Should Mentoring Become a Core Academic Activity? Moving Towards an Academic Culture of Embedded Mentorship

Mentorship plays a central role in professional development and career progression within academia. At its best, mentoring provides space for alternative perspectives, troubleshooting, constructive challenge and reflection on both immediate challenges and longer-term career goals. Mentoring enables advice, support and guidance and should not be confused with the active advocacy and influence of sponsorship. Mentoring can also provide psychosocial support, enhance belonging and aid in career navigation and progression. Although mentoring cannot fundamentally address systemic and structural academic challenges, such as employment precarity and funding instability, it can be an important mechanism to discuss and voice these challenges in a supportive environment. In academic practice, mentoring is often seen as particularly important for early career researchers (ECRs) (Lunsford et al. 2017). In this opinion piece, we suggest that mentoring is equally important across all stages of an academic career and should be recognised as a core and fundamental academic activity on an ongoing basis rather than a discretionary, informal or one-off activity. Despite the widely acknowledged importance of mentoring and the associated benefits for both mentors and mentees (Lunsford et al. 2017), mentoring roles often receive limited visibility and formal recognition within academic structures. Mentoring work is often undertaken by people from underrepresented groups such as women and ethnic minorities, which further compounds systemic inequities in workload, recognition and career progression (Haberer et al. 2025). At the same time, structural pressures within academia are intensifying. A recent large-scale study reported that almost 50% of scientists leave academia within ten years of publishing their first paper (Kwiek and Szymula 2025). While decisions to leave academia are personal and multifaceted, mentoring may be a possible solution which goes some way to preventing the loss of talented, creative and motivated individuals, as this can have severe consequences for research culture, diversity of thought and the sustainability of the academic workforce. Effective mentoring cannot solve all structural challenges, but it can play a critical role in supporting individuals through uncertainty, transitions and career decision-making, whether that involves remaining in academia or pursuing alternative career pathways. Although many of the issues discussed here extend beyond a single discipline, we use our subject-specific expertise to draw primarily on examples from the neuroscience community to illustrate how mentoring can be more effectively embedded within a research-intensive field. This article aims to promote awareness of the value of effective mentoring, explore emerging practices such as reverse mentoring, and discuss issues of reward, recognition and practical implementation. We also draw on perspectives from neuroscientists affiliated with international networks, including the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies (FENs), the Federation of European Neuroscience Societies Kavli Network of Excellence (FKNE), the ALBA Network (a global diversity in neuroscience network) and the International Brain Research Organisation (IBRO), who were invited to reflect on their experiences and views on mentorship. We ultimately call on institutions, funders, professional societies and researchers themselves to treat mentoring as essential infrastructure to enable a healthier, more sustainable and inclusive academic environment. Mentorship is commonly understood as a relational process through which individuals with greater experience support the professional and personal development of others (Montgomery 2017). Traditionally, mentoring relationships have been framed as hierarchical and unidirectional, with senior academics guiding more junior colleagues. While this model has some value, it no longer accurately reflects the diversity of mentoring relationships observed in contemporary academia. Modern mentoring encompasses a broader and more flexible set of relationships. Effective mentoring is a relational and developmental process that supports an individual's professional growth, psychosocial wellbeing, and career navigation through structured or organic engagement characterised by goal alignment, reciprocity, transparency and adaptability (Dahlberg and Byars-Winston 2019). Mentors and mentees may differ in career stage, discipline, sector or lived experience, and effective mentoring does not require a single individual to meet all developmental needs. In addition, mentoring may serve distinct but overlapping functions. These include career mentoring (e.g., strategic advice, grant development, promotion pathways) and psychosocial mentoring (e.g., confidence building). Distinguishing these functions helps clarify expectations and enables institutions to recognise mentoring contributions more explicitly within appraisal and funding frameworks. As one mentor reflected, mentoring can be successful even when it offers only a small but meaningful insight, rather than comprehensive guidance. One should not expect that one specific mentor can supply the answers for all issues in life, instead one can look for specific mentors for specific topics. If you can then take one little thing, one sentence or one advice home with you, it can be enough. (Lisa Genzel, Donders Centre for Neuroscience) Contributors also emphasised the importance of recognising individuality, flexibility and adaptability in mentoring approaches. A mentoring relationship is most successful when it is built on mutual respect, trust, and open communication. Each person has their own path to success, and the real challenge as a mentor is to listen actively and help them shape that path. (Meital Oren-Suissa, Weizmann Institute of Science) No two people are the same. The approach that works for one mentee may not work for another, and sometimes a good mentoring relationship can later develop into a successful collaboration. (Ke Ya, The Chinese University of Hong Kong) Effective mentors provide not only academic advice but also psychosocial support, offering safety, validation and perspective in an increasingly complex, competitive and performance-driven academic environment (Montgomery 2017). Such support is particularly important for researchers from underrepresented backgrounds, for whom mentoring can reduce professional isolation and enhance retention within academic pathways. Mentoring relationships may develop organically or be facilitated through structured programmes and both approaches offer distinct advantages. When considering structured and organic models, it is important to recognise that effectiveness does not depend solely on format. Structured programmes may support goal alignment and transparency through formal agreements, ‘matching’ and training, while organic mentoring may facilitate adaptability and informal psychosocial support. Both formats can support career mentoring and psychosocial mentoring. Structured mentoring programmes, such as those offered by the British Neuroscience Association (BNA) and the Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS), can provide consistency, support and resources. The BNA Scholars Programme, for example, connects early- and mid-career neuroscientists with experienced mentors across institutions and sectors to improve the representation of under-represented ethnicities in neuroscience. In addition to supporting career development, the programme explicitly addresses equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) within the field, contributing to a more inclusive culture within neuroscience. Similarly, the AMS one-to-one Mentoring and Career Development Programme pairs postdoctoral and independent researchers with senior Fellows across biomedical and health sciences. The programme adopts a non-directive, developmental model in which mentors act as facilitators, supporting reflective decision-making during key career transitions such as the move from postdoctoral research to independence. Mentoring agreements, training workshops and supporting resources further enable both mentors and mentees to engage productively and reflectively. Organic mentorship tends to evolve through shared research interests, collegial rapport or chance conversations and therefore offers a more flexible framework (Aiken 2024). For example, a newly appointed principal investigator (PI) establishing their first laboratory without access to a formal mentoring scheme may seek advice from a more experienced colleague on immediate challenges, such as recruiting doctoral students or preparing a first major grant application. However, organic mentoring may also rely on the confidence of mentees to approach potential mentors. Mentoring was also described as a cumulative and cyclical process, which empowers and inspires the next generation of academics. Mentoring should be an integral part of the scientific path. Our principal investigators initially mentored us as students, and subsequently we became mentors to our own fellows. A good mentor leaves the seeds for future mentorship skills. (Francesca Cirulli, Istituto Superiore di Sanità) Rather than viewing structured and organic mentoring as competing models, institutions and organisations should recognise their complementary roles and ensure that researchers have access to and information on both to ensure an approach which is as inclusive as possible. Reverse mentoring, in which junior colleagues typically mentor more senior staff, offers a powerful mechanism for challenging traditional academic hierarchies and promoting mutual learning. Such approaches have been particularly impactful in areas related to equity, diversity and EDI, digital practices and changing systemic academic cultures (Cain et al. 2024; Chen 2013; Morris 2017; Pizzolato and Dierickx 2022). Within neuroscience, where ECRs are often at the forefront of methodological innovation, open science practices and EDI initiatives, reverse mentoring can facilitate important organisational learning that might not otherwise occur. By centering the expertise and experiences of junior colleagues and marginalised groups, reverse mentoring can catalyse cultural change and promote more reflexive leadership. Institutions may therefore wish to pilot reverse mentoring schemes within leadership development programmes to develop a more robust, resilient and future-focused community which is open to and supportive of continually learning and growing. Mentorship is not a unidirectional transfer of knowledge. When grounded in mutual respect and openness, mentoring relationships benefit both mentors and mentees. Mentors frequently report reflective learning, renewed motivation and professional development, while mentees gain confidence, resilience and access to tacit knowledge that is rarely part of formal training (Lunsford et al. 2017). As highlighted by contributors, trust and open communication are central to effective mentoring relationships. A successful mentoring relationship is built on a foundation of mutual trust and is fundamentally bidirectional. The mentor actively demonstrates support and commitment to the mentee, which in turn encourages the mentee to open up and discuss the core challenges they are facing. (Jacque Pak Kan Ip, The Chinese University of Hong Kong) It is mutual trust and respect that ultimately makes a mentoring relationship successful. (Yung Wing Ho, City University of Hong Kong) Successful mentoring relationships are reciprocal; they should be grounded in agreed expectations, and they require active engagement from both parties. Mentees and mentors must be equally willing to reflect and act on feedback, while remaining adaptable and responsive to individual needs. Despite the substantial contribution that mentoring and supervisory activities make to academic life, they are rarely recognised in promotion criteria, workload models7 or assessment processes. Traditional metrics, such as publication output and grant income, continue to dominate measures of success, often at the expense of recognising broader impactful contributions to research culture and community building. The concept of professional generosity captures the relational and often invisible labour involved in mentoring, knowledge sharing and supporting others (Montgomery 2017). While such generosity is highly valued by mentees, it remains insufficiently recognised by institutions. Initiatives such as mentoring prizes and awards (e.g., The FENS-Kavli Network of Excellence Mentoring Prize) represent important steps towards valuing this work, but they must be accompanied by structural changes if the value of mentoring is to be embedded and sustained. Several contributors emphasised the need for institutional commitment. Effective mentorship thrives when institutions give it time, space, and recognition. Protecting mentoring time and integrating it into career evaluations would help shift mentorship from goodwill to genuine academic responsibility. (Celine Gillebert, KU Leuven) Some contributors highlighted the role of visibility and awards. As one of the first FENS Kavli scholars, I helped initiate a mentoring prize, which I think helps in raising the profile of the value of good mentoring. (Tara Spires Jones, University of Edinburgh) Others emphasised intrinsic motivation. I do not think mentoring can be rewarded easily. Doing it itself should be the reward, and trainees should actively seek out mentors who are genuinely good at mentoring. (Lisa Genzel, Donders Centre for Neuroscience) Crucially, mentoring should not be concentrated among a small subset of professionally generous staff, who may already typically come from an underrepresented demographic. Embedding mentoring as a shared responsibility which is expected across all career stages can help prevent burnout and reduce the inequitable workload allocation associated with mentoring. Evaluating mentoring effectively is therefore an important component of recognising its value within academic systems and enables continuous evidence-based review. Mixed-method evaluation approaches may combine quantitative indicators (e.g., progression) with qualitative and developmental indicators of mentoring quality. Qualitative indicators may include reflective narratives and evidence of expanded professional networks. Evaluation can operate at multiple levels. At the individual level, mentors and mentees can engage in structured reflection and periodic review. At the programme level, institutions or societies may collect anonymised feedback to assess accessibility, inclusivity and perceived quality. Importantly, mentoring evaluation should not generate excessive administrative burden. Where possible, processes should be streamlined, proportionate and embedded within existing appraisal or reporting systems. Effective mentoring is supported from the outset by clear and realistic expectations, communication and reflections. The feasibility of effectively embedding mentoring across different contexts, institutions, countries and funding environments will inevitably vary. There may well be limitations given resources, the precarious nature of some settings and challenges to workload, which require adaptation for each specific context. However, practical tools such as mentoring agreements, development plans and regular honest review points, with no fault break clauses, can enhance trust, accountability and alignment of goals (Montgomery 2017), while ensuring consistency and fairness in approaches. The importance of mentee agency was emphasised by contributors. Mentoring relationships are successful when the mentee has a clear idea about what they hope to get out of the relationship, and when they drive this by, for example, setting meetings with a clear topic. (Tara Spires Jones, University of Edinburgh) Transparency is particularly important in effective and sustained mentoring relationships. Explicit discussion of expectations sometimes formalised through mentoring agreements can help to ensure that mentoring relationships are equitable and sustainable. Each mentee has unique strengths, needs, and rhythms, so I try to adapt my mentoring style accordingly. Transparency is key. Everyone in my lab knows exactly what they can expect from me, and what I expect from them. (Celine Gillebert, KU Leuven) If mentoring is to fulfil its full potential as a vital mechanism for improving diversity, retention and wellbeing in academia, a cultural shift is required. Mentorship must move beyond goodwill and informal professional generosity to become an embedded and recognised component of academic life. This requires coordinated action across institutions, funders, professional societies and individual researchers (see Box 1). Recommendations for Embedding Mentorship in Academia It should be noted that an embedded approach to mentoring is not without risk. The institutionalisation of mentoring could lead to the erosion of informal or organic mentoring opportunities. There are also risks of low-quality, purely performative based approaches, with increasing amounts of bureaucratisation and tokenism if mentoring is to become mandatory. However, these risks could be mitigated with clear training, periodic review, case studies and flexibility to ensure that mentoring is given the reward and recognition that it deserves. At an institutional level, mentoring should be formally recognised within promotion and appraisal criteria, supported through protected time in workload models, and underpinned by access to structured mentoring schemes (Sarabipour et al. 2023). In some institutions, elements of this approach are already being implemented through formal mentoring frameworks, leadership training and explicit recognition of mentoring contributions within promotion and tenure processes. However, comparable structures remain less consistently developed, across the world, mentoring is often informal and unevenly recognised within workload models or career progression frameworks. Strengthening institutional recognition across Europe could therefore play an important role in promoting a more consistent and sustainable mentoring culture. Beyond general mentoring schemes, institutions could also develop targeted mentoring structures that support academics at key career transitions. For example, mentoring programmes could be provided for faculty approaching tenure or promotion review, for newly appointed PIs managing research teams for the first time and for mid-career academics navigating leadership responsibilities or career development after tenure. Structured mentoring at these stages can help researchers develop skills in people management, strategic planning and research leadership, areas that are often learned informally despite their central importance to academic success. Embedding such career-stage mentoring programmes would signal a stronger institutional commitment to mentoring as an integral component of academic development rather than a one-off orientation activity. Embedding mentoring across career stages also requires recognising that effective mentoring is itself a skill that must be developed, supported and given resources. Importantly, effective mentoring cannot be assumed to emerge automatically with seniority. As one contributor noted, targeted preparation and support are essential. When scientists become team leaders, they are not always trained for effective mentoring. Institutions can support this by offering leadership and communication training and peer support groups. (Meital Oren-Suissa, Weizmann Institute of Science) Funders also have a vital role to play in relation to mentoring in academia. By recognising mentoring contributions within grant assessment and reporting processes, and by providing resources to support mentoring training, funders can help signal that mentoring is a valued and expected outcome of all academic activity. At the individual level, researchers should engage actively in mentoring at all career stages, both as mentors and mentees, and reflect on mentoring contributions as part of their ongoing professional development. Several contributors highlighted the importance of making mentoring visible and valued within the academic community. Every young faculty member should be assigned a mentor, and successful mentoring stories should be celebrated publicly. (Ke Ya, The Chinese University of Hong Kong) Effective mentorship relationships thrive when institutions choose to give mentoring time, space and recognition. By embedding mentoring into academic structures and values, both the neuroscience community and the wider academic sector can foster continuity, inclusivity and excellence, ensuring that today's mentees are supported to become tomorrow's mentors and leaders (Figure 1). Emma Yhnell: conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Dorothy Tse: conceptualization, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. We would like to thank the following neuroscientists, whom we invited to contribute illustrative quotes to this article, for sharing their honest reflections and thoughts that informed this article: Tara Gillebert, Oren-Suissa, Cirulli, Wing Ho, Pak Kan Ip, and The no of sharing not to this article as no were or during the