ArticleNature communications2020
The association between early career informal mentorship in academic collaborations and junior author performance.
Article in Nature communications, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of an innovation competence instrument for medical mentors in China: a mixed-methods study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Ten simple rules for socially responsible science.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Not yet defect-free: the current landscape for women in computational materials research.npj computational materials · 2023Article
- Mentoring Award: Importance, Availability and Association With Mentoring Outcomes.The chronicle of mentoring & coaching · 2022Article
- Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research quality in the behavioural and brain sciences.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
- In medicine, how do we machine learn anything real?Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Review
- Gender bias and menstrual blood in stem cell research: A review of pubmed articles (2008-2020).Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- The Gender Gap in Brazilian Entomology: an Analysis of the Academic Scenario.Neotropical entomology · 2021Review
- Confessions of a feminist who was mentored by men.International journal of women's dermatology · 2021Article
- The impact of gender in mentor-mentee success: Results from the Women's Dermatologic Society Mentorship Survey.International journal of women's dermatology · 2021Article
- The red lipstick mentor.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2021Review
- Article
- Promoting inclusive metrics of success and impact to dismantle a discriminatory reward system in science.PLoS biology · 2021Article
- Mentorship is not co-authorship: a revisit to mentorship.Genome biology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2020-12-21Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Error in Analyses · Error in Methods ·
- Expression of concern · 2020-11-19Concerns/Issues about Data · Bias Issues or Lack of Balance · Updated to Retraction ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We study mentorship in scientific collaborations, where a junior scientist is supported by potentially multiple senior collaborators, without them necessarily having formal supervisory roles. We identify 3 million mentor-protégé pairs and survey a random sample, verifying that their relationship involved some form of mentorship. We find that mentorship quality predicts the scientific impact of the papers written by protégés post mentorship without their mentors. We also find that increasing the proportion of female mentors is associated not only with a reduction in post-mentorship impact of female protégés, but also a reduction in the gain of female mentors. While current diversity policies encourage same-gender mentorships to retain women in academia, our findings raise the possibility that opposite-gender mentorship may actually increase the impact of women who pursue a scientific career. These findings add a new perspective to the policy debate on how to best elevate the status of women in science.
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.