Summary
A preprint study of nearly 900 early-career scientists found that researchers commonly rely on several mentors, with different roles associated with research, job and personal outcomes. The survey analysed US National Institutes of Health K-award applicants, most of whom were award recipients.
A preprint study of nearly 900 early-career scientists found that researchers commonly rely on a network of mentors rather than a single adviser. Different mentoring roles were associated with different outcomes, including publications, grants, professional connections, job opportunities and personal support.
The study analysed responses from applicants for K awards, career-development grants issued by the US National Institutes of Health. These awards provide early-career researchers with support to strengthen their research skills and prepare for independent investigation. The findings were posted on the bioRxiv preprint server and have not yet been peer reviewed.
A network rather than one adviser
Researchers reported a median of three mentors when they applied for their awards, although some reported as many as 15. More than 90% said their mentoring relationships had resulted in publications and grants. Other frequently reported outcomes included new professional connections, reported by 88.5% of awardees, and enhanced skills, reported by 81.8%.
The participants classified mentors into six predefined roles. Every participant had a research mentor, while many also described relationships with coaches, sponsors, connectors, peers or identity mentors.
A research mentor focuses primarily on scientific work. A connector uses professional contacts to introduce a junior researcher to useful people, while a sponsor uses seniority and influence to advocate for a trainee and help create opportunities. An identity mentor shares traits such as gender, race, ethnicity, nationality or sexual orientation with the researcher.
The roles can overlap in practice, but the study found distinct patterns in the outcomes associated with them.
Different mentors were linked to different outcomes
Research mentors were most strongly associated with achievements such as writing publications, winning grants and building research skills. Coaches, peer mentors and identity mentors were associated with psychosocial outcomes, including increased confidence, personal growth and improved work–life balance.
Professional connections also had a practical career effect. Participants were more likely to report landing a job through relationships with connectors or sponsors than through their research mentors. This reflects the different resources each role can provide: scientific guidance from a research mentor, emotional or developmental support from a coach or peer, and access or advocacy from someone with a wider network or greater institutional influence.
About 15% of the awardees came from groups under-represented in science. The study reports that these researchers appeared to benefit from larger mentoring networks compared with researchers outside those groups. The pattern is relevant to academic careers, where early-career scientists may need both research guidance and help navigating professional systems that are not fully visible from the laboratory or research group.
What the evidence covers
The results come from survey responses rather than a controlled intervention. They describe associations between mentoring relationships and reported outcomes, so the study does not assign researchers to particular mentoring arrangements. Other characteristics of the researchers, their institutions or their career paths may also contribute to the outcomes.
The recruitment process targeted both successful and unsuccessful award applicants, but most respondents were award recipients. As a result, the authors could not compare the characteristics of researchers who won K awards with those who did not. The preprint's findings therefore mainly describe mentoring patterns among researchers already positioned within this competitive career-development programme.
The central practical implication is that early-career scientists may need access to several kinds of support: scientific advice, professional introductions, advocacy, peer exchange and psychosocial guidance. The study provides survey-based evidence for treating those functions as complementary rather than assuming that one adviser can provide all of them.