Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The Multifaceted Nature of Mentoring in OSS: Strategies, Qualities, and Ideal Outcomes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper reports two surveys that together map what good mentorship in open source software (OSS) actually looks like: experienced mentors connecting 21 known challenges to 17 practical strategies, and contributors rating which mentor…

desk verdict Useful descriptive mapping of OSS mentoring strategies and qualities, but the likely CodeDay majority and 'effective' framing undercut the generalizability claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05600 v1 pith:OT6RJGKK submitted 2025-01-09 cs.HC

Zixuan Feng , Igor Steinmacher , Marco Gerosa , Tyler Menezes , Alexander Serebrenik , Reed Milewicz , Anita Sarma This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords opensourcesoftwarementoringnewcomeronboardingmentorstrategiesqualitiesmentorshipoutcomessurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports two surveys that together map what good mentorship in open source software (OSS) actually looks like: experienced mentors connecting 21 known challenges to 17 practical strategies, and contributors rating which mentor qualities and outcomes matter most. The first survey, with 70 mentors, produced a perceived-effectiveness mapping—for example, skill level gaps are most commonly addressed by suggesting interest-aligned tasks, tagging task complexity, and keeping documentation updated. The second survey, with 85 contributors, found strong consensus that Trustworthy, Respectful, and Active Listener are essential mentor qualities, while Encouraging is nearly universally valued, and that skill development and coaching/vision-building are the core ideal outcomes. If the results hold, OSS mentoring programs gain an evidence-based menu for training, matching, and supporting mentors rather than leaving best practices to individual guesswork.

What carries the argument

The central object is the challenge-strategy mapping matrix: 21 challenges taken from a prior systematic literature review and refined through pilot feedback, crossed with 17 task-focused strategies, with mentors selecting which strategies mitigate which challenges and the results shown as response counts and spider plots. The second survey is driven by Kram's mentor role theory, which separates career development from psychosocial support, and by a Kano scale that classifies each attribute as Essential, Good to Have, Unimportant, or Harmful. What carries the argument is the convergence of independent mentor and contributor ratings on a small set of qualities and outcomes, which the paper uses to define a practical toolkit for OSS mentorship.

What would settle it

A field study that follows mentor-mentee pairs in an OSS program such as CodeDay or Google Summer of Code and records which strategies actually precede successful task completion could falsify the perceived-effectiveness mapping: if strategies rated highly, like suggesting interest-aligned tasks, show no correlation with mentee task success or retention, the perception-based mapping would not predict outcomes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a perceived-effectiveness mapping between mentoring challenges and task-focused strategies, built from the responses of 70 experienced OSS mentors. For instance, skill level gaps are most commonly met by suggesting interest-aligned tasks (38 responses), tagging task complexity (38 responses), and maintaining updated documentation (30 responses), with analogous top strategies for communication barriers, project climate, resource shortages, and project organization. On the interpersonal side, the second survey of 85 contributors shows that over 60% rate Trustworthy, Respectful, and Active Listener as essential, and over 90% rate Encouraging as either essential or good to have; the ideal outcomes cluster around skill development and coaching/vision-building, while emotional support, role modeling, and reinforcing the mentor's professional identity are rated unimportant by more than 10% of respondents, and friendship is widely rejected as an outcome. The authors interpret this as evidence that OSS mentoring is perceived as a goal-oriented, professional relationship in which task-focused strategies and a core set of trust-based personal qualities jointly define success.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 21 challenges and 17 strategies inherited from a prior literature review, plus Kram's organizational mentoring model, faithfully capture the real space of OSS mentoring; if either is incomplete or off-target, the survey responses are answers to a rigged questionnaire rather than a discovery of what works.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • New or prospective OSS mentors gain a concrete menu: for skill-level gaps, the endorsed strategies are suggesting interest-aligned tasks, tagging task complexity, and maintaining updated documentation.
  • Mentoring programs can pre-screen or train mentors around the qualities rated essential—Trustworthy, Respectful, Active Listener—which received over 60% endorsement.
  • Program organizers can set realistic expectations: contributors see skill development and coaching/vision-building as the central outcomes, not friendship or emotional support, which were widely rated as unimportant or undesirable.
  • The mapping provides a baseline for future longitudinal studies to test whether mentors who follow these strategies actually improve mentee task completion and retention.
  • The structured challenge-strategy matrix can inform the design of mentoring-support tools, such as an AI assistant that suggests strategies based on a diagnosed challenge.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors do not measure actual mentoring outcomes, so the mapping is a perceived-effectiveness consensus; a natural next test is whether mentees whose mentors follow these strategies complete tasks and stay in the project at higher rates.
  • Because the sample skews North American and the second survey includes non-OSS software engineers, the consensus qualities may reflect a broader professional culture; re-running the ratings with OSS-only and non-Western samples would reveal how universal the 'trust, respect, listening' core is.
  • The low priority given to emotional support and friendship suggests that OSS mentoring is being framed as a short-term professional transaction; if programs lengthen beyond the typical three weeks, the perceived ideal may shift toward psychosocial support.
  • The challenge-strategy matrix is structured enough to be operationalized as a decision aid: a mentor who diagnoses a challenge category gets a ranked list of strategies, which is exactly the kind of ruleset that could later be embedded in an AI assistant.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper investigates mentoring in open source software (OSS) through two surveys. The first survey, completed by 70 OSS mentors, asks respondents to map 21 mentoring challenges to 17 task-focused strategies, yielding a challenge–strategy mapping (e.g., for skill level gaps, top strategies are suggest interest-aligned tasks, tag task complexity, and maintain updated documentation). The second survey, completed by 85 contributors, uses a Kano-style scale to rate 9 mentor qualities and 11 ideal mentoring outcomes drawn from a literature review of 57 papers. The authors report that qualities such as Trustworthy, Respectful, and Active Listener are rated essential by over 60% of respondents, and that outcomes such as Encouraging Skill Development and Coaching and Vision-Building receive high agreement, while friendship and emotional support receive lower priority. The paper positions these results as an actionable toolkit for mentors and as input for mentor recruitment and future AI-assisted mentoring tools.

Significance. If the findings are interpreted carefully as perceived rather than measured effectiveness, the paper offers a useful descriptive map of strategies that experienced OSS mentors report using for common challenges, and a prioritized list of mentor attributes. The practical value for mentoring programs (e.g., CodeDay, GSoC) is real, and the companion website with the survey instruments is a strength. The study also extends prior work by Balali et al. with a larger challenge–strategy mapping. However, the central claims are limited by two concerns: the results are based on self-reported perceptions, not on outcome data showing that the strategies actually improve mentee success; and the first survey's sample may be concentrated in a single mentoring program, yet the paper does not report the recruitment-source breakdown of the final analyzed responses. The second survey also depends on a framework (Kram's mentor role theory) whose transferability to OSS is asserted rather than validated. These limitations do not invalidate the descriptive contribution, but they require reframing and additional reporting before the paper's stronger claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III-A and Section VI] The paper does not report the recruitment-source breakdown for the 70 analyzed responses in the Task-Focused Mentoring Strategies survey, even though 72 of the 115 initial responses came from CodeDay after the authors asked its president to advertise the survey. After removing 17 non-mentors and 28 incomplete responses, the final sample could still be majority CodeDay. Section VI claims 'we avoided focusing on a single community,' but the reported distribution does not support that claim. This is load-bearing for RQ1: if CodeDay mentors dominate, the challenge–strategy mapping may reflect one program's organizational context rather than OSS broadly. Please report the number of analyzed responses per recruitment source and either re-analyze with the CodeDay subsample separated or substantially qualify the generalizability claims.
  2. [Abstract, RQ1, Section IV-A, Section V-A] The abstract and discussion use 'effective' language (e.g., 'actionable strategies to help mentees overcome challenges'), and the paper's contribution is framed as identifying strategies that 'work' for specific challenges. However, the survey only asked mentors which strategies they perceive as effective; it collected no data on actual mentee outcomes or strategy success. RQ1 itself is worded as 'strategies mentors perceive as effective,' which is accurate, but Section V-A states the results provide 'actionable insights' and a 'toolkit' without the outcome evidence needed to support effectiveness claims. Please consistently use 'perceived as effective' or 'reported strategies' throughout, or add an explicit limitation stating that effectiveness was not measured.
  3. [Section III-A and Section IV-A] The challenge and strategy lists used in the first survey come directly from the authors' prior systematic literature review (Feng et al. [6]), with pilots adding eight challenges. This means the mapping exercise is bounded by the completeness of that earlier framework: any challenge or strategy missing from [6] cannot emerge from the quantitative matrix. The open-ended responses do provide some mitigation (e.g., co-mentors, paid internships, CI/CD containerization), but the paper does not discuss this instrument constraint in the Threats to Validity section. Please acknowledge that the 21-challenge/17-strategy mapping is an instrument-derived result and discuss the risk that omissions in the underlying taxonomy propagate into the mapping.
  4. [Section III-B and Section IV-B] The Mentor Attributes and Ideal Outcomes framework is grounded in Kram's mentor role theory, which was developed for hierarchical organizational mentoring. The paper acknowledges that OSS differs (volunteer-led, asynchronous, global) but does not validate whether Kram's two-function model and the literature-derived attribute list fully capture OSS-specific mentoring. Because the survey asks respondents to rate only the 9 qualities and 11 outcomes from the literature, any OSS-specific quality or outcome not in the source literature cannot be detected, and the interpretation that emotional support is 'of lower importance' (Section V-A) is partly an artifact of the predetermined response set. Please add this as an explicit threat to construct validity, and consider whether the data support the strong interpretive claims about technical versus emotional support.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I and Figure 1] There are typographical errors: 'Satisfication' in Table I should be 'Satisfaction,' and 'Fear of geedback' in Figure 1 should be 'Fear of feedback.'
  2. [Section III-A] The sentence '17 participants didn’t pass the screening question (not mentor)' uses informal language; suggest 'did not pass' and moving the parenthetical for clarity.
  3. [Section IV-B] The phrase 'over 90% of either Good to Have or Essential' is ambiguous; it should state clearly whether the 90% figure is the combined proportion of the two categories or the proportion receiving at least one of the two ratings.
  4. [Section IV-B] The paper reports that the second survey included both mentors and mentees (58 had both experiences), but it does not analyze whether ratings differ by role. A brief breakdown or an explicit statement that role differences were not examined would help readers interpret the aggregate percentages.
  5. [Section VI] The citation to Bernard [44] for a minimum of 10 knowledgeable participants is about qualitative lived-experience studies, not survey-based mapping of a fixed response matrix; please clarify why this sample-size argument is appropriate for the quantitative structure of these surveys.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey outputs are new respondent data, not forced by the authors' prior taxonomy.

full rationale

The paper's central outputs—the challenge-to-strategy mapping and the Kano ratings of mentor qualities and outcomes—are aggregated survey responses, not quantities derived from the authors' prior framework. The Task-Focused Mentoring Strategies survey uses the challenge and strategy taxonomy from Feng et al. [6] as instrument items, but the mapping itself is produced by 70 independent mentor respondents selecting strategies for each challenge; the taxonomy is an input, not the output. The pilot rounds with Outreachy and Linux Foundation leadership refined the list, and an open-ended question captured additional strategies. Similarly, the Mentor Attributes and Ideal Outcomes survey derives its attribute and outcome list from Kram's mentor role theory and a review of 57 external mentoring papers, but the ratings are new data from 85 contributors. No equation or definition forces the reported counts. The reliance on [6] is a self-citation, but it is a systematic literature review of external studies and is not load-bearing for the empirical mapping: the survey responses are independent of the taxonomy's internal associations. The CodeDay-heavy recruitment is a legitimate generalizability threat, not a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claims rest on the authors' prior taxonomy, the transferability of Kram's theory, and the validity of self-report; none are independently verified in this paper. The only hand-chosen numeric threshold that shapes the presentation is the 90th percentile display filter for spider plots.

free parameters (1)
  • Top 90th percentile display threshold = 90th percentile
    Only challenges in the top 90th percentile of responses are shown in spider plots (Figures 2-7), filtering which data are presented and discussed. This threshold is chosen post hoc for visual clarity and affects the narrative.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The taxonomy of 21 challenges and 17 strategies from Feng et al. [6] is complete and unbiased for OSS mentoring.
    The survey instrument in Section III-A is built directly on this prior framework; if it misses important challenges or strategies, the mapping cannot reveal them.
  • domain assumption Kram's mentor role theory, developed in organizational settings, transfers to volunteer OSS mentoring.
    Section III-B grounds the conceptual framework in Kram's model despite noting OSS differs in voluntariness, asynchronicity, and global distribution.
  • domain assumption Survey respondents accurately report their mentoring perceptions and experiences.
    All results are self-reported; there is no behavioral or observational validation of the claimed strategies or outcomes.
  • domain assumption A minimum of 10 knowledgeable participants suffices to discover core categories in lived experiences (Bernard [44]).
    Section VI uses this reference to justify the sample sizes of 70 and 85 as sufficient for drawing conclusions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Multifaceted Nature of Mentoring in OSS: Strategies, Qualities, and Ideal Outcomes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OT6RJGKK

@misc{pith2026250105600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Multifaceted Nature of Mentoring in OSS: Strategies, Qualities, and Ideal Outcomes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OT6RJGKK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05600}
}
read the original abstract

Mentorship in open source software (OSS) is a vital, multifaceted process that includes onboarding newcomers, fostering skill development, and enhancing community building. This study examines task-focused mentoring strategies that help mentees complete their tasks and the ideal personal qualities and outcomes of good mentorship in OSS communities. We conducted two surveys to gather contributor perceptions: the first survey, with 70 mentors, mapped 17 mentoring challenges to 21 strategies that help support mentees. The second survey, with 85 contributors, assessed the importance of personal qualities and ideal mentorship outcomes. Our findings not only provide actionable strategies to help mentees overcome challenges and become successful contributors but also guide current and future mentors and OSS communities in understanding the personal qualities that are the cornerstone of good mentorship and the outcomes that mentor-mentee pairs should aspire to achieve.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05600 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The vertical axis represents strategies, while the horizontal axis represents challenges. Each challenge could be linked to multiple strategies for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Mapping of challenges to the strategy category [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Mapping of challenges to the strategy category [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mapping of challenges to the strategy category [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Mapping of challenges to the strategy category [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Distribution of responses regarding the ideal mentoring outcomes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. What Motivates Whom? A Survey of Newcomers to OSS and Experienced OSS Practitioners

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Demographics and motivations correlate with OSS project-selection preferences, with distinct patterns for newcomers versus experienced practitioners in a 208-person survey.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [6]

    Guiding the way: A systematic literature review on mentoring practices in open source software projects,

    Z. Feng, K. Kimura, B. Trinkenreich, A. Sarma, and I. Steinmacher, “Guiding the way: A systematic literature review on mentoring practices in open source software projects,” IST, 2024

    2024

  2. [1]

    B. R. Ragins and K. E. Kram, The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice . Sage Publications, 2007

    2007

  3. [2]

    Tangled threads: Mentoring within a community of practice,

    P. Tarr, “Tangled threads: Mentoring within a community of practice,” McGill Journal of Education , 2010

    2010

  4. [3]

    “i give, and they give back

    I. Rinne, S. Windsor, A.-M. Hipkiss, A. Yildirim, and I. Brkovic, ““i give, and they give back”: teachers’ views on the professional implications of mentoring,” Professional Development in Education , 2023

    2023

  5. [4]

    A case study of implicit mentoring, its prevalence, and impact in apache,

    Z. Feng, A. Chatterjee, A. Sarma, and I. Ahmed, “A case study of implicit mentoring, its prevalence, and impact in apache,” in ESEC/FSE, 2022

    2022

  6. [5]

    Overcoming open source project entry barriers with a portal for newcomers,

    I. Steinmacher, T. U. Conte, C. Treude, and M. A. Gerosa, “Overcoming open source project entry barriers with a portal for newcomers,” in ICSE, 2016

    2016

  7. [7]

    Linux foundation mentorship programs,

    Linux Foundation, “Linux foundation mentorship programs,” 2024, accessed: 2024-11-06. [Online]. Available: https://www.linuxfoundation. org/about/mentorship-programs/

    2024

  8. [8]

    Google summer of code 2024,

    “Google summer of code 2024,” https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com/ programs/2024, 2024, accessed: 2024-10-11

    2024

Show all 98 references
  1. [9]

    Open-source internships with industry mentors,

    T. Menezes, A. Parra, and M. Jiang, “Open-source internships with industry mentors,” in ITiCSE, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Newcomers’ barriers... is that all? an analysis of mentors’ and newcomers’ barriers in oss projects,

    S. Balali, I. Steinmacher, U. Annamalai, A. Sarma, and M. A. Gerosa, “Newcomers’ barriers... is that all? an analysis of mentors’ and newcomers’ barriers in oss projects,” CSCW, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    Recommending tasks to newcomers in oss projects: How do mentors handle it?

    S. Balali, U. Annamalai, H. S. Padala, B. Trinkenreich, M. A. Gerosa, I. Steinmacher, and A. Sarma, “Recommending tasks to newcomers in oss projects: How do mentors handle it?” in OpenSym, 2020

    2020

  4. [12]

    Overcoming social barriers when contributing to open source software projects,

    I. Steinmacher, M. Gerosa, T. U. Conte, and D. F. Redmiles, “Overcoming social barriers when contributing to open source software projects,” CSCW, 2019

    2019

  5. [13]

    Mentorship of women in oss projects: A cross-disciplinary, integrative review,

    M. Jacobs, R. Milewicz, and A. Serebrenik, “Mentorship of women in oss projects: A cross-disciplinary, integrative review,” in Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering: Best Practices and Insights . Apress, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Outreachy: Diversity Internships in Open Source,

    Outreachy, “Outreachy: Diversity Internships in Open Source,” https: //www.outreachy.org/, 2024, accessed: 2024-11-07

    2024

  7. [15]

    Supervision, mentoring and coaching,

    K. Gallacher, “Supervision, mentoring and coaching,” Reforming person- nel in early intervention , 1997

    1997

  8. [16]

    Do i belong? modeling sense of virtual community among linux kernel contributors,

    B. Trinkenreich, K.-J. Stol, A. Sarma, D. M. German, M. A. Gerosa, and I. Steinmacher, “Do i belong? modeling sense of virtual community among linux kernel contributors,” in ICSE. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Scaffolding and learning: Its role in nurturing new learners,

    I. Verenikina, “Scaffolding and learning: Its role in nurturing new learners,” in Learning and the learner: exploring learning for new times. University of Wollongong, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial,

    S. Sahlqvist, Y . Song, F. Bull, E. Adams, J. Preston, D. Ogilvie, and iConnect Consortium, “Effect of questionnaire length, personalisation and reminder type on response rate to a complex postal survey: randomised controlled trial,” BMC medical research methodology , 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    The multifaceted nature of mentoring in oss:strategies, qualities, and ideal outcomes,

    Z. Feng, I. Steinmacher, M. Gerosa, T. Menezes, A. Serebrenik, R. Milewicz, and A. Sarma, “The multifaceted nature of mentoring in oss:strategies, qualities, and ideal outcomes,” Dec. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14574639

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Qualtrics survey,

    Qualtrics, “Qualtrics survey,” 2024, accessed: 2024-11-08. [Online]. Available: https://www.qualtrics.com/

    2024

  13. [21]

    Mentoring at work. glenview,

    K. E. Kram, “Mentoring at work. glenview,” IL: Scott Foresman, 1985

    1985

  14. [22]

    Challenges to online disability rights advocacy in india,

    S. Kaur, M. Swaminathan, K. Bali, and A. Vashistha, “Challenges to online disability rights advocacy in india,” in Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2024, pp. 1–15

    2024

  15. [23]

    Braun and V

    V . Braun and V . Clarke,Thematic analysis. American Psychological Association, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    Glaser or strauss? considerations for selecting a grounded theory study,

    L. Howard-Payne, “Glaser or strauss? considerations for selecting a grounded theory study,” South African Journal of Psychology , vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 50–62, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability,

    D. R. Garrison, M. Cleveland-Innes, M. Koole, and J. Kappelman, “Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability,” The internet and higher education , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2006

    2006

  18. [26]

    Theory of attractive quality and the kano methodology–the past, the present, and the future,

    L. Witell, M. L ¨ofgren, and J. J. Dahlgaard, “Theory of attractive quality and the kano methodology–the past, the present, and the future,” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence , 2013

    2013

  19. [27]

    Analyze this! 145 questions for data scientists in software engineering,

    A. Begel and T. Zimmermann, “Analyze this! 145 questions for data scientists in software engineering,” in ICSE, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    C. J. Bland, A. L. Taylor, S. L. Shollen, A. M. Weber-Main, and P. A. Mulcahy, Faculty success through mentoring: A guide for mentors, mentees, and leaders . R&L Education, 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    Self-determination theory,

    E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, “Self-determination theory,” Handbook of theories of social psychology , 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions,

    R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions,” Contemporary educational psychology , 2000

    2000

  23. [31]

    Automated identification of toxic code reviews using toxicr,

    J. Sarker, A. K. Turzo, M. Dong, and A. Bosu, “Automated identification of toxic code reviews using toxicr,” TOSEM, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Code of conduct conversations in open source software projects on github,

    R. Li, P. Pandurangan, H. Frluckaj, and L. Dabbish, “Code of conduct conversations in open source software projects on github,” HCI, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview,

    B. J. Zimmerman, “Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview,” Theory into practice , 2002

    2002

  26. [34]

    The effect of teacher encouragement on student self-efficacy and motivation for self-regulated performance,

    B. W. Tuckman and T. L. Sexton, “The effect of teacher encouragement on student self-efficacy and motivation for self-regulated performance,” Journal of Social Behavior and Personality , 1991

    1991

  27. [35]

    The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring

    W. B. Johnson, “The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring.” Professional psychology: Research and practice , 2002

    2002

  28. [36]

    Network analysis of oss evolution: An empirical study on argouml project,

    W. Zhang, Y . Yang, and Q. Wang, “Network analysis of oss evolution: An empirical study on argouml project,” in IWPSE-EVOL, 2011

    2011

  29. [37]

    Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition,

    N. Lapidot-Lefler and A. Barak, “Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition,” Computers in human behavior, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    Effective teaching through code reviews: Patterns and anti-patterns,

    A. Sarma and N. Chen, “Effective teaching through code reviews: Patterns and anti-patterns,” FSE, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    The importance of role modeling in mentoring women: Lessons from pat summitt legacy,

    M. Picariello and S. N. Waller, “The importance of role modeling in mentoring women: Lessons from pat summitt legacy,” Physical Culture and Sport. Studies and Research , 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    University internship,

    Microsoft, “University internship,” https://careers.microsoft.com/v2/ global/en/universityinternship, accessed: 2025-01-01

    2025

  33. [41]

    A tale of two cities: Software developers working from home during the covid-19 pandemic,

    D. Ford, M.-A. Storey, T. Zimmermann, C. Bird, S. Jaffe, C. Maddila, J. L. Butler, B. Houck, and N. Nagappan, “A tale of two cities: Software developers working from home during the covid-19 pandemic,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) , vol. 31,...

    2021

  34. [42]

    Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,

    E. Kasneci, K. Seßler, S. K ¨uchemann, M. Bannert, D. Dementieva, F. Fischer, U. Gasser, G. Groh, S. G ¨unnemann, E. H ¨ullermeier et al., “Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for education,” Learning and individual differences , vol. 103...

    2023

  35. [43]

    Worse than spam: Issues in sampling software developers,

    S. Baltes and S. Diehl, “Worse than spam: Issues in sampling software developers,” in ESEM, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    H. R. Bernard, Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017. REFERENCES B: C ONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF MENTOR ATTRIBUTES AND IDEAL OUTCOMES

    2017

  37. [45]

    A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine,

    D. Sambunjak, S. E. Straus, and A. Marusic, “A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine,” Journal of general internal medicine , 2010

    2010

  38. [46]

    Defining the ideal qualities of mentorship: a qualitative analysis of the characteristics of outstanding mentors,

    C. S. Cho, R. A. Ramanan, and M. D. Feldman, “Defining the ideal qualities of mentorship: a qualitative analysis of the characteristics of outstanding mentors,” The American journal of medicine , 2011

    2011

  39. [47]

    Mentoring and the career satisfaction of male and female academic medical faculty,

    R. DeCastro, K. A. Griffith, P. A. Ubel, A. Stewart, and R. Jagsi, “Mentoring and the career satisfaction of male and female academic medical faculty,” Academic Medicine, 2014

    2014

  40. [48]

    Multiple-role mentoring: mentors’ conceptualisations, enactments and role conflicts,

    S. N. Meeuwissen, R. E. Stalmeijer, and M. Govaerts, “Multiple-role mentoring: mentors’ conceptualisations, enactments and role conflicts,” Medical education, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Changing tides: Improving outcomes through mentorship on all levels of nursing,

    T. K. Race and J. Skees, “Changing tides: Improving outcomes through mentorship on all levels of nursing,” Critical care nursing quarterly , 2010

    2010

  42. [50]

    Key components of an effective mentoring relationship: A qualitative study,

    L. S. Eller, E. L. Lev, and A. Feurer, “Key components of an effective mentoring relationship: A qualitative study,” Nurse education today , 2014

    2014

  43. [51]

    Mentoring in nursing education: Perceived characteristics of mentors and the consequences of mentorship,

    S. Huybrecht, W. Loeckx, Y . Quaeyhaegens, D. De Tobel, and W. Mis- tiaen, “Mentoring in nursing education: Perceived characteristics of mentors and the consequences of mentorship,” Nurse education today , 2011

    2011

  44. [52]

    A scoping review of mentorship of health personnel to improve the quality of health care in low and middle-income countries,

    P. Schwerdtle, J. Morphet, and H. Hall, “A scoping review of mentorship of health personnel to improve the quality of health care in low and middle-income countries,” Glob. Health., vol. 13, 2017

    2017

  45. [53]

    Characteristics of mentoring relation- ships formed by medical students and faculty,

    K. Dimitriadis, P. von der Borch, S. St ¨ormann, F. G. Meinel, S. Moder, M. Reincke, and M. R. Fischer, “Characteristics of mentoring relation- ships formed by medical students and faculty,” Med. educ. online , 2012

    2012

  46. [54]

    Characteristics of successful and failed mentoring relationships: a qualitative study across two academic health centers,

    S. E. Straus, M. O. Johnson, C. Marquez, and M. D. Feldman, “Characteristics of successful and failed mentoring relationships: a qualitative study across two academic health centers,” Academic medicine, 2013

    2013

  47. [55]

    Mentoring for doctors. do its benefits outweigh its disadvantages?

    K. Taherian and M. Shekarchian, “Mentoring for doctors. do its benefits outweigh its disadvantages?” Medical teacher, 2008

    2008

  48. [56]

    Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine: a systematic review,

    D. T. Kashiwagi, P. Varkey, and D. A. Cook, “Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine: a systematic review,” Academic Medicine, 2013

    2013

  49. [57]

    Social media in the mentorship and networking of physicians: important role for women in surgical specialties,

    J. G. Luc, N. L. Stamp, and M. B. Antonoff, “Social media in the mentorship and networking of physicians: important role for women in surgical specialties,” The American Journal of Surgery , 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    A concept analysis of mentoring in nursing leadership,

    A. K. Hodgson, J. M. Scanlan et al., “A concept analysis of mentoring in nursing leadership,” Open Journal of Nursing , 2013

    2013

  51. [59]

    A literature review of mentorship programs in academic nursing,

    L. Nowell, J. M. Norris, K. Mrklas, and D. E. White, “A literature review of mentorship programs in academic nursing,” Journal of Professional Nursing, 2017

    2017

  52. [60]

    Best practices in academic mentoring: A model for excellence,

    J. M. Nick, T. M. Delahoyde, D. Del Prato, C. Mitchell, J. Ortiz, C. Ottley, P. Young, S. B. Cannon, K. Lasater, D. Reising et al., “Best practices in academic mentoring: A model for excellence,” Nursing research and practice, 2012

    2012

  53. [61]

    Effective mentoring in the clinical setting,

    T. Shellenbarger and M. Robb, “Effective mentoring in the clinical setting,” AJN the American Journal of Nursing , 2016

    2016

  54. [62]

    Exploring the impact of mentoring functions on job satisfaction and organizational commitment of new staff nurses,

    R.-H. Weng, C.-Y . Huang, W.-C. Tsai, L.-Y . Chang, S.-E. Lin, and M.-Y . Lee, “Exploring the impact of mentoring functions on job satisfaction and organizational commitment of new staff nurses,” BMC Health Services Research, 2010

    2010

  55. [63]

    Mentoring new nurse practitioners to accelerate their development as primary care providers: A literature review,

    S. Harrington, “Mentoring new nurse practitioners to accelerate their development as primary care providers: A literature review,” Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners , 2011

    2011

  56. [64]

    Mentors’ self-assessed competence in mentoring nursing students in clinical practice: A systematic review of quantitative studies,

    S. Pramila-Savukoski, J. Juntunen, A.-M. Tuomikoski, M. K ¨a¨ari¨ainen, M. Tomietto, B. M. Kauˇciˇc, B. Filej, O. Riklikiene, M. F. Vizcaya-Moreno, R. M. Perez-Ca ˜naveras et al. , “Mentors’ self-assessed competence in mentoring nursing students in clinical practice: A systema...

    2020

  57. [65]

    Mentorship in nursing academia: a systematic review protocol,

    L. Nowell, D. E. White, K. Mrklas, and J. M. Norris, “Mentorship in nursing academia: a systematic review protocol,” Systematic reviews, 2015

    2015

  58. [66]

    Professional development and the role of mentorship,

    P. A. Ali and W. Panther, “Professional development and the role of mentorship,” Nursing Standard (through 2013) , 2008

    2013

  59. [67]

    Roles and responsibilities of the student nurse mentor: an update,

    D. C. Casey and L. Clark, “Roles and responsibilities of the student nurse mentor: an update,” British Journal of Nursing , 2011

    2011

  60. [68]

    The effect of a formal mentoring program on career satisfaction and intent to stay in the faculty role for novice nurse faculty,

    S. Jeffers and B. Mariani, “The effect of a formal mentoring program on career satisfaction and intent to stay in the faculty role for novice nurse faculty,” Nursing Education Perspectives, 2017

    2017

  61. [69]

    The role of nursing leadership in creating a mentoring culture in acute care environments

    J. M. Bally, “The role of nursing leadership in creating a mentoring culture in acute care environments.” Nursing Economic, 2007

    2007

  62. [70]

    Defining attributes and metrics of effective research mentoring relation- ships,

    C. Pfund, A. Byars-Winston, J. Branchaw, S. Hurtado, and K. Eagan, “Defining attributes and metrics of effective research mentoring relation- ships,” AIDS and Behavior , 2016

    2016

  63. [71]

    Effect of mentoring program on ways of coping with stress and locus of control for nursing students,

    S. Demir, S. G. Demir, H. Bulut, and F. Hisar, “Effect of mentoring program on ways of coping with stress and locus of control for nursing students,” Asian nursing research, 2014

    2014

  64. [72]

    A matrix mentoring model that effectively supports clinical and translational scientists and increases inclusion in biomedical research: Lessons from the university of utah,

    C. L. Byington, H. Keenan, J. D. Phillips, R. Childs, E. Wachs, M. A. Berzins, K. Clark, M. K. Torres, J. Abramson, V . Lee et al., “A matrix mentoring model that effectively supports clinical and translational scientists and increases inclusion in biomedical research: Lessons...

    2016

  65. [73]

    A systematic review of the literature describing the outcomes of near-peer mentoring programs for first year medical students,

    O. Akinla, P. Hagan, and W. Atiomo, “A systematic review of the literature describing the outcomes of near-peer mentoring programs for first year medical students,” BMC medical education , 2018

    2018

  66. [74]

    Characteristics of success in mentoring and research productivity—a case–control study of academic centers,

    J. G. Cohen, A. E. Sherman, T. K. Kiet, D. S. Kapp, K. Osann, L.-M. Chen, P. S. O’Sullivan, and J. K. Chan, “Characteristics of success in mentoring and research productivity—a case–control study of academic centers,” Gynecologic oncology, 2012

    2012

  67. [75]

    Facilitated peer mentorship: a pilot program for academic advancement of female medical faculty,

    J. A. Files, J. E. Blair, A. P. Mayer, and M. G. Ko, “Facilitated peer mentorship: a pilot program for academic advancement of female medical faculty,” Journal of women’s health , 2008

    2008

  68. [76]

    Mentoring programs for medical students-a review of the pubmed literature 2000-2008,

    E. Frei, M. Stamm, and B. Buddeberg-Fischer, “Mentoring programs for medical students-a review of the pubmed literature 2000-2008,” BMC medical education, 2010

    2000

  69. [77]

    Mentoring programs for underrepresented minority faculty in academic medical centers: a systematic review of the literature,

    B. M. Beech, J. Calles-Escandon, K. G. Hairston, S. E. Langdon, B. A. Latham-Sadler, and R. A. Bell, “Mentoring programs for underrepresented minority faculty in academic medical centers: a systematic review of the literature,” Academic medicine, 2013

    2013

  70. [78]

    Practice educator perspectives of multiple mentoring in diverse clinical settings,

    J. Copley and A. Nelson, “Practice educator perspectives of multiple mentoring in diverse clinical settings,” British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2012

    2012

  71. [79]

    Strategies to design an effective mentoring program,

    M. E. Gusic, E. A. Zenni, S. Ludwig, and L. R. First, “Strategies to design an effective mentoring program,” The Journal of pediatrics , 2010

    2010

  72. [80]

    A teaching mentorship program to facilitate excellence in teaching and learning,

    L. Slimmer, “A teaching mentorship program to facilitate excellence in teaching and learning,” Journal of Professional Nursing , 2012

    2012

  73. [81]

    Achieving quality and fiscal outcomes in patient care: The clinical mentor care delivery model,

    J. E. Burritt, P. Wallace, C. Steckel, and A. Hunter, “Achieving quality and fiscal outcomes in patient care: The clinical mentor care delivery model,” JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration , 2007

    2007

  74. [82]

    Developing clinical leaders: the impact of an action learning mentoring programme for advanced practice nurses,

    S. G. Leggat, C. Balding, and D. Schiftan, “Developing clinical leaders: the impact of an action learning mentoring programme for advanced practice nurses,” Journal of Clinical Nursing , 2015

    2015

  75. [83]

    Mixed methods systematic review exploring mentorship outcomes in nursing academia,

    L. Nowell, J. M. Norris, K. Mrklas, and D. E. White, “Mixed methods systematic review exploring mentorship outcomes in nursing academia,” Journal of advanced nursing , 2017

    2017

  76. [84]

    Nursing home staff experiences of implementing mentorship programmes: A systematic review and qualitative meta- synthesis,

    L. Liao, L. D. Xiao, H. Chen, X. Y . Wu, Y . Zhao, M. Hu, H. Hu, H. Li, X. Yang, and H. Feng, “Nursing home staff experiences of implementing mentorship programmes: A systematic review and qualitative meta- synthesis,” Journal of nursing management , 2020

    2020

  77. [85]

    Nursing student peer men- torship: A review of the literature,

    N. Rohatinsky, K. Harding, and T. Carriere, “Nursing student peer men- torship: A review of the literature,” Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 2017

    2017

  78. [86]

    The effectiveness and application of mentorship programmes for recently registered nurses: a systematic review,

    C.-M. Chen and M.-F. Lou, “The effectiveness and application of mentorship programmes for recently registered nurses: a systematic review,” Journal of nursing management , 2014

    2014

  79. [87]

    The effectiveness and implementation of mentoring program for newly graduated nurses: A systematic review,

    Y . Zhang, Y . Qian, J. Wu, F. Wen, and Y . Zhang, “The effectiveness and implementation of mentoring program for newly graduated nurses: A systematic review,” Nurse education today , 2016

    2016

  80. [88]

    Understanding the mentoring environment through thematic analysis of the learning environment in medical education: a systematic review,

    J. M. Hee, H. W. Yap, Z. X. Ong, S. Q. M. Quek, Y . P. Toh, S. Mason, and L. K. R. Krishna, “Understanding the mentoring environment through thematic analysis of the learning environment in medical education: a systematic review,” Journal of general internal medicine , 2019

    2019

  81. [89]

    M. C. Morgan, J. Dyer, A. Abril, A. Christmas, T. Mahapatra, A. Das, and D. M. Walker, “Barriers and facilitators to the provision of optimal obstetric and neonatal emergency care and to the implementation of simulation-enhanced mentorship in primary care facilities in bihar, ...

    2018

  82. [90]

    “my mentor didn’t speak to me for the first four weeks

    K. Jack, C. Hamshire, W. E. Harris, M. Langan, N. Barrett, and C. Wibberley, ““my mentor didn’t speak to me for the first four weeks”: Perceived unfairness experienced by nursing students in clinical practice settings,” Journal of clinical nursing , 2018

    2018

  83. [91]

    Factors that can influence mentorship relationships,

    B. Hodges, “Factors that can influence mentorship relationships,” Nursing Children and Young People, 2009

    2009

  84. [92]

    Implementing a leadership course and mentor model for students in the national student nurses’ association,

    E. A. Gardner and C. K. Schmidt, “Implementing a leadership course and mentor model for students in the national student nurses’ association,” Nurse Educator, 2007

    2007

  85. [93]

    Mentoring nontenured track nursing faculty: A systematic review,

    D. Cullen, C. Shieh, S. M. McLennon, C. Pike, T. Hartman, and H. Shah, “Mentoring nontenured track nursing faculty: A systematic review,” Nurse Educator, 2017

    2017

  86. [94]

    The influence of peer mentoring on critical care nursing students’ learning outcomes,

    M. N. Sibiya, T. S. P. Ngxongo, and S. Y . Beepat, “The influence of peer mentoring on critical care nursing students’ learning outcomes,” International Journal of Workplace Health Management , 2018

    2018

  87. [95]

    Implementation of a university faculty mentorship program,

    L. Foxcroft, D. Jones, M. Steele, and R. Lim, “Implementation of a university faculty mentorship program,” Canadian Med. Educ. J. , 2018

    2018

  88. [96]

    Mentoring expectations and realities: An analysis of metaphorical thinking among female undergraduate prot´eg´es and their mentors in a university mentoring programme,

    D. Storrs, L. Putsche, and A. Taylor, “Mentoring expectations and realities: An analysis of metaphorical thinking among female undergraduate prot´eg´es and their mentors in a university mentoring programme,” Mentoring & tutoring: Partnership in learning , 2008

    2008

  89. [97]

    The role of same-sex mentorship and organizational support in encouraging women to pursue surgery,

    E. A. Faucett, H. C. McCrary, T. Milinic, T. Hassanzadeh, S. G. Roward, and L. A. Neumayer, “The role of same-sex mentorship and organizational support in encouraging women to pursue surgery,” The American Journal of Surgery, 2017

    2017

  90. [98]

    A comparison of mentoring and coaching: What’s the difference?

    C. A. Viera, “A comparison of mentoring and coaching: What’s the difference?” Performance Improvement, 2021

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.