These are interim guidelines. These guidelines are to be used in addition to the policies, procedures, and exhibits provided in the Academic Personnel Manual (APM) and APM-UCD.

Principles for Advancement

All Project Scientists are eligible for advancement review at normative time for their rank and step determined by system-wide policy. In formulating criteria for recommending greater than 1.0-step advancements, a balance has been sought between concreteness and flexibility. The criteria for advancement are clarified without specific quantitative assessments that understate or overstate the total contributions of candidates. The two areas of review are scholarly and creative activity, and professional competency. University and public service is encouraged, but not a specific requirement. In all cases, based on the candidate’s achievements, chairs and deans should articulate in the department and dean’s letters the grounds for advancement beyond simple numerical tabulations by describing the special impact or quality of the work or the scale and scope of the undertaking.

One-Step Advancement

A balanced record, appropriate for rank and step as stated in the APM, with evidence of a meritorious record of accomplishments in all areas of review is rewarded with a 1.0-step advancement.

One and a Half-Step Advancement

A 1.5-step advancement requires a meritorious record in all general areas of review, consistent with the candidate’s position description, with outstanding achievement in at least one area of review. Outstanding achievement in one area does not qualify the candidate for 1.5-step advancement if balanced performance is not achieved.

Two-Step Advancement

A 2.0-step advancement will require outstanding achievement in all areas of review.

Advancement greater than Two Steps

An advancement greater than 2.0 steps will be extremely rare. These advancements will require truly outstanding levels of achievement in all areas of review.