A bit about the document screening process and my experience at Duke-NUS
Introduction
Starting in April 2025, I will be working as an Assistant Professor at Duke-NUS Medical School (National University of Singapore) in Singapore. In this article, I will introduce the reality of the "document preparation and screening process" I experienced before receiving that offer.
※Please note that this is a fixed-term position, not a so-called "tenured" position.
The selection process for an Assistant Professor at an overseas research institution is not very familiar in Japan (though this is just the document screening part), so I hope this will be helpful for those aiming for research positions abroad in the future.
The trigger was sudden
Originally, I was conducting research in Singapore as a Research Fellow with a term ending in March 2025. (Please see my previous note for details.)
In the midst of that, it all started when my boss told me, "I would like to recommend you for an Assistant Professor position."
It was a rush job, but I was approached in December 2024, hurriedly prepared the documents, created and submitted them in about a week, and after the screening, I was able to receive an offer safely. I will write about the documents below as a memorandum.
Eligibility requirements
First, as for the eligibility requirements:
Having obtained a degree such as a PhD
Having at least 3 years of postdoctoral experience
Having sufficient academic achievements as a lead author during the postdoctoral period
Having secured research funding during the postdoctoral period
were listed as application requirements. Also, for this position, "the ability and experience to lead and carry out epidemiological research on emergency medicine, research on machine learning, and health services research" were listed as requirements.
Documents and content required for the screening
I had the impression that a considerable amount of documentation was required. I prepared until late at night. Mainly, the following materials were necessary.
CV (Curriculum Vitae)
Of course, a CV is required. When I filled in the necessary items, it became over 30 pages long.
Listing the necessary items,
Biography (a summary of my background, 1 page of A4)
List of academic background, work history, qualifications, etc.
Positions held in academic societies and committee history
Academic achievements (English original papers, reviews, letters, case reports, etc., categorized by item)
Conference presentations (Oral, poster, invited speaker history, etc.)
Teaching history (records of lectures/seminars, student supervision history, etc.)
Editorial and peer review history (experience as an Editorial Board member or reviewer)
List of research grants obtained (theme, amount, role)
Track record of domestic and international collaborative research and international joint research
Teaching Philosophy: approximately 500 words in English
and so on.
Academic achievements, in particular, require a lot of writing. You must list your publications in a proper format, including the impact factor for each paper. (You must highlight your own name in bold.) Since I have over 100 English original papers to date, this took an enormous amount of time. You also need to pick out your top 10 achievements and describe them in detail, and include metrics such as your Google Scholar h-index.
Achievements must be written by categorizing them into items such as English original papers, reviews, and others (Editorials, Letters, case reports). (You must not mix them.)
You also need to summarize the content, location, and name of the academic society for your positions, committee history, and conference presentations. Furthermore, you must distinguish whether they were invited lectures, posters, or oral presentations.
For teaching history, I had to list the students, graduate students, and interns I have supervised so far, and describe the content and topics I supervised for each.
Peer review history might be recorded on platforms like ORCID, but you have to write down which journals you have reviewed for. I review about 20 papers a year, so creating the list was difficult.
Intellectual Development Statement (something like a self-recommendation letter)
I also wrote something like a self-recommendation letter. I wrote about my past research, the strengths of my research career, what kind of research I am doing, and what kind of research I want to do in the future. I wrote six full A4 pages in English. I also had to write about my teaching philosophy, including how I supervise undergraduate and graduate students, what kind of supervision experience I have, and what I consider important. Since there are few opportunities to write such statements in Japan, this was also a learning experience.
Cover letter
This is similar to the content of the self-recommendation letter, but for my application to the Assistant Professor position, I summarized my background and achievements into about two A4 pages. I wrote something to the effect of, 'Please accept this along with my application.'
Letters of recommendation (at least 3)
A minimum of three letters of recommendation from professors or associate professors were required. Furthermore, the recommenders had to be based outside of Singapore. For my position, letters from people with whom I had a professional relationship were acceptable, but for other positions, direct friends or mentors were sometimes excluded, and letters from individuals without a direct relationship were required. In my case, I requested letters from two of my research mentors in Japan and two individuals who had supported me through international collaborative research.
Post-submission review process (estimated)
While the details of the document screening are not fully known, the process is said to follow the flow below.
Public recruitment
Document screening by the faculty board
Decision on approval of the position via voting
Similar to Japan, there is an initial public recruitment phase, and others besides myself were able to apply. I do not know if there were actually any other applicants. Following that, there was a review of the submitted documents. During this screening process, fellow researchers would say things to me like, 'I saw your application; we have high expectations.' I felt a bit nervous until the screening was finished. The review process took about two months, which led to me receiving an offer.
Reflections based on my actual experience
The importance of 'articulating' your own career
Expressing research, education, and funding achievements through 'documents' was more difficult than I had imagined. I don't think there are many opportunities for this in Japan. In Japan, 'Assistant Professor' corresponds to 'Jokyo,' but I don't think there is such a detailed document screening process there (though I don't know for sure as I haven't experienced it). While the job rank is equivalent, I felt that actually attaining it is quite difficult.It is important to keep records on a daily basis
Everything—not just papers, but also research funding, conference presentations, committee activities, history of speaking at seminars, reviewed papers, and student supervision records—will be needed later. If you don't prepare for this regularly, it becomes quite a struggle. I was saved by the fact that I had been keeping records using Google Scholar and Research Map.Connections with people become an asset
Because I was able to ask overseas professors who have supported me in international collaborative research for letters of recommendation, the process went smoothly. Looking back, I feel that experience with international collaborative research and networking at international conferences is very important. As a Japanese person, I lack confidence in my English, but I hope to be able to firmly establish my presence at international conferences as well.
Summary
I felt that the following three points were important for this application:
Keep your research achievements organized on a daily basis
Articulate your philosophy regarding research/education
Build international connections
Even though it is still at the Assistant Professor level, going through the selection process overseas was a good opportunity for me to re-examine my own career.
If there is anyone who is thinking about challenging themselves for a research position overseas in the future, please try looking back at your own career from the perspective of 'Can I write my CV in an attractive way?' You might find some unexpected new insights.