Packet Items

Appointment / Promotions

Note: Not all documents are required for all packets. This varies by faculty rank. 

Transmittal Letter

This is a letter from the department chair to the Medical School dean that accompanies candidate packets for appointments and promotions. This is usually 1 page and acts as a "cover letter" to the packet.


The transmittal letter introduces the candidate, requests the appointment, and states the proposed date of appointment.

To help prevent a delay in processing, the letter may also point out any unusual circumstances about the appointment — for example, the rationale for an accelerated tenure request or an explanation of an asymmetrical evaluation that is heavier on research than on teaching. 

The Provost is asking that additional information be added to the Chair’s transmittal letter to the Dean for appointments of tenured associate or full professors.  Each letter from the Chair must include a paragraph that describes the search process leading to the candidate’s selection (including nature of the search, e.g., open or targeted; composition of the pool; information about candidates at each stage of the search) and a separate paragraph justifying the recommendation for the appointment with tenure at the relevant rank.  


This letter endorses the faculty member for promotion and states the faculty member's proposed new rank.  

To help prevent a delay in processing, the letter may also point out any unusual circumstances about the promotion — for example, the rationale for an accelerated tenure request or an explanation of an asymmetrical evaluation that is heavier on research than on teaching. 

Scholarly Impact Statement

The Scholarly Impact Statement is required on all promotion transmittal letters.  2-3 sentences on what specific substantial impact the faculty member's research/scholarly work has had on theier field.  


  • Dr. Strange’s research utilizing complex signaling mechanisms and Total Internal Fluorescence Microscopy-based optical techniques have been truly transformational to his field.  His body of work has provided critical insights into the translation of basic science discoveries in signal transduction to novel therapeutic applications in pharmacology.
  • He has made a significant impact by advancing our understanding of the mechanisms of thoracic aortic aneurysms in bicuspid aortic valve patients utilizing induced pluripotent stem cells and tissue engineered vascular grafts.  
  • Dr. Strange’s work has a significant impact for long term outcomes for patients and is recognized nationally and internationally for the development of this technology with respect to patient care with the use of Raman Spectroscopy. 
  • She is an example of someone having a strong practical impact on a fundamental aspect of human health on a global scale and will be an increasingly important leader in our international effort.


The Dean's office would like to see the effort called out in the heading line of all Chair's transmittal letters for every appointment totaling 1.0 FTE.  Here are some examples:

  • Bruce Banner, M.D., Ph.D., Associate Professor, with tenure, Department of Neurosurgery (1.0 FTE), Research Associate Professor, Department of Pathology (0.0 FTE)
  • Minnie Mouse, M.D., Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical School (0.5 FTE), and Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health (0.5 FTE)
  • James Bond, Ph.D., Research Associate Professor, Department of Radiology, Medical School (0.5 FTE)
  • Willie Wonka, M.D., Ph.D., Professor, with tenure, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School, University of Michigan (0.8 FTE), Adjunct Professor, without tenure, Department of Internal Medicine, Oregon State University (0.2 FTE)


Form B

This document — also known as the Three-Page Summary of Appointment Recommendation — provides packet reviewers with a standard summary of a candidate's work. Form B is part of candidate packets for both appointments and promotions. This document will be uploaded into M-ACE for appointments, and MARTA for promotions.

Form B includes descriptions of these aspects of a candidate's work.  


Candidates' service contributions should be described in terms of quality and quantity. These activities may include administrative or committee work for departmental, school, University, or national organizations.

Professional Work in Patient Care

Candidates' clinical service, where applicable to their role, should be described in terms of quality and quantity. You may include discussions of the candidate's unique clinical expertise and their relationship to other clinical disciplines. 


Describe and evaluate the quality, originality, and significance of the candidate's research. Include a description of work in progress. Note publications as a practical way of documenting the nominee's contributions. Note service on study sections or membership on editorial boards. Remark on ability to compete successfully for external research funding.


Instructional Track: Discuss subjects taught, rather than course titles. If the candidate shared teaching responsibility for courses, describe his or her role in the work. List the number of hours of teaching activity per year. Describe which groups the candidate has taught, such as medical students, house officers, fellows, students in other units of the University, etc. If the candidate has offered guidance to graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, list that as well, especially if the candidate served as chair of a doctoral committee.  Indicate the number of mentees and their ranks, i.e. seven undergraduate students, five PhD students.

When describing the quality of a candidate's teaching, discuss performance, originality, and significance. Document activities with peer evaluations, student evaluations, awards, and/or invitations to teach at other institutions. Documentation of quality is essential, and should mention the standards of the institution where the teaching was done.

Document leadership and creativity in teaching, such as coordinating the teaching of others; work on curriculum development; innovations in teaching techniques or materials, such as peer-reviewed publications, books, chapters, or multimedia materials.

Recent and Significant Publications

Instructional: Include the five most significant publications of the candidate since their appointment or last promotion. If the candidate is not the first or the senior author, briefly explain his or her role.

Evaluators' Comments

Summarize the comments of all peer reviewers. To maintain the confidentiality of peer reviewers, use designations such as "Reviewer A," "Reviewer B," etc.

In choosing quotes from letters, look for sections that will be clear to readers who aren't specialists in the field. Comparisons with other scholars in the field and estimated rankings, nationally and internationally, are especially helpful. Avoid references to the age of the candidate.

Career Development Plan

This plan is required for:

  • Assistant Professor

Include an explicit statement on a plan for career development for the candidate. This could include mentorship pairings, academic support such as protected time, needs for space and funding, research plans, travel, and other career development.



Incoming faculty are required to submit their CV in the format listed within the Med School CV guidelines.  Faculty already at U-M must use the M-CV application to input information and generate a formatted vita for appointments and promotions.  

Educator's Portfolio

The Educator's Portfolio provides documentation of teaching and teaching effectiveness for appointment and promotion. Each faculty member's portfolio will be different, depending on their work and its context. Faculty in academia are expected to act as mentors and effective mentorship is rewarded as part of the promotion process.  This is documented in the educator’s portfolio using evidence of mentored scientist/scholars as co-authors on projects such as posters, manuscripts and grants, letters from program leaders and mentees, teaching awards, etc. Each faculty member's portfolio will be different, depending on their work and its context. 

Guidelines are recommendations, not rigid requirements.

Portfolio Narrative

If you're seeking promotion, state whether the evaluating committee should assess your teaching as a central or secondary component of your responsibilities. Indicate the proportion of your FTE devoted to teaching and other education.

Section 1

Summarize teaching activities and approximate time commitment. Emphasize your activities since appointment to UMMS faculty or your last promotion. Consider separate learner categories if you teach at multiple levels, such as medical students, graduate students, allied health students, residents/fellows, continuing medical education.

Section 2

List your most important teaching contributions, identified under such headings as:

  • Curriculum Design and Development (e.g., new course or revision, course integration).
  • Teaching Responsibilities.
  • Instructional Materials (e.g., syllabi, web-based materials).
  • Educational Administration or Service (e.g., course, sequence or clerkship director; residency program director; advising; curriculum committee membership).
  • Educational Scholarship (e.g., presentations or published manuscripts related to education; creative products of educational activity that have been reviewed for quality by peers and made available for others).
  • Professional Development in Education (e.g., participation in workshops; fellowship; specific efforts to advance skills in teaching).

The evidence of quality and the impact of your contributions — as displayed through evidence of learning, program improvement, skills development, etc. — is more important than the number of contributions you list.

For each contribution:

  • Briefly describe your role.
  • Provide evidence of the quality or the impact of your activity. This can include: evaluations by students, peers, and course directors; adoption of your work by other schools; teaching awards; or presentations of your work at meetings.


Teaching Evaluations

Teaching Evaluations require a Cover Sheet.  For each group of learners you taught and described in your portfolio narrative, include a summary of that student group's evaluations. Summaries should include both written comments, if they're available, and any numerical scale rating of the teaching activity.  The summary of teaching evaluations used in an Educator's Portfolio must have been submitted since the faculty member's previous promotion or appointment.

Summary should include

  • Type of learner taught (e.g. undergraduates, graduates, medical students, house officers, fellows, continuing medical education learners, etc.).
  • Number of learners in the course or activity.
  • Years that the learner evaluations were completed. Do not send evaluations used in a previous packet for appointment or promotion. These should be new evaluations.

Examples of items that you may include for the evaluation summary

  • Summary of undergraduate or graduate evaluations of a lecture course.
  • Summary sheets of labs or courses taught to medical students.
  • Summary sheets and numeric ratings from house officers, available from MedHub.
  • Summary evaluations of CME lecturers — but only include if this is the main part of your teaching.
  • Individual student feedback — but only include if this is related to a major mentoring activity.

Checklist Summary Cover Form

Bibliographic Notes

Bibliographic Notes are required for the appointments and promotions packets. These notes provide context to the Recent and Significant Publications that are also part of the packet. Publications submitted for promotions must have been published since the faculty member's previous promotion or appointment.

Each note should be numbered according to the number of the publication as it's listed in the faculty member's CV. The notes below are from 5 real publications that show the diversity and the value of writing Bibliographic Notes.

Sample Notes

18. Wang SC, McGuire EJ, Bloom DA: A bladder pressure management system for myelodysplasia – clinical outcome. Journal of Urology 140:1499-1502, 1988. 

This paper articulates a new paradigm for managing children with spina bifida using clean intermittent catheterization and anticholinergics with surveillance based on the leak point pressure concept. These methods were pioneered here in Ann Arbor and this paper illustrates the best outcomes reported in terms of preservation of upper urinary tract structure and function.

Note: Typical “senior author” paper

22. Zoubek J, Bloom DA, Sedman AB: Extraordinary urinary frequency. Pediatrics 85(6):1112-1114, 1990.

This paper was the largest report of an experience of a common but generally misunderstood and over-investigated pediatric difficulty which we named, “Extraordinary urinary frequency.” Jerri Zoubek was the resident who collected the data. The idea for the paper, the writing of the paper, and the patient base were all my contribution. Aileen Sedman was my pediatric nephrology colleague who helped with the manuscript and design of our study. As a result of this paper, this terminology is generally used for this problem and the management follows the guidelines herein reported.

Note: Mid-author rank for senior author who wrote the paper

23. Bloom DA, Knechtel JM, McGuire EJ: Urethral dilation improves bladder compliance in children with myelomeningocele and high pressure bladders. Journal of Urology 144:430-433, 1990.

This paper showed that lessening of outlet resistance in children with spina bifida provides a durable improvement in bladder compliance. This data had a somewhat serendipitous origin. We had shown that urethral dilation lowers leak point pressure in children with myelomeningocele (paper #21) and a few years later we decided, for the fun of it, to see how the calculated initial detrusor compliance changed immediately and late after the dilation. The outlet resistance and long term detrusor characteristics were discovered to be linked inextricably. This data leaves one to speculate that the end stage bladder of myelodysplasia may be a pathophysiologic situation similar to that seen in posterior urethral valves and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Citation survey: cited references 16, times cited 27.

Note: First authorship with citation survey

27. Bloom DA: Two-step orchiopexy with pelviscopic clip litigation of the spermatic vessels. Journal of Urology 145:1030-1033, 1991.

This was the first use of laparoscopy in the urological arena for a therapeutic procedure.

Note: Single authorship with a new operative procedure

116. Baru JS, Bloom DA, Muraszko K, Koop CE: John Holter’s Shunt. The Journal of American College of Surgeons 192:79-85, 2001.

The Holter Shunt is a cardinal tool for management of children with spina bifida. John Holter, an industrial technician, innovated the shunt for use in his own child in the 1950’s. The first author of our paper, Josh Baru, was an undergraduate student we sent to interview John Holter in Pennsylvania and collect materials for this work. The idea for the paper was mine and I shared the design and writing of the paper with Josh. Karin Muraszko is our pediatric neurosurgeon who provided critical background necessary for this paper. C. Everett Koop had been Chief of Staff at the hospital in which the shunt was first used and helped us not only with some factual information and insights but also with the final proofreading of the manuscript.

Note: Second position authorship for primary author and mentor for the work


Recent and Significant Publications

These publications are selected by the faculty candidate. They should represent the faculty member's best work, and have been produced since the last promotion or new appointment. These papers are described in the Bibliographic Notes and listed in Form B.

Acceptable scholarship:

  • Peer-reviewed publications

Submit 1 copy of each publication (reprint) as part of the packet.

Depending on the faculty member's rank, 1 to 5 publications will be required. Go to Appointment / Promotion Packet requirements by rank for details →

Talking Points *promotions only

This document is a 1-2 page commentary by faculty members as part of the promotions process.  Overlap between the Talking Points document and other documents is allowed.

This narrative acts as a self-assessment that may help a chair understand the candidate and that candidate’s self-image. The purpose of the Talking Points is to help the chair in writing the Form B. The committees that review the packet also find the Talking Points to be a helpful document in understanding the candidate’s work. A copy of the Talking Points must be submitted with the promotion package.

Items to Include

  • The faculty member's scholarly niche and type of scholarship
  • Professional expertise
  • Contributions to the field
  • Special skills
  • Instructional contributions
  • National leadership
  • Etc.


Research Portfolio *promotions only

The Research Portfolio provides an opportunity for faculty candidates to detail their research contributions at U-M. This document is included in packets for appointments and promotions.  This document is especially important to faculty in team or “big” science efforts, where there are multiple contributors across many disciplines — rather than a single PI.

Documenting Team Science

Team scientists may also ask fellow team members to provide letters that attest to their contributions to the project. These letters do not replace the requirement for evaluation letters (Arm’s Length or Non-Arm’s Length), but they do provide critical information in evaluating scientific accomplishments.

Team science reference letters are solicited outside any appointments- or promotions-processing application. Once received, they should be included with the Research Portfolio and uploaded as one PDF document in the application.


Innovation Portfolio *optional **promotion only

To recognize innovation, discovery and entrepreneurship in the promotion process. Impact will be included as a part of the promotion materials.  Committees would evaluate the candidate’s contributions to technology transfer and entrepreneurship, if applicable.Outside reviewers could be asked to evaluate the candidate’s broader impact in entrepreneurship or business through start-up, consulting, technology transfer or other relevant  activities.