Search for: All records

Abstract Mentorship in science is crucial for topic choice, career decisions, and the success of mentees and mentors. Typically, researchers who study mentorship use article co-authorship and doctoral dissertation datasets. However, available datasets of this type focus on narrow selections of fields and miss out on early career and non-publication-related interactions. Here, we describe Mentorship, a crowdsourced dataset of 743176 mentorship relationships among 738989 scientists primarily in biosciences that avoids these shortcomings. Our dataset enriches the Academic Family Tree project by adding publication data from the Microsoft Academic Graph and “semantic” representations of research using deep learning content analysis. Because gender and race have become critical dimensions when analyzing mentorship and disparities in science, we also provide estimations of these factors. We perform extensive validations of the profile–publication matching, semantic content, and demographic inferences, which mostly cover neuroscience and biomedical sciences. We anticipate this dataset will spur the study of mentorship in science and deepen our understanding of its role in scientists’ career outcomes. 

Leadership is evolving dynamically from an individual endeavor to shared efforts. This paper aims to advance our understanding of shared leadership in scientific teams. We define three kinds of leaders, junior (10–15), mid (15–20), and senior (20+) based on career age. By considering the combinations of any two leaders, we distinguish shared leadership as “heterogeneous” when leaders are in different age cohorts and “homogeneous” when leaders are in the same age cohort. Drawing on 1,845,351 CS, 254,039 Sociology, and 193,338 Business teams with two leaders in the OpenAlex dataset, we identify that heterogeneous shared leadership brings higher citation impact for teams than homogeneous shared leadership. Specifically, when junior leaders are paired with senior leaders, it significantly increases team citation ranking by 1–2 %, in comparison with two leaders of similar age. We explore the patterns between homogeneous leaders and heterogeneous leaders from team scale, expertise composition, and knowledge recency perspectives. Compared with homogeneous leaders, heterogeneous leaders are more impactful in large teams, have more diverse expertise, and trace both the newest and oldest references. 

Peer review is an important part of science, aimed at providing expert and objective assessment of a manuscript. Because of many factors, including time constraints, unique expertise needs, and deference, many journals ask authors to suggest peer reviewers for their own manuscript. Previous researchers have found differing effects about this practice that might be inconclusive due to sample sizes. In this article, we analyze the association between author-suggested reviewers and review invitation, review scores, acceptance rates, and subjective review quality using a large dataset of close to 8K manuscripts from 46K authors and 21K reviewers from the journal PLOS ONE’s Neuroscience section. We found that all-author-suggested review panels increase the chances of acceptance by 20 percent points vs all-editor-suggested panels while agreeing to review less often. While PLOS ONE has since ended the practice of asking for suggested reviewers, many others still use them and perhaps should consider the results presented here. 

Despite increasing representation in graduate training programs, a disproportionate number of women leave academic research without obtaining an independent position that enables them to train the next generation of academic researchers. To understand factors underlying this trend, we analyzed formal PhD and postdoctoral mentoring relationships in the life sciences during the years 2000 to 2020. Student and mentor gender are both associated with differences in rates of student’s continuation to positions that allow formal academic mentorship. Although trainees of women mentors are less likely to take on positions as academic mentors than trainees of men mentors, this effect is reduced substantially after controlling for several measurements of mentor status. Thus, the effect of mentor gender can be explained at least partially by gender disparities in social and financial resources available to mentors. Because trainees and mentors tend to be of the same gender, this association between mentor gender and academic continuation disproportionately impacts women trainees. On average, gender homophily in graduate training is unrelated to mentor status. A notable exception to this trend is the special case of scientists having been granted an outstanding distinction, evidenced by membership in the National Academy of Sciences, being a grantee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, or having been awarded the Nobel Prize. This group of mentors trains men graduate students at higher rates than their most successful colleagues. These results suggest that, in addition to other factors that limit career choices for women trainees, gender inequities in mentors’ access to resources and prestige contribute to women’s attrition from independent research positions. 

A dataset of mentorship in science. This is part of the article Ke, Q., Liang, L., Ding, Y. et al. A dataset of mentorship in bioscience with semantic and demographic estimations. Sci Data 9, 467 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01578-x