Renewal of Award

Renewals are contingent upon an internal university review of the Chair-holder’s first five or seven-year term in the Chair to determine if continued institutional support should be provided for an individual researcher to renew his or her research Chair. The criteria for renewal are similar to those applied for renewal of the CRC programs for the Tier I (James McGill Professor Award) and Tier II (William Dawson Scholar Award) (see guidelines CRC Renewal Guidelines).

There is, in the review of the James McGill Professor/William Dawson Scholar Awards, a presumption of renewal, in the sense that the question one is asking oneself is not whether the candidate is the best amongst all possible ones, but whether he or she has maintained the standards and achieved the expectations that gave rise to the award in the first place. Given the number of these Chairs, this amounts to a certain degree, to asking whether the candidate ranks among the top 20% of our Faculty.

The Internal Review Procedure for Renewal

The internal review will be carried out by members of the full-time tenured academic community serving on a standing review committee with selected NSERC, CIHR or SSHRC-disciplinary expertise. Committee members will review documents received from the Faculty recommending renewal of the James McGill Professor/William Dawson Scholar Awards. Faculties have discretion over procedures used; however, two recommendations and reports are required:
(a) Departmental report and recommendation
(b) Faculty report and recommendation

The Standing Internal Review Committee makes a recommendation to the Provost who adjudicates other support and the terms for renewal or not of the Award. The Provost’s office informs the Faculty and the candidate of the decision and of the terms for renewal.

It is understood that this review process for the renewal of a William Dawson Scholars/James McGill Professors is different and distinct from the existing promotion and tenure review procedure.

The Standing Internal Review Committee

The candidate’s file will be reviewed by the committee matched to the content expertise of the candidate. If the number of candidates being reviewed is too small to warrant separate discipline-related committees, a trans-disciplinary committee will be struck to ensure expert representation from the various disciplinary areas.

Composition of the University Review Committee

The Committee consists of Associate-Provost (Planning and Budgets), the VP Research and International Relations (VP-RIR) or a delegate and five tenured members of the University chosen jointly by the Associate-Provost and the VP (RIR) or delegate, in consultation with Deans, so as to ensure appropriate representation of faculties and disciplines (NSERC, CIHR, SSHRC). Each Dean will be asked to provide, by June 15th of each academic year, a list of 6 tenured academic staff members that could be called upon to serve on one of the disciplinary committees. Additional members will be identified to serve as replacements for primary assigned members. Members will be assigned staggered terms of two years each starting September 1st.

Documents to be Submitted on Behalf of the Candidates

At all levels of evaluation, the complete file should include:

• For new nominations:
  1. An updated curriculum vitae of the candidate specifically showing current peer reviewed funding and an updated list of publications.
  2. A project title and half- to full-page summary of what the research funding will be used for.
  3. The Dean's request/recommendations.
• For rewnewals:
  1. An updated curriculum vitae of the candidate specifically showing current peer reviewed funding and an updated list of publications.
  2. The performance report prepared by the candidate according to CRC guidelines.
  3. A 3-5 page research summary, including a project title
  4. The Department recommendation report
  5. The Faculty recommendation report