (e.g. CIHR, CCSRI, NIH) or from an international foundation as PI.
One major peer reviewed grant (eg. CIHR, CCSRI, NIH) as PI or co-PI.
No peer reviewed grants.
Published Papers*
Two papers per year on average. During the 3-year period, at least one of these is to be in the “mid-level” category. A lower number of papers is acceptable if the publications are in an “excellent” or “outstanding” journal.
Or, issued patents
One paper in the “mid-level” category during the 3-year period.
Or, issued patents
No publications or patents.
Evidence of External Impact
At least two oral presentations at national or international meetings or symposia within the first three years.
One oral presentation at a national or international meeting or symposium within the first three years.
No oral presentations at a national or international meeting or symposium.
Additional factors:
- Trainees
At least one graduate student or postdoctoral fellow.
(as supervisor†)
At least one graduate student or postdoctoral fellow (co-supervision is acceptable).
No graduate student or postdoctoral fellow.
* Published papers refer to senior or co-senior authored papers from work done in own laboratory.
Where – standard level is <4.0, mid-level is 4.0-9.9, excellent is 10.0-19.9 and outstanding is >20.0. This can be adjusted when some field’s top journals are lower impact journals. The goal is to encourage publications of high quality and high impact. In general, this will be reflected by the journal in which the paper is published.
†Co-supervision of PhD students as required by U of T School of Graduate Studies for Associate Members is acceptable, if the candidate is a primary supervisor and the student is working on the candidate’s independent research program. http://www.sgs.utoronto.ca/facultyandstaff/Pages/GFM-Eligibility.aspx
SIX-YEAR SCIENTISTS (S6):
At the end of the second 3-year term, the Scientist is subject to a promotional review (S6). This review is conducted with the rigor of a tenure review and it is expected that only outstanding or highly rated strong contributors will pass. It is expected that during the second 3-year term, the Scientist has developed a world-class research program with the potential of major impact in the field. These individuals will have acquired peer-reviewed funds, produced independent work that is published in peer-reviewed journals, and demonstrated involvement in Research Institute activities (e.g. committees, research events, programs, mentorship).
Candidates must achieve a ranking of “A” in order to be promoted to Senior Scientist.
Ranking Score
Outstanding or Strong Contributor
Strong Contributor or Developing/Expecting More
Developing/Expecting More or Unsatisfactory
“A” Range is from A+ to A-
“B” Range is from B+ to B-
C
Grants:
At least two major grants running concurrently that are peer reviewed (eg. CIHR, CCSRI, NIH) or from an international foundation as PI.
One major peer reviewed (eg. CIHR, CCSRI, NIH) grant or from an international foundation as PI.
No peer reviewed grants.
Published Papers*
Two papers per year on average. During the 6-year review period, at least one of these is to be in the “excellent” or “outstanding” category. A lower number of papers may be acceptable if there are more publications in the “outstanding” category.
Or, issued patents
One standard level paper per year or one at “mid” to “outstanding” level during 6-year period.
Or, issued patents
No publications or patents.
Evidence of External Impact
Three instances of national /international recognition per year.
Examples
- invitation to lectures at national or international meetings or symposia
- invitation to serve on advisory board, grant panel or editorial board
- receiving an award from a scientific organization
Two instances of national/international recognition per year.
Examples
- invitation to lectures at national or international meetings or symposia
- invitation to serve on advisory board, grant panel or editorial board
- receiving an award from a scientific organization
One instance of national/international recognition per year.
Examples
- invitation to lectures at national or international meetings or symposia
- invitation to serve on advisory board, grant panel or editorial board
- receiving an award from a scientific organization
Additional factors:
- Trainees
-Leadership to the Institute**
-Impact on Cancer***
At least three graduate students and/or postdoctoral fellows and evidence of effective mentorship.
Examples
- Leading a team grant or program project, or directing a core facility
- Serving on PM or UofT SGS department committees
- Organizing symposia
Examples
- Scientific PI on investigator initiated clinical trial
- Evidence of impact on patient care or clinical trial
-significant contributions to drug development or technology development
One graduate student or postdoctoral fellow and evidence of effective mentorship.
No graduate student or postdoctoral fellow.
* Published papers refer to senior or co-senior authored papers from work done in own laboratory.
Where – standard level is <4.0, mid-level is 4.0-9.9, excellent is 10.0-19.9 and outstanding is >20.0. This can be adjusted when some field’s top journals are lower impact journals. The goal is to encourage publications of high quality and high impact. In general, this will be reflected by the journal in which the paper is published.
**By supporting its activities and influencing direction, nature and quality of programs.
*** It is not expected that all candidates have a direct impact on cancer, but their programs should have this as an achievable long-term goal
SENIOR SCIENTISTS (SS5):
At the end of each 5-year term, Senior Scientists are subject to a review (SS5). The goal of a Senior Scientist is to maintain a world-class research program that demonstrates major impact on their field. Productivity must be well documented by publications in peer-reviewed journals, grants, invitations, awards, etc. The Senior Scientist will have established a research program that is capable of achieving long range goals and is based upon stable and consistent grant support. These individuals will make significant contributions to the life of Research Institute and to the scientific community at large. They will have established reputations as Scientists of significance both within and outside of PM.
Candidates must receive an overall average ranking of “A” at time of review in order to pass.
Ranking Score
Outstanding or Strong Contributor
Strong Contributor or Developing/Expecting More
Developing/Expecting More or Unsatisfactory
“A” Range is from A+ to A-
“B” Range is from B+ to B-
C
Grants:
At least two major grants running concurrently that are peer reviewed (eg. CIHR, CCSRI, NIH) or from an international foundation as PI.
One peer reviewed grant (eg. CIHR,CCSRI, NIH) as PI.
No peer reviewed grants.
Published Papers*
Three or more publications per year on average. During the 5-year review period, at least two of these are to be in the “excellent” category and one is to be in the “outstanding” category. A lower number of papers may be acceptable if there are more publications in the “outstanding” category.
Or, issued patents
Two publications per year in “standard” level journals with one “mid-level” and/or one “outstanding” level per five years. A lower number of papers may be acceptable if there are more publications in the “outstanding” category.
Or, issued patents
One publications per year in “standard” level journals.
Or, issued patents
Evidence of External Impact
Give at least three external invited lectures per year, with at least two at international meetings or symposia.
Should consistently serve on at least one of the following:
- Major grant peer-review panels
- Editorial boards
- Organizing committees of international meetings
- Committees for international/national academic societies
- Scientific or clinical advisory boards
Give at least two external invited lectures per year, with at least one at international meetings or symposia.
Give at least one external invited lecture per year.
Additional factors:
- Trainees
-Leadership to the Institute**
-Impact on Cancer***
At least three graduate students or postdoctoral fellows and evidence of effective mentorship.
Examples
- Participation in PM or UofT SGS department committees
- Leadership of team grants and CFI proposals
- Serving as Department Chair at Hospital or University level
- Regular participation in Institute events
- Teaching at a University of Toronto department
- Work with the Foundation on fundraising initiatives
- Community Outreach
Examples
- Scientific PI on investigator initiated clinical trial
- Evidence of impact on patient care or clinical trial.
-significant contributions to drug development or technology development
Two graduate students or postdoctoral fellows.
One graduate student or postdoctoral fellow.
* Published papers refer to senior or co-senior authored papers from work done in own laboratory.
Where – standard level is <4.0, mid-level is 4.0-9.9, excellent is 10.0-19.9 and outstanding is >20.0. This can be adjusted when some field’s top journals are lower impact journals. The goal is to encourage publications of high quality and high impact. In general, this will be reflected by the journal in which the paper is published.
**By supporting its activities and influencing direction, nature and quality of programs.
*** It is not expected that all candidates have a direct impact on cancer, but their programs should have this as an achievable long-term goal
AFFILIATE SCIENTISTS (AF):
A candidate may apply for an Affiliate Scientist position under any of the following circumstances:
- They have a full clinical appointment.
- Are key members of a research team and contribute to a successful research program.
- Are key collaborators with scientists at the Research Institute.
At the end of each 3-year term, the Affiliate Scientist is subject to a review (AF). Affiliate Scientist are expected to show evidence of research productivity (publications, grants, presentations) and evidence of close collaboration and significant interaction with other members of the Research Institute.
Candidates will need a PASS to be appointed for an additional 3-year term.
Ranking Score
Initial Appointment
Reappointment
PASS
FAIL
Grants:
Must show major contribution to a large peer-reviewed grant but does not have to be a PI or co-PI.
At least one major peer-reviewed grant (eg. CIHR, CCSRI, or NIH) as a PI or co-PI.
No peer reviewed grants as PI or co-PI.
Published Papers*
At least 1-2 papers in “mid-level” journal and 1-2 “standard level” papers within the last 3-years. A lower number of papers are acceptable if publications are in an “outstanding” journal. The scientist must be first author on these papers but does not have to be senior author or co-senior author.
At least 1-2 papers in “mid-level” journal and 1-2 “standard level” papers within the last 3-years. A lower number of papers are acceptable if publications are in an “outstanding” journal.
The scientist must be senior author or co-senior author on one of the papers.
One paper in the “mid-level” category during the 3-year period.
Contributions
Evidence of external impact
- External lectures
- Issued patents
- Commercialization
- Major collaborations
And/or evidence of internal impact
- Supervision of trainees
- Mentorship
- Major PM collaborations
Evidence of external impact
- External lectures
- Issued patents
- Commercialization
- Major collaborations
And/or evidence of internal impact
- Supervision of trainees
- Mentorship
- Major PM collaborations
* Published papers refer to senior or co-senior authored papers from work done in own laboratory.
Where – standard level is <4.0, mid-level is 4.0-9.9, excellent is 10.0-19.9 and outstanding is >20.0. This can be adjusted when some field’s top journals are lower impact journals. The goal is to encourage publications of high quality and high impact. In general, this will be reflected by the journal in which the paper is published.
ADJUNCT SCIENTISTS (AJ):
A candidate may apply for an Adjunct Scientist position as a researcher outside of PM, with strong collaborative research ties to PM.
At the end of each 3-years, the Adjunct Scientist is subject to a review (AJ). Adjunct Scientists are expected to show evidence of research productivity (publications, grants, presentations), of being embedded in PM projects and of significant interaction with other members of the Research Institute.
Candidates will need a PASS to be appointed for an additional 3-year term.
Ranking Score
Initial Appointment
Reappointment
PASS
FAIL
Grants:
Must show major contribution to a large peer-reviewed grant but does not have to be a PI or co-PI.
At least one major peer-reviewed grant (eg. CIHR, CCSRI, or NIH) as a PI or co-PI.
No peer reviewed grants as PI or co-PI.
Published Papers*
At least 1-2 papers in ‘mid-level’ journal and 1-2 ‘standard level’ papers within the last 3 years. A lower number of papers are acceptable if publications are in an “outstanding” journal. The applicant must be first author on these papers but does not have to be senior author or co-senior author.
At least 1-2 papers in “mid-level” journal and 1-2 “standard level” papers within the last 3 years. A lower number of papers are acceptable if publications are in an “outstanding” journal.
The scientist must be senior author or co-senior author on one of the papers.
One paper in the “mid-level” category during the 3-year period.
Contributions
Evidence of external impact
- External lectures
- Issued patents
- Commercialization
- Major collaborations
And/or evidence of internal impact
- Supervision of trainees
- Mentorship
- Major PM collaborations
Evidence of external impact
- External lectures
- Issued patents
- Commercialization
- Major collaborations
And/or evidence of internal impact
- Supervision of trainees
- Mentorship
- Major PM collaborations
Generally:
Leaves:
In the instance that a scientist must take a prolonged amount of time off for sickness, maternity/paternity leave or another equivalent leave, their review will be delayed by the same amount of time as the leave.
Outcomes after failure:
Candidates who fail to pass their 3-year (S3) review will be given a working extension term that will allow them reasonable time, not to exceed one-year, to find alternative employment at which point they will lose their PM appointment, financial support from PM and space within PM.
Candidates who fail to pass their 6-year (S6) review will be given a working extension term that will allow them reasonable time, not to exceed one-year, to find alternative employment at which point they will lose their PM appointment, financial support from PM and space within PM. In rare circumstances, they may be given up to 3-years to improve and will be re-reviewed. Candidates who fail to pass their re-review will be given a working extension term that will allow them reasonable time, not to exceed one-year, to find alternative employment at which point they will lose their PM appointment, financial support from PM and space within PM.
Candidates who fail their Senior Scientist (SS5) review will either [1] be given a working extension term that will allow them reasonable time, not to exceed one-year, to find alternative employment at which point they will lose their PM appointment, financial support from PM and space within PM, or [2] be asked to re-review in 2-years. After 2-years, the candidate will be re-reviewed. Candidates that fail this re-review will be given a working extension term that will allow them reasonable time, not to exceed one-year, at which point they will lose their PM appointment, financial support from PM and space within PM.
Candidates who fail their Affiliate Scientist (AF) or Adjunct Scientist (AJ) review will have their appointment terminated.
All recommendations are brought to the Research Council on Oncology for final approval.
These are guidelines to accompany “PM Requirements and Procedures for Progression” (http://intranet.uhnresearch.ca/institutes/pm).
PDF of this document can be found here.
Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
610 University, Suite 7-504
Toronto, ON M5G 2M9
Telephone : (416) 946-2068
Fax : (416) 946-2287
Research Directorate, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre
610 University Avenue
Toronto, ON
M5G 2M9
CANADA
 |
Dr. Aaron Schimmer, Director of Princess Margaret (PM) Cancer Centre, can answer your questions regarding research programs and activities at PM Cancer Centre. To read previously answered questions, see the archive. |
