RSAC Handbook

Final (Mar 9, 2023)
Faculty Affairs OfficeThis Handbook is designed to be read by candidates for appointment change and/or review, theirsupervisors (faculty members), and RSAC members.
Details of membership, responsibilities, and operation of RSAC are described in the RSAC
Terms of Reference.
The Research Staff Appointment Committee (RSAC) has a responsibility to review and decideupon:
1. Continuing appointments
2. Performance review for research staff with continuing appointments
3. Appointment changes from Postdoctoral Scholar to Staff Scientist
4. Appointment changes from Staff Scientist to Senior Staff Scientist
5. Research staff-related tasks other than those above upon DFA’s request (See“Responsibilities” in RSAC Terms of Reference)

1. Continuing Appointments
1.1 Overview
The Continuing Appointment at OISTThe Continuing Appointment is a rarely applied mechanism for maintaining critical researchfunctions at OIST. Some research units may need long-term staff to maintain continuity of
specialized expertise, and the Continuing Appointment provides a mechanism to retain essential
personnel beyond 10 years of employment. However, universities thrive on new people andideas. An accumulation of permanent staff, many of whom may stay after their original host unit
has closed, could lead to scientific stagnation. Moreover, as research groups leave OIST andothers are established over time, it is paramount that incoming faculty have flexibility to choose
their own scientific directions and personnel. Thus, it is essential that Continuing Appointments
remain a reasonably small group of staff at OIST. Most research unit staff should plan to moveon from OIST before ten years of employment, and supervisors should have yearly discussions
with their employees about their future so there is a common understanding. Moreover, faculty
have responsibility to develop the careers of their staff, so they are competitive for jobs outsideof OIST.
Fixed-Term Appointment
Fixed-term research staff have a short-term contract with a specific end date, subject to normal
conditions for renewal. As a rule, research staff should not be awarded a fixed-term contract thatbrings them past the 10-year employment mark unless they have passed a Continuing
Appointment Review. Postdoctoral scholars are fixed-term appointment only.
Continuing Appointment
Continuing appointments are non-fixed term contracts which continue until retirement age, apartfrom the termination clause in the contract. Continuing appointment can be requested by theemployee after 10 years of continuous employment or, under certain conditions (see below),
immediately after passing the Continuing Appointment Review (CAR).

1RSAC Handbook

Final (Mar 9, 2023)
Faculty Affairs Office

For continuing appointment of STA (Science and Technology Associate), please see the STA
Review Handbook in PRP 4.6 [Link].
The Continuing Appointment Review (CAR)
The Continuing Appointment Review is performed by the Research Staff Appointment
Committee (RSAC). The CAR must be passed before researchers can receive a continuing(nonfixed term) contract or receive a fixed-term contract that will cross the boundary of 10 years
total employment at OIST.
Normally, the CAR should be initiated early in the 8th year of employment and be completed
within that year (8th year CAR). Thus, there is one year to complete the review, and thepossibility of two subsequent years of fixed-term employment before reaching the ten-yearboundary. This allows for the employee to adjust their career plans with plenty of advanceacknowledgement that their employment at OIST will end before 10 years.
In principle, the CAR can be applied for earlier than the 8th year (early CAR). However, early
CAR should only be considered in extraordinary cases where there is a specific, well-justified
reason requiring urgency, in addition to the candidate meeting a higher standard of excellence
than is applied in the normal 8th year review.
8th-year CAR
If the 8th-year CAR is successful, the candidate can receive a fixed-term contract that takes thembeyond ten years employment, after which time they can request conversion to a non-fixed term
contract without an additional review process, consistent with Japanese law.
If the 8th-year CAR is unsuccessful, the employee can continue as a fixed term employee subject
to normal conditions for contract renewal, however they should not be given a contract thatwould allow them to continue past the 10-year boundary.
Early CAR
In extraordinary cases, an early CAR can be requested before the 8th year of employment. Upon
successful early CAR, the employee can request their next contract to be a continuing (non-fixedterm) contract. The employee can also choose to remain as a fixed-term employee and convert at
a later time.
If an early CAR is unsuccessful, the faculty can propose the employee as a candidate again in the
8th year (8th year CAR). However, a second early CAR is not possible without special
permission from the Dean of Faculty Affairs.
Counting years of employment for CAR eligibility
Counting starts with the first contract at OIST after April 1, 2013. A 6-month interruption of thecontract at OIST resets the clock. Prestigious fellowships, like the JSPS or Marie Curie
Fellowships, with OIST as the host institution can be counted as years of employment at OISTwith the condition that they have employment relationship with OIST to start with (for example,
OISTàJSPSàOIST). However, they also can be considered employment interruptions that resetthe 10-year clock if the employee prefers.
In case of continuing employee separation from unit
As a principle, the continuing employee counts against the proposing unit’s PEREX head countuntil either the closure of the unit, unless the employee gets a position in another unit at OIST2RSAC Handbook

Final (Mar 9, 2023)
Faculty Affairs Office(using the new unit’s PEREX), or the employee leaves OIST. The RSAC should consider thecircumstances of every case and act prudently in applying these policies.
In case of unit closureOver time units may close due to retirement and other reasons, and continuing employees will
potentially stay on after unit closure. It is in the interest of both OIST and the employee that theirskills and talents are best utilized, thus efforts should be made to find a suitable placement thatmaximizes their potential. However, OIST cannot guarantee continuation of the original research
activity or functional role and may not be able to maintain employment if there are no positions
available. In case the continuing employee is not offered or does not accept a position in anotherresearch unit or another division in the University, the employment may end at the time of unit
closure.
1.2 Review Procedures
General goal of the review
Awarding of a continuing appointment represents a significant, long-term commitment on theside of both the research unit and OIST in general, thus the review should be both informed andrigorous. The CAR evaluates whether an employee is likely to provide essential contribution totheir research unit’s scientific activities in the long-term, and holds skills and experience that are
difficult to replace through recruitment. Furthermore, the RSAC evaluates whether they arelikely to continue to contribute to OIST’s scientific mission in the long term, even in the case ofunit closure. The latter requires assessment of the transferability of skills and flexibility of theapplicant.
Procedures:(1) Requests to grant a member of the research staff a continuing appointment should comefrom the head of a research unit or, exceptionally, from the President or Dean of Faculty
Affairs (the “Proponent”). Such requests are made only for the research staff who are
considered high-performing and with high potential to maintain this performance in the
future. The request should be sent to the Academic HR Section at the Faculty Affairs Office(FAO).
(2) The candidate’s dossier is completed and delivered to the Academic HR Section at the FAO
and to the RSAC committee members.
(3) At an RSAC meeting, the RSAC reviews the dossier, interviews the supervisor, anddiscusses the request.
(4) The final decision is made during the RSAC meeting, and the appointment outcome isannounced to the candidate and supervisor.
1.3 Staff Scientist and Senior Staff Scientist
1.3.1 Submission of dossier(1) An up-to-date CV of the candidate, including a complete list of publications, patents,
invited talks and conference presentations, seminars, peer review activities, conference
and workshop organization, assistance with supervision, and service to the University,and demonstrating scientific or technical skills that meet the factors in dossier evaluation
below;(2) A letter from the candidate outlining their qualifications for a continuing appointment,
their role in their current unit, and their desire to remain in their proposing unit and at
OIST for the long term. Given the possibility of eventual unit closure, the candidate

3

RSAC Handbook

Final (Mar 9, 2023)
Faculty Affairs Officeshould make a case that they have transferable skills and explain the kind of research
units or other positions where they would be able to contribute. Finally, they should
accept the conditions that accompany continuing status, including acknowledging that
OIST may not be able to provide employment doing similar research in the long-term,
and that they may need to assume a very different position to maintain employment if
they wish to stay at OIST.
(3) A letter from the Proponent setting out clearly the grounds for making the proposal,
addressing the factors in the dossier evaluation below. Faculty should acknowledge intheir letter the commitment to allocate a unit PEREX to the candidate until his/her
resignation from OIST, retirement at OIST, or hiring in another research unit.
1.3.2 Factors in the dossier evaluation(1) The candidate possesses or has developed special expertise, skill, or set of skills that are
essential to the proponent’s research program or, more broadly, to the research program at
OIST, and that it would not be optimal to replace this skill or expertise throughrecruitment, or to train someone to acquire the skill or expertise without impacting
severely upon the research program.
(2) This skill will be required by the unit’s research program for the long-term.
(3) The candidate’s performance is excellent in terms of scientific or technical productivity
as it relates to her/his special expertise/skills. In making this assessment, the RSAC
should consider any factors that may have temporarily affected performance or
productivity, including childrearing, health challenges, or other factors. The candidate
must also demonstrate a commitment to continuous professional development.
(4) The candidate must have high potential to continue to contribute to OIST’s mission evenin the case of unit closure.
(5) The support letter and in-person comments of the proposing faculty are the mostimportant source for evaluating the above criteria.
(6) The RSAC will generally not grant a continuing appointment in research units led bynontenured faculty members. However, exceptions are given when the employee has
successful employment history as a researcher in other units at OIST before joining thecurrent unit.
(7) The RSAC will also take into consideration the time remaining for the unit to close, suchas time to retirement of the faculty, in relation to the time to retirement of the candidate.
(8) The RSAC will also consider the number of existing continuing employees in the unit.
1.4 Technicians
1.4.1 Submission of dossier(1) An up-to-date CV of the candidate, including service to the University and demonstrating
technical skills that meet the factors in the dossier evaluation below;(2) A letter from the candidate outlining their qualifications for a continuing appointment,
their role in their current unit, and their desire to remain in their proposing unit and at
OIST for the long term. Given the possibility of eventual unit closure, the candidate
should make a case that they have transferable skills and explain the kind of research
units or other positions where they would be able to contribute. Finally, they should
accept the conditions that accompany continuing status, including acknowledging that
OIST may not be able to provide employment doing similar research in the long-term,
and that they may need to assume a very different position to maintain employment if
they wish to stay at OIST.

4RSAC Handbook

Final (Mar 9, 2023)
Faculty Affairs Office(3) A letter from the Proponent setting out clearly the grounds for making the proposal,
addressing the factors in the dossier evaluation below. Faculty should acknowledge intheir letter the commitment to allocate a unit PEREX to the candidate until his/her
resignation from OIST, retirement at OIST, or transfer to another research unit.
(4) Records of annual evaluation by the current and previous Unit Head(s). They areprovided by the Academic HR Section at the FAO.
1.4.2 Factors in the dossier evaluation(1) The candidate possesses or has developed special expertise, skill, or set of skills that are
essential to the proponent’s research program or, more broadly, to the research program at
OIST, and that it would not be optimal to replace this skill or expertise throughrecruitment, or to train someone to acquire the skill or expertise without impacting
severely upon the research program.
(2) This skill will be required by the unit’s research program in the long-term.
(3) The candidate’s performance is excellent in terms of technical ability as it relates toher/his special expertise/skills. In making this assessment, the RSAC should consider any
factors that may have temporarily affected performance or productivity, includingchildrearing, health challenges, or other factors. The candidate must also demonstrate acommitment to continuous professional development.
(4) The candidate must have high potential to continue to contribute to OIST’s mission evenin the case of unit closure.
(5) The support letter and in-person comments of the proposing faculty are the mostimportant source for evaluating the above criteria.
(6) The RSAC will generally not grant a continuing appointment in research units led bynontenured faculty members. However, exceptions are given when the employee has
successful employment history as a technician in other units at OIST before joining thecurrent unit.
(7) The RSAC will also take into consideration the time remaining for the unit to close, suchas time to retirement of the faculty, in relation to the time to retirement of the candidate.
(8) The RSAC will also consider the number of existing continuing employees in the unit.
(9) Given the above, it is unlikely that staff in the junior (level I) grades will qualify forcontinuing appointments.

2. Performance review of research staff with continuing appointments
The RSAC will also review the regular performance of research staff with a continuing
appointment. The performance review will typically be done every five years, usually along with
the Unit external review.
2.1 Staff Scientist and Senior Staff Scientist
2.1.1 Submission of dossier
The Proponent (Unit head) should prepare a dossier that should include:(1) As provided by the candidate, their up-to-date CV, including a complete list of
publications, patents, invited talks and conference presentations, seminars, peer review
activities, conference and workshop organization, assistance with supervision, andservice to the University (or, if a new hire, to their previous place of work), anddemonstrating scientific or technical skills that meet the factors in dossier evaluation
below;

5

RSAC Handbook

Final (Mar 9, 2023)
Faculty Affairs Office(2) A letter from the candidate containing a self-appraisal of the achievements since theappointment or the previous review. As appropriate, a research plan for the following five
years;(3) A letter from the Proponent (Unit head) detailing the contribution of the member of theresearch staff to the work of the Unit;
2.1.2 Factors in dossier evaluation(1) The quality of the work in the period under review (including publications,collaborations, awards, lectures and conference presentations, and work for thecommunity both in OIST [or at the previous employee(s), if a new hire] andinternationally) which will be classed as excellent, good, satisfactory or poor;(2) If a research plan(s) is appropriate, the quality of the research plan(s) will be classed as
excellent, good, satisfactory, or poor.
2.2 Technicians
2.2.1 Submission of dossier
The Proponent should prepare a dossier that should include:(1) As provided by the candidate, their up-to-date CV, including service to the University (or,if a new hire, to their previous place of work), and demonstrating technical skills thatmeet the factors in the dossier evaluation below;(2) A letter from the candidate containing a self-appraisal of the achievements since theappointment or the previous review.
(3) A letter from the Proponent detailing the contribution of the member of the technical staff
to the work of the Unit;
2.2.2 Factor in dossier evaluation
The quality of the work in the period under review in OIST [or at the previous employee(s), if a
new hire] which will be classed as excellent, good, satisfactory, or poor;
2.3 STA (Science and Technology Associate)
For details of STA (Science and Technology Associate)’s performance review, please see the STA
Review Handbook in PRP 4.6 [Link].

3. Appointment change from Postdoctoral Scholar to Staff Scientist
3.1 General conditions
Exceptional Postdoctoral Scholars may be appointed to a Staff Scientist position as describedin the PRP 4.2 section on Research Appointments.
In addition,(1) a qualified candidate should possess or should have developed special expertise, skill, or
set of skills that are essential to the proponent’s research program at OIST,(2) a qualified candidate should have the ambition and ability to become an independent
researcher with his/her own research program, and

6

RSAC Handbook

Final (Mar 9, 2023)
Faculty Affairs Office(3) it would not be optimal to replace this skill or expertise through recruitment or to train
someone to acquire the skill or expertise without impacting severely upon the research
program. This ability will be required by the research program for at least the next 3 years.
3.2 Procedure
The procedure is as follows:(1) Proposals to grant a Staff Scientist appointment should come from the Unit Head. The
request should be sent to the Academic HR Section at the Faculty Affair Office (FAO).
(2) The candidate’s dossier is completed and delivered to the Academic HR Section at the
FAO and to the RSAC committee members.
(3) At an RSAC meeting, the RSAC reviews the dossier, interviews the supervisor, anddiscusses the change of appointment.
The final decision is made during the RSAC meeting, and the appointment outcome isannounced to the candidate and supervisor from the FAO.
3.3 Eligibility criteria for an appointment change(1) The candidate’s performance is excellent in terms of scientific or technical productivity as
it relates to her/his special expertise/skills;(2) The candidate should clearly demonstrate a commitment to pursuing an independent
academic career and demonstrate high potential to obtain a faculty position within 3 years
after the appointment as a Staff Scientist; and,
(3) The supervisor should verify the commitment of the candidate as specified in point 2
above.
These criteria should be considered independent of the source of funding for the postdoctoral
scholar. Details of the required performance and professional development commitment are
outlined in the following Sections:3.4. Submission of the dossier
After the contract discussion with the supervisor, which should be at least 6 months prior to theend of the current appointment, the supervisor should submit a dossier at least 5 months prior to
the termination date.
The dossier should contain:(1) An up-to-date CV provided by the candidate, including a complete list of publications,patents, independent external funding, invited talks and international conference
presentations, seminars, peer review activities, conference and workshop organization,
assistance with supervision, and service to O I S T (or, if a new hire, to their previous placeof work), and demonstrating scientific or technical skills that meet the factors in dossier
evaluation below.
(2) A letter from the candidate containing a self-appraisal of the achievements since theappointment or the previous review.
(3) A 3-year research plan.
(4) A letter from the supervisor detailing the contribution of the candidate to the work of theUnit.
3.5 Factors in dossier evaluation(1) The quality of the work in the period under review (including publications,collaborations, awards, lectures and conference presentations, and work for the

7

RSAC Handbook

Final (Mar 9, 2023)
Faculty Affairs Officecommunity both in OIST [or at the previous employer(s)] and internationally) will be
evaluated. Interactions with other scientists, other achievements, and evidence of being
up-to-date scientifically and/or technically will be considered;(2) The strength and feasibility of a research plan (for example, as outlined in an IDP) will
also be considered.
(3) Strong evidence of high academic potential to obtain a faculty position after contract
fulfillment will be a factor. The evidence might additionally include successful externalfunding, collaboration, teaching and mentoring experience, institutional service, andpublic outreach.

4. Appointment change from Staff Scientist to Senior Staff Scientist
4.1 General conditions
In exceptional cases, Staff Scientists with fixed-term or continuing appointments may berecommended for a Senior Staff Scientist appointment. Senior Staff Scientist appointments are
based on an employment contract that can be renewed without changes in terms and conditions
for the same term period repeatedly until the retirement age unless either party raises the issue oftermination of the employment contract at least one month before the end of the contract term
period. The RSAC reviews Senior Staff Scientists with continuing appointments at least every
five years, comments upon the achievements and future plans, and makes determinations
regarding salary and promotion.
4.2 Procedure
The procedure is as follows:(1) Proposals to grant a Senior Staff Scientist appointment should come from the head of a
research unit (the “Proponent”). The request should be sent to the Academic HR Section
at the FAO.
(2) The candidate’s dossier is completed and delivered to the Academic HR Section at the
FAO and to the RSAC members.
(3) At the RSAC meeting, the RSAC reviews the dossier, interviews the candidate and the
Proponent, and discusses the change of appointment.
(4) The final decision is made during the RSAC meeting, and the appointment outcome isannounced to the candidate and supervisor from the FAO.
4.3 Eligibility criteria for an appointment change(1) The candidate possesses or has developed special expertise, skill, or set of skills that are
essential to the proponent’s research program and, more broadly, to the research programat OIST, and it would not be optimal to replace this skill or expertise through recruitment
or to train someone to acquire the skill or expertise without impacting severely upon the
research program. This ability will be required by the research program for at least thenext five years and is likely to be required in the future.
(2) The candidate’s performance is excellent in terms of scientific or technical productivity
as it relates to her/his special expertise/skills.
4.4 Submission of the dossier
After the contract discussion with the supervisor, which should be 6 months prior to the end of
the current appointment, the supervisor should submit a dossier at least 5 months prior to thetermination date. The dossier should contain:

8

RSAC Handbook

Final (Mar 9, 2023)
Faculty Affairs Office(1) An up-to-date CV provided by the candidate, including a complete list of publications,patents, external grants received, invited talks and conference presentations, seminars,
peer review activities, conference and workshop organization, assistance withsupervision, and service to OIST, and demonstrating scientific or technical skills thatmeet the factors in dossier evaluation in below.
(2) A letter from the Proponent setting out clearly the grounds for making the proposal. The
letter should also detail the contribution of the candidate to the work of the unit.
(3) A letter from the candidate containing a self-appraisal of the achievements since
appointment or the previous 5-year-review. The letter should also state their willingness
to accept the appointment in their Unit and to accept the conditions that accompany thatstatus, to be reassigned to work in another research unit, should their present unit close.
(4) A 5-year research plan.
4.5 Factors in dossier evaluation(1) The quality of the work in the period under review (including publications,collaborations, awards, lectures and conference presentations, and work for thecommunity both in OIST [or at the previous employee(s)] and internationally) will beconsidered. Interactions with other scientists, other achievements, and evidence of being
up-to-date scientifically and/or technically will be evaluated.
(2) The strength and feasibility of a research plan will be evaluated.
(3) Strong evidence of high academic stature and an assessment of the candidate’s interview
will be evaluated.
(4) Evaluation of special expertise, skill, or set of skills. Only expertise that is broadly
applicable and essential to the research program at OIST will be considered.
A panel of technical experts and/or faculty might be formed to evaluate these factors in dossier
evaluation as necessary.

9