Keywords

Research training has historically followed an apprentice model, informal, minimally structured, and idiosyncratic. Adequate mentoring has been defined by the mentor and frequently derived from how the mentor has traditionally behaved with prior students. Mentees have sometimes been seen as simply ready labor for mentor projects.

More recently, mentoring in research is being defined as a skill set that should support mentee learning. Most research on this relationship has focused on student persistence and productivity in a course of study, not on learning research integrity or behaving with integrity. Overall, few metrics exist to assess the effectiveness of mentoring though some US federally funded training grants require a mentoring plan. Most research regulations, such as those for misconduct, do not mention mentor roles or responsibilities.

Many mentor-mentee relationships are highly positive partnerships that add benefit to both parties. Mentees bring new ideas; mentors help them to think independently, include mentees in professional networks, and foster their careers. Because this relationship has largely been minimally structured, it is important to agree on issues such as authorship, credit, access to and ownership of data, commitments for space, funding and workload, and to put these agreements in writing in a formal mentoring plan. Should a mentor or mentee move or become dissatisfied, it is important to also agree on how such situations will be managed.

Mentors can be very powerful, especially in historically hierarchical cultures in science where students may be expected to provide unquestioning loyalty to the mentor. In highly competitive environments, the needs of mentors and mentees can conflict, thus the importance of the written agreement of conditions for working together. Conflicts should be resolved by institutional officers such as department chairs or directors of graduate study.

The mentor-mentee relationship is a prime source of instruction about research integrity, learned through everyday interactions in the practice of science and is an essential experiential part of the responsible conduct of research (RCR) . Mentees should feel free to ask mentors about their experience with misconduct, fraud, authorship, and related issues.

Advice: Carefully check out a proposed mentor, especially by talking with prior mentees about the quality of their experience . Many funders require a mentoring plan; ask for one even if your funder doesn’t require it. Know the director of graduate study in your department, who should be checking on the quality of your experience with your mentor. Set regular meetings with your mentor asking for your work to be evaluated and to resolve any emerging issues. Harassment or bullying should not be tolerated and should be reported either to your schools HR department, director of graduate or professional studies, or both.

6.1 Closing the Barn Door: Coping with Findings of Research Misconduct by Trainees in the Biomedical Sciences

Barbara K. Redman and Arthur L. Caplan

Redman, B, Caplan, A. Closing the barn door: Coping with findings of research misconduct by trainees in the biomedical sciences. Research Ethics 11(3), 124–132 (2015). © The Author(s) 2015.

figure a
figure b
figure c
figure d
figure e
figure f
figure g
figure h
figure i

6.2 Mentoring and Research Misconduct: Analysis of Research Mentoring in Closed ORI Cases

David E. Wright, Sandra L. Titus, and Jered B. Cornelison

Wright, D, Titus, S. Mentoring and research misconduct: analysis of research mentoring in closed ORI cases. Science & Engineering Ethics 14(3), 323–336 (2006). © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008. An imprint of Springer/Nature.

figure j
figure k
figure l
figure m
figure n
figure o
figure p
figure q
figure r
figure s
figure t
figure u
figure v
figure w

6.3 Mentorship Matters for the Biomedical Workforce

Sally J. Rockey

Rockey, SJ. Mentorship matters for the biomedical workforce. Nature Medicine 20(6), 575 (2014). © 2014 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved. And imprint of SpringerNature.

figure x

6.4 Professional Responsibility

C. K. Gunsalus

Gunsalus, CK. Professional responsibility. Inside Higher Education, May 14, 2013.

Reprinted with permission from Inside Higher Ed.

figure y
figure z
figure aa
figure ab

6.5 All You Need is Mentorship

Robert A. Weinberg, Maya Schuldiner, Hong Wu, Beth Stevens, Jens Nielsen, P. Robin Hiesinger, and Bassem A. Hassan

All you need is mentorship. Cell 10, 1092–1093 (2016). © 2016 Elsevier Inc.

Reprinted with permission from Elsevier.

figure ac
figure ad