CHA's BEST PRACTICES FOR REVIEWING APPLICATIONS
We are sharing these guidelines to ensure transparency and integrity in our selection processes. Our reviewers are members of the CHA faculty steering committee, they are guided by principles of equity, inclusivity, and objectivity.
Applications will be read and reviewed in an objective and unbiased manner.
The strength of the proposal will be the main criterion for ranking all applications under review; letters, c.v., and other materials will be taken into consideration as secondary or tertiary to the proposal.
Reviewers will recuse themselves from reading and ranking applications if there is a conflict of interest, which is defined as anyone who has a legal relationship to the applicant (partner, parent) and/or the applicant is from their home department. The one exception is during the review of CHA’s Faculty Fellowships: reviewers will refrain from reading/ranking applicants in their department but discussion of final candidates is allowed after the initial review takes place.
The contents of applications and the discussion of applications in all review committees are confidential -- information about applicants or the discussion of the applications may not be shared with others outside the review panel.
Reviewers will adhere to timelines for reading applications out of respect to their fellow committee members as well as the applicants. Whenever possible, applications will be read and rankings made two weeks (and no later than three weeks) after the advertised application deadline; however, given the length of the faculty fellowship proposal, exceptions can be made and a separate timeline and process developed when circumstances warrant.