Talk:James Sherley

message: Sir
Although tenure evaluations are not primarily accountings of publications, you reported in your News story 'Researcher refuses to back down over race case' (Nature 447, 762–763; doi:10.1038/447762a 2007) that I published six peer-reviewed research papers during the years before the decision taken by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) about my tenure.
My years as a principal investigator before MIT's decision include research at the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia. MIT's tenure decision should have been based on my comprehensive work as a principal investigator, not limited only to time at MIT. The MIT faculty personnel record submitted for my tenure evaluation listed 41 scholarly articles published, in press, or accepted for publication, including 11 peer-reviewed primary-research articles, two peer-reviewed review articles, five peer-reviewed proceedings papers and four book chapters (two peer-reviewed). Not included in this total are four research manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed journals and 10 published patent applications.
Your comparison of my tenure application with those of two other faculty awarded tenure at the same time is not a fair comparison, because people who arrive at an institution mid-career are not comparable to those who began their faculty careers at the institution at which they later apply for tenure. Their research programmes are at a different stage of maturity, and often the projects undertaken differ significantly in degree of challenge and impact. Even so, another mid-career faculty member received MIT tenure within the same timeframe as my application, largely on the basis of contributions that had been made before arrival there.
My main complaint against MIT is the manner in which my case was decided by the faculty chair. For example, at MIT, when a tenure-case decision is being made, review of the case is prohibited outside its department. If the case is not advanced to the next level of review, it is sealed. So why was a professor who is neither a member of my faculty nor an expert in my field — stem-cell biology — asked by the faculty chair to review the case before the decision was announced?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7151/full/448250b.html
Dsol 17:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Letter to Nature

message: Hunger strike over tenure?   It may be that wiki may wish to consider suspending this post as it may be that Wiki is being used inappropriately. Charley sf (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions regarding credibility of this Academic (?)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on James Sherley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922044329/http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients06.aspx to http://nihroadmap.nih.gov/pioneer/Recipients06.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified