RESPECT | TRUST | INCLUSION | DISCOVERY | EXCELLENCE
Didactic Dichotomy:
Navigating the Duality of a Mentor
A junior faculty member trained at Duke, pursued and was then offered a faculty spot within the same group where they trained both as a clinician and a research scientist. Their mentor is brilliant, supportive and helpful and provided invaluable guidance to the junior faculty both generally and related to conducting research at Duke. While in training, the junior faculty member (then a staff trainee) contributed to research in the mentor’s lab and was listed as a co-author on several articles published in notable research journals.
The junior faculty is now running a lab. They still frequently check in with their mentor to discuss career progression. The junior faculty is preparing an article for publication where they are happy to be able to list one of their graduate students as well as a post-doctoral associate as co-authors due to their work together in the lab over the past two years.
The mentor learns of this upcoming publication and recalls their frequent discussions. They approach the junior faculty and indicate they believe their name should be listed as a co-author due to the discussions they participated in, and they reference the years of mentoring and training. This does not feel right to the junior faculty, and they report this to the Office of Scientific Integrity and the Speak Up Program.
Professionalism and Duty of Care
We improve our knowledge, work and community by conscientiously applying our time and talents; and demonstrate and practice genuine concern and respect for others. We encourage questions, dialogue, and challenges, holding individuals and organizations accountable for their actions and decisions.
Relevant Policies:
Faculty Handbook
Research Policy Manual – Authorship
Fact finding and intervention:
Per the Duke Research Policy Manual: Authorship should be restricted to those individuals who have met each of the following three criteria: 1) made a significant contribution to the conception and design of the project, or the analysis and interpretation of the data, or other substantial scholarly effort; 2) participated in drafting, reviewing and/or revising the work; and 3) approved the final version for publication.
The Chair is consulted on the matter per the Authorship section of the Research Policy Manual and the Dean is also informed. It is determined the mentor would not expect to be listed as an author based on the policy and in facts determined through discussions with both parties regarding the content of the draft publication. The junior faculty and their lab members generated the ideas and data related to the publication.
Resolution and action plan:
- Discussions are held with the Dean’s office, Chair and the Office of Scientific Integrity
- The junior faculty is informed their mentor would not be expected to be listed as an author
- The mentor is messaged as well and is provided with coaching; there may have been unreasonable expectations of the trainees and junior faculty during the mentor’s own training
- The Duke Value of Discovery supports continuous learning and development for each person “to improve [their] individual capabilities” and the Duke Value of Trust guides us to be “honest, credible and reliable in our words, behaviors and actions.”
*This vignette is loosely based on real cases received through Duke’s Speak Up program and/or other investigatory offices. Creative license was taken to protect the identities of those involved.*