The Peer References are asked to provide a peer assessment of a candidate's teaching, academic accomplishments and the impact a candidate has made in their designated Area of Concentration (AOC). They are required when candidates are proposed for promotion or appointment to Associate and Full Professor on the Academic Clinician track. (See Sample Peer Reference Questionnaire)
 

Selection Guidelines

References must meet the following qualifications:
  • Faculty at or above the proposed academic rank
  • Up to 2 letters may be submitted from non-faculty who are distinguished in their fields.
  • References from individuals outside one’s primary practice site are strongly encouraged.
  • For promotion to full Professor, at least 3 must come from faculty outside the candidate’s primary practice site.
  • Up to 2 Peer References may also be proposed as Clinical Evaluators.
The candidate will provide the following to the department's Faculty Coordinator:
  • A completed Peer Reference Submission Form with the following information:
    • Their Primary Practice Site (PPS) and Area of Concentration (AOC)
    • A minimum of 10 proposed Peer References
    • Name, academic or professional title, Primary Practice Site, and email for each reference
    • This is a confidential process. Candidates should not contact proposed evaluators. 
    • Primary Practice Site is defined as expertise plus location, e.g., Pulmonary Ambulation at HUP, General Internal Medicine at Radnor, Emergency Medicine at PPMC.
  • An updated FEDS CV

 

Solicitation of References

  • Faculty Coordinators will use REDCap to send requests and reminders and to download the Peer Reference responses for inclusion in the dossier.
  • A link to the candidate’s CV will be needed. Penn+Box can be used to generate a URL. 
  • Responses must be received from a minimum 7 Peer References before the department may download responses and submit a dossier.

 

Resources


Clinical Evaluators are asked to provide a peer assessment of clinical expertise and professionalism of faculty on the Academic Clinician track. They are required when candidates are proposed for promotion to Associate and Full Professor on the Academic Clinician track. (They may also be required for internal candidates who are being appointed at the Associate or Full Professor rank).  Evaluators will be asked to asses the candidate’s clinical expertise and professionalism. (See Sample Clinical Evaluation Questionnaire). 

 

  • Responses are confidential and aggregated into an anonymized report.
  • Departmental COAPs are encouraged to use the aggregated report as part of their departmental review, but it is not required.

 

Selection Guidelines

Evaluators must meet the following qualifications:
  • Chair or Division Chief
  • A minimum of 10 Faculty Peers who meet the following qualifications:
    • With whom they have had numerous shared patient interactions
    • Must be broadly distributed and not exclusively from candidate’s division or department
    • Up to 2 Clinical Evaluators may also be proposed as Peer References.
The candidate provides the list to the Faculty Coordinator, including:
  • Name, academic title and email
  • This is a confidential process. Candidates should not contact proposed evaluators.

 

Solicitation of Evaluations

  • Faculty Coordinators will use REDCap to send requests and reminders and to generate the Clinical Evaluation Summary Report
  • Responses must be received from the Chair or Division Chief and a minimum of 7 Faculty Peers before the Department may run the Clinical Evaluation Summary Report and submit a dossier

 

Resources