Write a comment

This review is the result of a virtual, collaborative live review discussion organized and hosted by PREreview and the African Reproducibility Network (AREN) on July 15, 2024. The discussion was joined by 26 people: 2 facilitators, 2 members of the AREN team, and 22 live review participants including one who agreed to be named: Ernest Holy Sebewu, Sarah Sarah, Modester Samwel, Abimbola Oluwole-Banjo, and Mwise Thomas, . The authors of this review have dedicated additional asynchronous time over the course of two weeks to help compose this final report using the notes from the Live Review. We thank all participants who contributed to the discussion and made it possible for us to provide feedback on this preprint.

Summary:

This study investigates mentors' experiences, perceptions, and motivations as they guide pre-college students through the process of writing and publishing scientific research papers. It examines how mentors aid in developing students' disciplinary literacies, facilitate their growth in research and review processes, and influence their publication outcomes. Additionally, the study assesses the mentor-mentee relationship and evaluates the mentors' expertise and experiences to understand their impact on students' research skills. The research also delves into mentors' views on guiding students toward becoming future researchers and explores the benefits and challenges associated with instilling research skills in young students. The ultimate objective is to develop strategies that enhance the accessibility and effectiveness of scientific practices for pre-college students, particularly those from underrepresented groups.

The research utilized a mixed-methods design, combining qualitative and quantitative data to enrich the understanding of these issues. Surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted, the latter with a subset of survey respondents, allowing for a detailed exploration of mentors' diverse perspectives.

Findings indicate varied mentor opinions on the significance of publication; some underscore its importance in science education, while others highlight its benefits for students' scientific development. Regardless, there is a strong belief among mentors that mentorship can empower students and foster their exploratory skills. A significant portion of mentors value scholarly publications and the peer review process, with 62% of mentees concurring that peer review enhances the accuracy of scientific presentations. The study also uncovers that mentors' differing values and methodologies can lead to varied student outcomes. Notably, it suggests that expertise is not a prerequisite for conducting research or mentoring, as mentors' unique approaches and challenges significantly shape students' scientific identities and experiences.

Reviewers praised the study for its originality and evidence-based approach, particularly highlighting the varied mentor perspectives on the value of publication. While some view publication as essential for scientific and professional growth, others regard it more as a valuable experience for student scientists, rather than a fundamental aspect of scientific research. This disparity underscores the complexity of mentorship and publication within scientific research, positioning the study as a significant contribution to the field.

List of major concerns and feedback:

1. Representativeness of the Sample: The sample size for mentors (13 out of 79 surveyed) may not be fully representative, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Expanding the mentor sample size could enhance the robustness of the conclusions.

2. Diversity and Inclusivity: The research approach is described as Eurocentric, which may not be applicable globally, particularly in non-Western contexts. The participant pool could be broadened to include a more diverse demographic. This would enrich the data and provide a more comprehensive view of the mentorship dynamics across different geographical perspectives.

3. Methodological Details: The study lacks specific details about sample selection, size, and the analytical methods used. Providing these details would strengthen the reliability of the research and enable replication.

4. Bias and Incentivization: The study notes potential biases due to incentives provided to participants. Addressing these biases more explicitly and exploring alternative methods to minimize their impact could enhance the integrity of the research.

5. Lack of Bias Control: The selection of mentors who have already published may introduce a bias in the results. Including mentors at different stages of their mentoring journey could provide a more balanced view.

List of minor concerns and feedback:

1. Reliance on Qualitative Data: While the mixed-methods approach is robust, the heavy reliance on qualitative data (interviews and open-ended survey responses) may introduce subjectivity. Triangulating these findings with more quantitative data could validate the results further.

2. Limitations and Generalizability: The authors could more explicitly acknowledge the limitations related to the generalizability of the findings, particularly concerning the sample size and the inherent biases of the selected demographic.

Concluding remarks

This preprint provides valuable insights into the role of mentorship in developing scientific skills among pre-college students. The authors have identified important dynamics in the mentor-mentee relationship and how these can influence students' engagement with scientific research and publication. However, enhancing the methodological rigor, expanding the diversity of the sample, and addressing potential biases could strengthen the study's contributions to the field. The exploration of mentorship's role in encouraging scientific publication among young researchers is commendable and adds to the literature on educational practices.

We thank the authors of the preprint for posting their work openly for feedback. We also thank all participants of the Live Review call for their time and for engaging in the lively discussion that generated this review.

Conflict of Interest

Daniela Saderi and Vanessa Fairhurst who were facilitators of this call know the authors.

No other competing interests were declared by the reviewers.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.