Guidance for Supporting the Career Autonomy of Junior Faculty

For a department to thrive, faculty at all levels need to feel that their contributions with regard to scholarship, education (e.g., teaching, supervising, mentoring), and service (e.g., administration, patient care) are acknowledged and valued. For junior faculty to advance and be promoted, they need to be effectively mentored and have their growing professional autonomy supported. These contributions may differ depending on the context (i.e., scholarship, education, service). It is also important to recognize the effort and time that senior faculty devote to the mentoring of their junior colleagues. In many instances, there is a comfortable process in which junior faculty feel supported and that their growing autonomy is acknowledged in terms of authorship status on papers, roles on grants, educational and service titles and roles/responsibilities, committee appointments, etc. Most research lab directors and educational and service leaders are very generous and foster a good environment for their junior faculty to grow and develop their independent careers.  However, it is critical that there is a high level of trust and a good line of communication between the mentor and mentees to ensure the smoothness of this process. It is also very important that the culture within the department values the importance of strong mentor-mentee relationships as a key element of success for all faculty and the well-being of the department. Some key cultural elements essential to this endeavor include:

• All members of the faculty must value and support developmentally-appropriate levels of career autonomy in their colleagues and convey an appreciation for the fact that as individuals move forward in their careers they need more independence and power.
• Junior faculty are responsible for initiating their own growth and independence and must be actively involved in the process, albeit with the support of their more senior colleagues.
• Both independence of scholarship and team science should be promoted.
• Senior faculty and mentors openly convey pride in their junior colleagues’ accomplishments.
• Junior faculty actively recognize their mentors/senior colleagues contributions to their scholarly, educational, and service endeavors (e.g., ideas, guidance, materials)
• Open and transparent dialogues occur with regard to career autonomy, during which the parties acknowledge and attempt to address different perspectives on this matter and agree to seek consultation, when needed 
• Differences about authorship status, roles on grants, educational and service roles/titles are most effectively resolved within the specific team/group itself. However, when this is not possible, departmental resources should be available to the faculty to help solve the conflict.
• Annual faculty review sessions should be done in a collegial and constructive manner, and serve as a medium to address ongoing or upcoming difficulties that may hamper faculty development.  
• A regular assessment of the quality and effectiveness of the mentoring relationships must be made through meetings between members of the faculty development committee and junior faculty.
• To optimally support the career development of junior faculty researchers, the Department will strive to offer them appropriate start up funds, independent space, and leadership roles/responsibilities (educational, service), etc., which will help empower junior faculty
• The Neurology department must recognize and acknowledge the value of outstanding mentors and mentees through various rewarding mechanisms

In the following account, a discussion of expectations for mentoring relationships is presented, followed by recommendations about best mentor-mentee practices for authorship, grant processes, educational endeavors, service endeavors, and navigation of the transition from mentee to mentor. 

• Effective mentor-mentee relationships rely on trust, open communication and significant effort devoted by both parties towards this relationship. Both parties value and respect each other’s contribution to this relationship.
• From the outset of the mentoring relationship, junior faculty member, with guidance from their mentors, lay out a trajectory for an independent field of inquiry, educational endeavors, and service activities, with acknowledgement that this trajectory may be revised as the junior faculty member’s interests evolve.
• Discussions between the junior mentee and his/her mentors are held at regular intervals to ensure progress is being made. 

• Because authorship of peer-reviewed publications is considered as one of the most important indications of success in scholarship activities, it is critical that mentor and mentees have an open and honest discussion about this issue before they engage in significant scientific collaborations.
• It is very important that junior faculty who come up for promotion are listed as first or last author on a significant number of peer-reviewed publications that appeared in good journals. Although co-authorship is important and considered for promotion, it does not have as much weight as first or last author in the assessment of the overall quality of the scholarship activities of faculty who come up for promotion.
• Decisions about authorship should reflect honestly the actual contributions of each party to the final product. Sometimes, disagreements or disputes arise in terms of authorship credit and order of authors on a specific contribution. These problems are often created by a lack of communication between or among colleagues involved in the study being published. Such issues can be prevented or addressed by open discussions and agreements about standards for authorship.
• The research team should review the Collaboration and Team Science Field Guide and discuss up front the Questions for Research Collaboration that have been outlined by the NIH Office of the Ombudsmen and may craft a Prenuptial Agreement for Scientists.
• In collaborative research endeavors, publication credit and tentative order of authors on a future peer-reviewed publication must be discussed up front and potentially adjusted as the work progresses and the relative contribution of authors change. Differences of opinion in this process must be acknowledged and addressed in a respectful and constrictive manner.
• It must be agreed upon that only individuals who have actually performed the work or made a substantial, direct intellectual contribution to the work (i.e., conceptualization, study design, data analysis, interpretation of findings) will have their names as co-authors on papers, and that others who have made lesser contributions should be acknowledged. 
• While there are a variety of ways to determine authorship order, it should accurately reflects the scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status, and such order is decided by the authors collectively.
• The level of seniority in the Department should not be used as a criterion to list someone as first or last author on a peer-reviewed publication 
• Everyone who is listed as an author must participate in the preparation of the manuscript by either writing it or reviewing drafts and approving the final document before it is submitted for peer-review.
• Co-authors must be effective in providing data to be included in the manuscript or reviewing drafts of the papers within a reasonable time frame discussed by the team.
• The Emory policy on Guidelines for Responsible Conduct of Scholarship and Research must be followed. 

• There are many similarities with regard to investigator status with the authorship issues noted above under Authorship Guidelines. Each junior investigator who applies for promotion to the level of Associate Professor without tenure should serve as principal investigator (PI) on at least 1 major grant (R01 or equivalent) and, ideally, be PI or co-I on a few other federal or non-federal grants.
• As discussions about the submission of a grant application go on, it is important that the various parties decide who should be the Principal Investigator and whom should be included as a co-investigator on the application.
• If the proposal involves a significant amount of work being done by two investigators, the choice of multi-Principal Investigator should be considered to make sure the various parties are fairly recognized for the effort they will devote to the work being presented.   
• If a junior faculty member contributed to the scholarship that laid to the foundation of the grant proposal, he/she should be included as an Investigator on the application. 
• The roles and responsibilities of all parties are discussed at the outset and, as needed, in an ongoing fashion over the course of the project.
• It is imperative that the mentee and mentoring team work together in setting up a plan for the successful completion of a grant application. Putting together a strong grant application is a long and laborious process that necessitates the help of all available departmental and institutional resources to increase its chance of funding.
• Junior faculty who plan to prepare a grant application should attend the Departmental and School of Medicine Faculty development workshops on grantsmanship.    

• Junior faculty should be given the freedom and encouragement to develop new educational programs and should be appropriately credited. 
• Junior faculty members should be supported in modifying and improving upon existing educational programs and be appropriately credited. 
• To help junior faculty develop their teaching portfolio, senior faculty may relinquish, as appropriate, educational leadership roles to junior faculty
• Junior faculty give appropriate credit to senior faculty for their contributions in educational endeavors
• Senior faculty should give advice to junior faculty about the amount and types of education they should consider based on their respective areas of interest towards promotion

• Junior faculty should be given the freedom and encouragement to develop and manage new service programs and be appropriately credited. 
• Junior faculty members should be supported in modifying and improving upon existing service programs and be appropriately credited 
• Senior faculty may relinquish, as appropriate, service leadership roles to junior faculty
• Junior faculty give appropriate credit to senior faculty for their contributions in service endeavors/programs
• Senior faculty should give advice to junior faculty about the amount and types of services they should consider based on their respective areas of interest towards promotion

• As junior faculty begin mentoring students or trainees, the traditional arrangement with their mentors may need to change.  For example, if a junior faculty member supervises a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow, it may be appropriate for the student to be first author with the junior faculty being senior author for publications arising from that work. 
• The junior faculty must seek guidance from senior faculty before taking on trainees of their own. 
• As junior faculty begin the transition to mid-career faculty, it may no longer be appropriate for their mentors to be listed as a co-author on their publications and grant applications, as it is essential for them to demonstrate independence. 
• As junior faculty assume more significant roles in education (e.g., training director), a more senior faculty member who previously held the position should move toward an as needed consultant, rather than to continue their role as program leader.
• As junior faculty assume more major service roles (e.g., unit or division director), the senior faculty member who previously held the position should move toward an as needed consultant, rather than to continue their role as service leader.