Career Development of Early Career Researchers via Distributed Peer Mentoring Networks

a) Introduction: including a greater description and justification of mentoring as a tool for career development

b) Introduction: Also, if it is completed with existing studies in this line, which show the benefits of mentoring for different profiles and groups

The purpose of this study was to conduct an initial exploration of the field of DPMN and its utility for the Career Development of ECRs. Therefore, "a greater description and justification of mentoring as a tool for career development" is, in our opinion, rather a consequence and invitation for further and closer examination of this network form. We have added two sentences (p. 2 in the Introduction) to highlight the benefits of mentoring for ECRs and mentioned some existing studies:

“Mentoring has been recognized as a pivotal mechanism to assist ECRs in making progression in personal, professional, or career development (Iversen et al., 2014). Existing research demonstrated that mentoring has beneficial outcomes for women in academia and early career academic staff such as increased research productivity, promotion success, and career satisfaction (Denard Thomas et al., 2015; Gardiner et al., 2007; Shen et al., 2022).”

c) Introduction: On the other hand, the state of the question on support networks could be reinforced considering a broader, deeper and more current theoretical framework, since it is a new topic applied to the career field.

For this study, the focus was on ECRs and their perception of the role of distributed peer mentoring networks for their career advancement. Therefore, we aimed at delivering the findings for advancing research in this area. Based on the findings in this area of research it would be possible to develop a broader, deeper and more current theoretical framework, which would benefit further investigations.

d) Clarify the process followed and the phases

d) Thank you for this remark; the description was indeed lacking depth. The information about the selection and the decided participation in the individual investigation steps is now explained on pages 4-6 in more detail.

e) Clarify the composition of the sample and the profiles of the 10 participants, clarify what relationship exists between these and the previous studies carried out, and what exact results are provided in this article.

e) Additions to the composition of the sample has been added on page 4: 

“All 15 members of an established DPMN were contacted and asked about their interest in participating in this study. In the course of this, participants indicated whether they were interested in being interviewed and completing the questionnaire or only completing the questionnaire. Ten participants only completed the questionnaire and five were also available for an interview. The participants were either in the final phase of their doctorate, i.e. about to finalize their thesis, about to defend it, or in a post-doctoral position.”  

A detailed description of the relationship between the participants was not essential for the study, as it focused on the effects of constructive and supportive cooperation of the DPMN (and we do not have the power to base the analysis on personal attributes). In the course of the results it can be seen that the cooperation of the participants was judged as primarily factual, but supportive and motivating.

f) It makes no sense to provide background studies on the methodology if they are not part of the method.

f) The reference made to DBR is significant to the extent that the study of the network was a first-time exploration and a respective design (the DPMN) was built to start investigating this field. The underlying question for intervention, the provision of a DPMN, addressed the challenges faced by ECRs in the course of their career development. In doing so, an exploration of the benefits of the network took place, from which implications for further research emerged, which in turn, as an iterative process, should be explored in more detail.

g) Once the methodological aspects are clarified, please correct the abstract, since the sample data does not coincide.

g) We have provided further information about the methods across the manuscript. However, this did not change the overall nature of the method; hence we have left the abstract as it was.

h) It is also necessary to clarify the type of interview conducted, as well as the main dimensions that comprise it.

h) We have presented the interview as well as the main dimensions on page 4:

“Firstly, we conducted semi-structured, problem-centered with the ECRs from three distinct European countries, who were all part of the same DPMN. Each interview, which lasted approximately 60 minutes on average, was conducted in English and focused on aspects such as collaboration within the network, the nature of relationships built, and the added value the network provided for their academic careers. Our selection criteria for the interviewees necessitated that they should have been active members of the focal DPMN for a minimum period of six months and should have actively participated in at least one offered format (for example, co-working, development circle, networking).”

i) Ethical aspects related to the study should be included, how the participants are selected and accessed, if informed consent is applied, how the data is processed.

i) According to the responses, all participants were informed about the purpose of the study and their consent was requested explicitly written. This also included the aspects of the privacy policy, which assured the confidentiality and anonymity of the collected data.

A further statement regarding the processing of the collected data was added on page 4:

“The collected audio recordings of the interviews were stored locally on the interviewer's work computer for the sole duration required to complete the transcriptions. Subsequently, all audio recordings were irreversibly deleted. The transcripts at hand were anonymized upon completion, thereby precluding any inferences about the participants. The transcripts themselves were marked with alphanumeric combinations, designed to equally ensure the absence of any discernible conclusions. The questionnaire was administered using SoSci Survey and disseminated to participants via a hyperlink.”

j) The results can be presented more clearly, and the discussion requires deepening considering the existing studies on mentoring in the field of career development.

j) The outcomes were categorized based on the developed criteria and subsequently expounded upon. We have integrated the relevant exiting research to support our study (p. 8).

k) Also, it would be convenient to intersect the results with the characteristics of the contexts where the participants are located, in order to better understand them and understand the scope of the study

k) The characteristics of the context haven't been part or essential to the exploration. Main focus has been the network and the subjective effectiveness as well as perception of the work within the network by the participants.

m) Unclear whether and to what extent each of these studies concerns ECRs in particular. If not relevant to ECRs, please change the subtitle to the career development of a broader population.

m) Given that the present data was gathered as part of a thesis and meant as a first exploration, it was imperative to delimit the scope of the topic. The examined network centers its attention on Early-, mid-career researchers (ECMRs). However, owing to the fact that the participants were on the cusp of completing their doctoral studies or were already in post-doctoral positions, a constriction was placed on Early Career Researchers (ECRs) in this context. The participants' academic progression statuses were subsequently appended.

n) In what ways they were distinct, such as geographically, historically, or culturally. Also, what are the characteristics of the interviewees (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity)? It doesn't have to be as detailed as quantitative studies, but it would be helpful to see any patterns in the participant characteristics.

n) The pertinent characteristics (geographical localization as well as the stage of academic career) were provided on page 4:

“The participants were either in the final phase of their doctorate, i.e. about to finalize their thesis, about to defend it, or in a post-doctoral position. […]. [We] conducted semi-structured, problem-centered with the ECRs from three distinct European countries, who were all part of the same DPMN. […] Our selection criteria for the interviewees necessitated that they should have been active members of the focal DPMN for a minimum period of six months and should have actively participated in at least one offered format (for example, co-working, development circle, networking).” 

Geographic, historical, and cultural aspects were not encompassed within the scope of the inquiry and research question. These aspects could be subject to scrutiny in the course of subsequent investigations.

o) Does this mean that the questions were designed based on these pre-determined topics OR are these themes that emerged during analysis?

Further information on this has been added on page 4:

“The items were also formulated based on the pre-established thematic framework."

p) More information on the questionnaire would be helpful. What kind of questions were asked (broader topics; don’t need to list all the questions) and whether and to what extent were they tested/piloted?

More information on the questionnaire has been provided on page 4:

“[…] a questionnaire with ordinal scaled questions to gather quantitative data. This instrument served to understand the extent of participation in the network over time, the networking formats in which participants engaged, satisfaction levels with the network, as well as the individual perceived benefits of participation. To encourage the voice of the participants and invite more nuanced insights, we also incorporated free text fields within the questionnaire for additional inputs and comments.”

q) Please describe the steps you took for “content analysis.” The analytic methods section is the weakest part of this paper. Up until Line 205, the authors discuss study participants and the questionnaire, and then from Line 214 the authors focus on findings (categories). The data analysis section needs to be strengthened (currently, Lines 206-213). Most importantly, there is no explanation of how the quantitative data were analyzed (Lines 199-204).

Further elaboration has been added on page 5:

“To execute the content analysis, the data was meticulously reviewed and systematically coded according to predefined criteria and themes (the relationships and performances within a collaborative network). This process involved breaking down the data into meaningful units of analysis, which were then assigned relevant codes that corresponded to the predefined themes. These codes were developed through a thorough process of iterative refinement, ensuring that they accurately captured the nuances and variations present in the data. Following the coding process, the codes were grouped into broader categories that reflected overarching themes and patterns. The analysis was driven by an deductive approach. Due to the scope of the research project, no intercoder reliability was established. The content analysis employed a structured and systematic approach to dissect and interpret textual data. The methodological framework facilitated the extraction of meaningful insights, patterns, and themes. The resulting analytical categories emerged organically from the data, mirroring research on students' social networks, where the relationships and performances within a collaborative network were examined (Zacher et al., 2019). This allowed us to delve deeper into the unique dynamics of ECRs' social capital and their participation in DPMN.”

r) The following quotation does not capture the "benefit of individual work being purposefully structured and guided by clear, self-imposed goals." It sounds more like a general statement - there was peer support available during the pandemic.

This statement needs to be interpreted in the context of the work within the network and is not to be seen independent. The network offered support by virtual co-working which has to be seen as essential and critical esp. during the pandemic. The importance and challenges in the course of the pandemic an in regard of academic work has been explained on pages 1-2:

“The pandemic has prompted a global re-evaluation of public life and necessitated a realignment of academic institutions and existing work and network structures. Consequently, numerous scientific conferences—critical platforms for professional exchange and relationship building—have been cancelled or transitioned to virtual formats (Kalia et al., 2020; Weissgerber et al., 2020). The imposed pandemic restrictions have adversely affected the career development of ECRs. For these individuals, connections with the academic community are crucial, as they are key components in establishing and expanding an academic career and fostering professional development (Ansman et al., 2014; Hollywood et al., 2019; Iqbal et al., 2021; Zacher et al., 2019). One potential strategy for creating meaningful networks in the post-COVID world is through mentoring groups. Such groups can be particularly beneficial in the early stages of an academic career, fostering learning experiences and personal growth (Crocitto et al., 2005; Jones et al., 2020). Mentoring has been recognized as a pivotal mechanism to assist ECRs in making progression in personal, professional, or career development (Iversen et al., 2014). Existing research demonstrated that mentoring has beneficial outcomes for women in academia and early career academic staff such as increased research productivity, promotion success, and career satisfaction (Denard Thomas et al., 2015; Gardiner et al., 2007; Shen et al., 2022). Co-authoring papers, assisting in the preparation of articles without expecting authorship credit, and group brainstorming sessions serve as examples of mentoring group activities. In this context, so-called distributed peer mentoring networks (DPMNs)—"groups where the members are not physically present and meet virtually [...], the members are equal and mentor each other, as opposed to the more traditional hierarchical mentoring structure" (Cox et al., 2021, p. 43)—appear to be especially relevant.”