Write a comment

Summary

This review thoroughly examines a preprint that investigates the role of mentors in helping pre-college students develop essential scientific literacy skills, particularly focusing on underrepresented groups in STEM fields. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, the authors conducted interviews and surveys with mentors to explore how they engage students in research, writing, and publishing. The findings reveal that effective mentorship significantly enhances students' scientific identities, self-confidence, and sense of belonging within the scientific community. While the research contributes valuable insights into mentorship's impact on fostering participation in STEM, particularly among diverse populations, it does have limitations. Concerns about selection bias arise due to the study's reliance on a sample of students who have already published work, which may not represent the broader student population. Additionally, the small sample size limits the generalizability of the results. Overall, this review underscores the importance of mentorship in nurturing future scientists but calls for more comprehensive studies to address these limitations and broaden the understanding of effective mentorship practices.

Major issues

• Selection Bias:

  • Concern: The study's sample consists solely of students who have published articles, leading to a selection bias that limits the generalizability of the findings.

  • Suggestion: Future research should include a more diverse group of students at various stages of their research journey, not just those who have already published. This will provide a more comprehensive understanding of mentorship's impact

• Clarity of Content Organization:

  • Concern: The manuscript's organization lacks clarity, making it difficult for readers to follow the main arguments.

  • Suggestion: The authors should restructure the content with clear headings and subheadings to improve readability and thematic clarity, allowing readers to navigate the key points more effectively.

• Methodological Transparency:

  • Concern: While the authors mention a mixed-methods approach, they do not specify the core methods used or how they linked qualitative and quantitative data, raising questions about reproducibility.

  • Suggestion: Provide detailed descriptions of the coding and analysis methods used in both qualitative and quantitative components. This transparency will enhance reproducibility and allow others to appreciate the study's design.

• Informed Consent:

  • Concern: There is insufficient information regarding whether participants provided informed consent to participate in the study.

  • Suggestion: Clearly outline the informed consent process in the manuscript to ensure ethical rigor and reassure readers about participant rights.

• Limitations Discussion:

  • Concern: The authors discuss some limitations but fail to address potential biases in mentor selection or generalizability across different educational contexts.

  • Suggestion: Acknowledge these additional limitations explicitly in the discussion section to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the study's constraints.

Minor issues

• Sample Size Limitations:

  • Concern: The small number of survey respondents (39 out of 300) raises questions about internal validity.

  • Suggestion: Acknowledge this limitation explicitly in the discussion section and consider conducting future studies with larger sample sizes to strengthen validity.

• Cultural Context of Survey:

  • Concern: The survey was conducted in the U.S., which may not reflect attitudes and cultures in other regions.

  • Suggestion: Future studies should strive to include participants from diverse geographical and cultural backgrounds to enhance generalizability.

• Data Availability:

  • Concern: The manuscript does not specify whether the data collected is openly available.

  • Suggestion: Include a statement regarding data availability and consider providing links for access if applicable, promoting transparency in research.

• Figures and Tables Presentation:

  • Concern: While figures and tables are generally easy to understand, they could benefit from graphical visualizations.

  • Suggestion: Enhance visual representations to make results more accessible and engaging for readers, improving overall comprehension.

• Nuance in Conclusions Drawn:

  • Concern: Some conclusions may overreach given the limitations of the study.

  • Suggestion: Acknowledge potential variability in findings and provide a more balanced perspective on the implications, ensuring claims are well-supported by data.

• Ethical Guidelines Compliance:

  • Concern: While ethical guidelines seem to be followed, more explicit details regarding informed consent would strengthen this assertion.

  • Suggestion: Clearly outline how ethical guidelines were adhered to, including specifics on informed consent processes.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.