Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34158049›Full record

ReviewBMC proceedings2021

Preparing for tenure and promotion at PUI institutions.

Leticia R Vega, Christoph J Hengartner

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC proceedings, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Leticia R VegaDepartment of Biology, Barry University, Miami Shores, FL, USA. lvega@barry.edu.
Christoph J HengartnerDepartment of Biology, Barry University, Miami Shores, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the importance for faculty to become familiar with the general guidelines for collecting, assembling and preparing a tenure and promotion (T&P) application or dossier at a Primarily Undergraduate Institution (PUI) and the critical role that mentoring plays throughout the T&P process. While key elements of the application process such as submission timelines and documentation guidelines are usually outlined in the faculty handbook of the specific institution, many aspects of assembling the dossier are not necessarily detailed in writing anywhere. Instead, there are important elements of the T&P process that typically rely on institutional knowledge and guidance that is often communicated informally. Junior faculty who have limited access to "informal communications" are at a significant disadvantage when they go through the T&P process even when they show accomplishments in teaching effectiveness, research, and service. The problem is especially important for women and underrepresented minority faculty in STEM disciplines that are less well represented among senior faculty in STEM. Senior faculty often serve as informal or formal mentors to their less seasoned colleagues. The goal of this article is to help demystify the T&P process by offering practical suggestions and describing some of the specific materials and steps that are an important part of documenting the development of a faculty member at a PUI.

Indexed as

DocumentationDossierEvaluationFacultyMentoringPlanningPromotionPUIResearchServiceTeachingTenure

Identifiers

PMID34158049
PMCPMC8217978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.