Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Defining Attributes and Metrics of Effective Research Mentoring Relationships

Open access
Pfund, Christine, Byars-Winston, Angela, Branchaw, Janet, Hurtado, Sylvia, Eagan, Kevin·2016·AIDS and Behavior
DOI 10.1007/s10461-016-1384-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite evidence of mentoring’s importance in training researchers, studies to date have not yet determined which mentoring relationships have the most impact and what specific factors in those mentoring relationships contribute to key outcomes, such as the commitment to and persistence in research career paths for emerging researchers from diverse populations. Efforts to broaden participation and persistence in biomedical research careers require an understanding of why and how mentoring relationships work and their impact, not only to research training but also to promoting career advancement. This paper proposes core attributes of effective mentoring relationships, as supported by the literature and suggested by theoretical models of academic persistence. In addition, both existing and developing metrics for measuring the effectiveness of these attributes within mentoring relationships across diverse groups are presented, as well as preliminary data on these metrics from the authors’ work.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10461-016-1384-z

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Pfund, C., Byars-Winston, A., Branchaw, J., Hurtado, S., & Eagan, K.
Venue
AIDS and Behavior
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-04-09
Volume
20
Issue
S2
Pages
238-248
ISSN
  • 1090-7165 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3254
DOI
10.1007/s10461-016-1384-z
OpenAlex
W2320109070
Cited by
280
References
9
FWCI
36.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.