ArticleMentoring & tutoring2017
Exploring Mentoring in the Context of Team Science.
Article in Mentoring & tutoring, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators of conducting research with team science approach: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2023Pooled it
- Organizational change readiness for team science: a pathway framework for team science success.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- A scoping review of mentorship in a CTSA context: A summary of past work and an agenda for future research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Review
- Building your research team: Insights on hiring, assembling, and leading research teams.JVS-vascular insights · 2025Article
- Three-Year Nursing PhD Model Recommendations from the RWJF Future of Nursing Scholars.The Journal of nursing education · 2022Article
- Caution Before Embracing Team Mentoring in Academic Medical Research Training: Recommendations from a Qualitative Study.HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2021Article
- Clinical research coordinators' instructional preferences for competency content delivery.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite an increasing amount of research into team science and collaboration, little is known about post-doctoral scholars' pathways to becoming independent researchers, particularly as it relates to the mentoring relationship. The purpose of our study was to explore if and how the team science framework promotes collaboration and the development of independent researchers from mentees' and mentors' perspectives. A convenience sample of faculty mentors and postdoctoral mentees, participated in semi-structured interviews. The analysis revealed three themes for the mentees: working with others, evaluating mentoring, exploring resources, and five themes for the mentors: elaborating on scholarly productivity, mentoring style, setting team culture, strategies to develop T32 scholars, and evaluating program qualities. The findings showed that scholars were engaged in an atmosphere of collaboration fostered by their mentors and that mentors encouraged scholars' capacity for scientific thinking. Future studies should acquire the perspectives of all team members to examine how teams function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.