Read on Twitter
1. The paper 'The association between early career informal mentorship in academic collaborations and junior author performance' has been retracted by the authors, despite that the authors still believe the key findings are valid. https://twitter.com/NatureComms/status/1341008004825624576
2. This is the paper that found that a higher proportion of female mentors was associated with fewer post-mentorship citations (or lower impact) for female protégés.
3. The scientific complaints involved their operationalizations of 'mentorship' and 'performance/success'.
Why not just retitle the paper 'The association between early career collaborations and junior author citations'?
Why not just retitle the paper 'The association between early career collaborations and junior author citations'?
4. (Although, I suspect the scientific complaints are likely post-hoc justifications for the moral complaints, despite the journal's insistence that this was not the case.)
5. In response, the journal will be launching initiatives to support mentorship by women academics (i.e., so far, the only apparent policy consequences of the publication of this paper are initiatives to *help* women). What exactly were we afraid would happen?
