I've seen lots of discussion about the causal inference and interpretations in that mentorship paper, so can I just tack on that the construct validity sucks too? "Mentorship quality" = having a lot of citations? "Quality of the scholar" = getting cited a lot? Ridiculous

IME some of the shittiest mentors are highly cited senior scholars who socialize and even pressure mentees to play the game and publish a lot at the expense of (a) scholarly depth and (b) personal well-being. They do that by burning through mentees and making everyone miserable

This paper takes the already-bad idea that citation metrics are a measure of the quality of a scholar and extends that, even more tenuously, to mentorship. It makes absolutely no attempt to engage in any conceptual way with what "mentorship" actually means. It's absurd