Referee List

1. Referees must hold an academic rank that is equivalent to or higher than the rank of the proposed promotion.
2. At least four reference letters must be received to complete the promotion application. Letters can come from referees based at Northwestern as long as the set of letters received meets these criteria:
   • Two referees may be from within the candidate's primary department
   • The other letters should come from referees who are external to the candidate's primary department, meaning they can come from referees in other departments at Northwestern or from referees who are based outside of Northwestern
3. If suggesting referees from an institution where you trained, select someone who can comment on your accomplishments since becoming faculty (rather than your accomplishments during the training period).

Promotions to the levels of Associate Professor and Professor also include the ranks of Clinical Associate Professor, Clinical Professor, Research Associate Professor, and Research Professor.

There are three requirements for referees:

1. Referees must hold an academic rank that is equivalent to or higher than the rank of the proposed promotion.
2. Referees must be external to Northwestern.
   • Because the goal is to obtain an objective assessment of your achievements, suggest referees who know you primarily through your work and are not current close collaborators, where “closeness” is based on the nature of the relationship. For example, if you and a referee are listed as co-authors on a recent publication resulting from a large multi-site study in which you interacted infrequently but the referee had opportunity to observe your work, that co-authorship does not reflect a close collaboration that disqualifies their participation in the review process.
   • Be aware that referees are asked to explain how they know you and to recuse themselves if they are current close collaborators or otherwise have a conflict of interest that prevents an objective assessment of your qualifications.
3. Referees should come from multiple institutions. 
   • Referees from a diverse set of geographically dispersed institutions demonstrate the breadth of your reputation. If all your referees come from a couple of institutions, that suggests your work has limited impact.
   • On non-tenure-eligible career tracks, promotions to the rank of associate professor require evidence of a regional reputation, and promotions to the rank of professor require evidence of a national/international reputation.
   • On the Investigator track (tenure track), evidence of a national reputation is required by the time of promotion to associate professor.     

Additional common suggestions for identifying strong referees include:

• Do not ask for letters from current close collaborators 
• It is important that letters come from people who can best evaluate you​
• Suggest referees based at peer institutions (at least a few letters should come from top 25 medical schools)​
• Be aware that all referees will be asked: "Would the candidate be judged worthy to hold a similar appointment at your institution?"

Because faculty do not solicit their own letters, faculty should not discuss reference letters with potential referees at any stage. However, knowing how external evaluators are engaged in the process can help you understand what is required for a strong reference letter. ​

When you apply for promotion or tenure, your referees are:

• Contacted by department or school administrators 
• Provided with your CV and personal statement for review
• Asked to comment on the following questions: 
  1. Please summarize your qualifications to assess this candidate.
  2. What is your relationship, if any, to the candidate? If you have worked with the candidate, briefly summarize this activity and identify the time period you worked together.
     • We are seeking evaluations from individuals who know the candidate primarily through their work and are not current close collaborators, where “closeness” is based on the nature of the relationship. (For example, if you and the candidate are listed as co-authors on a recent publication resulting from a large multi-site study in which you interacted infrequently with the candidate but had opportunity to observe their work, that co-authorship does not reflect a close collaboration that disqualifies your participation in our review process.)
     • If you are a close collaborator or otherwise have a conflict of interest that prevents an objective assessment of the candidate’s qualifications, please let us know.
  3. How would you assess the quality and importance of the candidate’s contributions in the field?​
  4. How does the candidate compare with others in the field who are roughly of the same seniority?​
  5. What do you assess to be the potential for achieving leadership in the candidate’s academic discipline?​
  6. Would the candidate be judged worthy to hold a similar appointment at your institution?​

Promotions to the rank of Associate Professor and Professor levels require external referees. 

• Because the goal is to obtain an objective assessment of your achievements, suggest referees who know you primarily through your work and are not current close collaborators, where “closeness” is based on the nature of the relationship. For example, if you and a referee are listed as co-authors on a recent publication resulting from a large multi-site study in which you interacted infrequently but the referee had opportunity to observe your work, that co-authorship does not reflect a close collaboration that disqualifies their participation in the review process.
• Be aware that referees are asked to explain how they know you and to recuse themselves if they are current close collaborators or otherwise have a conflict of interest that prevents an objective assessment of your qualifications.

Potential sources for external referees include (but are not limited to):

• Co-authors on multi-center publications who are not your close collaborators
• Colleagues on committees convened by professional organizations
• Individuals you may meet when invited to present talks at other institutions
• Editors, or editorial board members you may work with during manuscript submission​
• Co-investigators on multi-site clinical trials or studies who are not your close collaborators​
• Individuals you may meet when attending national or international scientific and clinical meetings​
• Individuals who follow your academic social media accounts
• Individuals suggested by departmental leadership (it is recommended that you review your referee list with your departmental leadership to obtain advice on the appropriateness of your suggested names)

When identifying external referees for promotion to the levels of Associate Professor or Professor, refrain from suggesting current close collaborators, individuals with whom you have current or ongoing mentoring relationships, or others with whom you have personal relationships that prevent an objective assessment of your credentials. The following list of individuals are not suitable referees:

• Current close collaborators
  • Closeness is not determined by role but by nature of the relationship: if you and a referee are listed as co-authors on a recent publication resulting from a large multi-site study in which you interacted infrequently but the referee had opportunity to observe your work, that co-authorship does not reflect a close collaboration that disqualifies their participation in the review process.
  • Be aware that referees are asked to explain how they know you and to recuse themselves if they are current close collaborators or otherwise have a conflict of interest that prevents an objective assessment of your qualifications.
• Current mentors (or former mentors with whom you continue to have a close personal or professional relationship)
• Current mentees (or former mentees with whom you continue to have a close personal or professional relationship)
• Fellow trainees at the institutions where you trained, if you have maintained close personal or professional relationships with them subsequently
• Faculty colleagues who recently departed your Northwestern department to take a position at another institution (i.e., individuals who know you primarily because they supervised your work or worked as your colleague at Northwestern aren't ideal external referees)
• If you were recently on the faculty at another institution prior to joining Northwestern, avoid listing your colleagues at that institution (i.e., individuals who know you primarily because they recently supervised your work or worked as your colleague at your prior institution aren't ideal external referees)

• Use social media to your advantage. Develop an academic social media presence and post accomplishments that reach your followers.
• Polish your public Feinberg Faculty Profile. External referees may find your profile when doing research to compose their evaluations. For guidance on how to update your profile, please refer to the Quick Reference on Feinberg Faculty Profiles.
• Raise your media profile to increase awareness of your work. View our News, Media, and Communications page for assistance.
• Recognize that the CV and personal statement you provide as part of your promotion packet will be shared with your referees, so make sure those items provide a comprehensive summary of your accomplishments that enables the referee to evaluate your work.