Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2020.09.28.316422

Measuring effects of trainee professional development on research productivity: A cross-institutional meta-analysis

Brandt, P.·Sturzenegger Varvayanis, S.·Baas, T.·Bolgioni-Smith, A.·Alder, J.·Petrie, K. A.·Dominguez, I.·Brown, A. M.·Stayart, C. A.·Singh, H.·Van Wart, A.·Chow, C. S.·Mathur, A.·Schreiber, B. M.·Fruman, D. A.·Bowden, B.·Holmquist, C. E.·Arneman, D.·Hall, J. D.·Hyman, L. E.·Gould, K.·Chalkley, R.·Brennwald, P.·Layton, R.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

PhD-trained scientists are essential contributors to the workforce in diverse employment sectors that include academia, industry, government, and non-profit organizations. Hence, best practices for training the future biomedical workforce are of national concern. Complementing coursework and laboratory research training, many institutions now offer professional training that enables career exploration and develops a broad set of skills critical to various career paths. The National Institutes of Health funded academic institutions to design innovative programming to enable this professional development through a mechanism known as Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST). Programming at the BEST awardee institutions included career panels, skill-building workshops, job-searching workshops, site visits, and internships. An initial concern was since doctoral training is lengthy and requires focused attention on dissertation research, having students participate in additional complementary training activities might lengthen time to degree and hamper student research productivity. To address this concern, using time to degree and publication records as measures of efficiency and productivity, metrics were analyzed from ten BEST awardee institutions. Comparing doctoral students who participated to those who did not, results revealed that across these diverse academic institutions, there were no differences in time to degree or manuscript output. Furthermore, a few institutions even demonstrated a positive correlation between participation in career and professional development activities and productivity. Our findings suggest that doctoral students should be encouraged to participate in career and professional development opportunities to ensure their preparedness for a variety of diverse and important careers in the workforce. Significance StatementOur study is unique in that it compiled doctoral degree durations at ten different universities, recorded individual participation in career and professional development activities in terms of dosage, and tracked individual engagement in real-time rather than relying on surveys sent to trainees after graduation. Participation in career and professional development activities, including internships, did not decrease efficiency or productivity. Our findings suggest that doctoral students should be encouraged to participate in career and professional development opportunities to ensure their preparedness for a variety of diverse and important careers in the workforce.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Brandt, P., Sturzenegger Varvayanis, S., Baas, T., Bolgioni-Smith, A., Alder, J., Petrie, K. A., Dominguez, I., Brown, A. M., Stayart, C. A., Singh, H., Van Wart, A., Chow, C. S., Mathur, A., Schreiber, B. M., Fruman, D. A., Bowden, B., Holmquist, C. E., Arneman, D., Hall, J. D., Hyman, L. E., Gould, K., Chalkley, R., Brennwald, P., Layton, R.. 2020-09-28. Measuring effects of trainee professional development on research productivity: A cross-institutional meta-analysis. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.28.316422

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2022

Welfare concerns for mounted load carrying by working donkeys in Pakistan

Working donkeys (Equus asinus) are vital to peoples livelihoods. They are essential for carrying goods, however globally, overloading is one of the primary welfare concerns of working donkeys. We studied mounted load carrying by donkeys and associated factors in Pakistan. A cross-sectional study of donkey owners (n = 332) was conducted, and interviews were undertaken based on a questionnaire. Owners estimated that the median weight of their donkeys was 110kg (interquartile range (IQR) 100-120kg), and that they carried a median mounted load of 81.5kg (IQR 63-99kg). We found that 87.4% of donkeys carried a load above 50% of their bodyweight ratio (BWR), the median BWR carried was 77.1% (IQR 54.5-90.7%), and 25.3% of donkeys carried above 90% BWR. Donkeys that were loaded at more than 50% BWR were more likely to sit, compared to donkeys loaded with less weight (p=0.01). Donkeys working in peri-urban and urban areas were more likely to carry a greater BWR than donkeys working in rural areas (P<0.001), as were those carrying construction materials or bricks, compared to agricultural materials (p=0.004). Age (p=0.03) and breed (p=0.01) were also associated with carrying a higher weight. Overloading based on current recommendations (50% BWR) was common, with the majority (87.4%) of donkeys reported to carry more than the recommended 50% limit. This survey provides evidence of on-the-ground working practices and factors associated with mounted load carrying, which is critical for developing evidence-based recommendations for loading, in order to improve the welfare of working donkeys.

scientific communication and education↗