Skip to Main Content


FA Templates & Forms

This page is developed for internal faculty affairs use to make available templates that are often used.

Referee Letters

Selection, Solicitation, and Follow up Processes

  • Referee List Template
    • Description of candidate classifications and numbers of referees for specific tracks/ranks are listed on the Letter of Evaluation webpage.
    • Non-Arm’s-Length referee names require a brief description of the nature of the professional relationship that may affect the impartiality of review.
    • Appointments and promotions committees make conclusions about referee status based on several sources of data.
      • Referee List Template completed by candidate and department
      • Evaluator Relationship Form in which the referee categorizes their relationship to the candidate
      • Statements made by the referee in their letter of evaluation
      • Whenever there is discrepancy in these data sources, the department should ensure there is a sufficient number of other Arm’s-Length letters.
      • Whenever there is concern or lack of clarity about whether a referee is Arm’s-Length, the Department is encouraged to consult with OAPD before moving forward with their departmental review and vote. (Email: or Phone: 203-785-4670)
      • To minimize medical school review committee questions about the sufficiency of letters of evaluation, it is important for Departmental A&P Narratives submitted after successful reviews to include brief explanation for any referee who may be an exception to the traditional definitions. This would include those experts who do not hold an academic rank, whose professional relationship was ‘Distant-in-Time’ or ‘Limited-in-Scope,’ or are faculty from the same primary department.
    • For letters solicited by the Departments: departments should fill this out and maintain for tracking purposes until complete and sent to OAPD
    • For letters solicited by the Dean: department should fill this out and send it to OAPD who will manage it from there
    • Candidates for appointment or promotion to any advanced rank must not solicit letters of evaluation nor should they informally inquire about a potential referee’s availability, willingness, or follow-through in submitting an evaluation.
  • Interfolio
    • Once the Referee List Template is finalized and cross-checked with the CV Bibliography for Arm’s-Length referee confirmation, the department uploads this document to the candidate’s file on Interfolio.
    • Letters should be solicited through Interfolio.
    • If additional referees later need to be solicited, these names and information are added by the department and the revised template is uploaded.
  • Follow-up with referees
    • Tracking
      • Within the Referee List Template or in a separate document uploaded to Interfolio, the Department’s or Dean’s office faculty affairs staff track the date of solicitation and whether the referee agreed, declined, or did not respond to the invitation.
      • This file also includes dates of any follow-up reminder requests made through Interfolio or emails sent or received, including any explanation provided by the referee for declining to review the candidate.
      • Once the required number and type of letters of evaluation are received, the department may complete its formal review and vote.
    • Communication with Referees.
      • In addition to faculty affairs staff communicating with referees, the Department Chair, Vice Chair, Section Chief, or other designated senior faculty may follow-up after the initial solicitation about a referee’s ability to provide an evaluation. This communication should be limited to inquiring whether a letter of evaluation can be provided in a timely manner. Under no condition, should this communication imply advocacy for the candidate or that a particular type of evaluation is being sought.
      • Under no circumstance may the candidate communicate with a referee about the letter of evaluation process. If the candidate is contacted by the referee, they should communicate the strict school policy prohibiting communication about their promotion review and should not provide further information to the referee beyond what was included in the Interfolio case provided to the reviewer.