The authors of a research paper that was?widely criticised?for concluding that informal female mentorship could be bad for scholars¡¯ careers have retracted the article following an investigation, while the journal has introduced new guidelines for social science studies.

The , ¡°The association between early career informal mentorship in academic collaborations and junior author performance¡±, published in?Nature Communications?in November, claimed that women in science fare better with male rather than female mentors. Co-authorship was used as a measure of mentorship and citations as a measure of success of the mentoring relationship.

The authors ¨C three academics from New York University Abu Dhabi ¨C?said in a??published on 21 December that they were retracting the article, following a review by three independent experts.

The experts questioned the use of co-authorship as a measure of mentorship, noting that ¡°any conclusions that might be drawn on biases in citations in the context of co-authorship cannot be extended to informal academic mentorship¡±.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

The authors?said they?¡°feel deep regret that the publication of our research has both caused pain on an individual level and triggered such a profound response among many in the scientific community¡±.

¡°Many women have personally been extremely influential in our own careers, and we express our steadfast solidarity with and support of the countless women who have been a driving force in scientific advancement. We hope the academic debate continues on how to achieve true equity in science ¨C a debate that thrives on robust and vivid scientific exchange,¡± they said.

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

In an?,?Nature Communications?said the conclusions of the research ¡°turned out not to be supported, and we apologise to the research community for any unintended harm derived from the publication of this paper¡±.

The journal added that it had developed additional internal guidelines and updated?information?for authors on how it approaches human behaviour and social science studies.

¡°As part of these guidelines, we recognise that it is essential to ensure that such studies are considered from multiple perspectives including from groups concerned by the findings,¡± it said.

¡°We believe that this will help us ensure that the review process takes into account the dimension of potential harm, and that claims are moderated by a consideration of limitations when conclusions have potential policy implications.¡±

³ÉÈËVRÊÓƵ

ellie.bothwell@timeshighereducation.com