Online Mentoring

1

• Online Mentoring
• to improve
• Scientific Writing Publishing

2
(No Transcript)
3
The Writing Problem
I am stuck on the data and cannot put anything on
paper
I have no time to write
I write too much or too little
I cannot get started
There is no logic to my thoughts
I have too many good ideas
I spend all my time re-writing
AARGGHH!!
4
Why do abstracts get rejected?

• Poor scientific content
• Wrong category or track selection
• Poor construction/organization
• Data is too preliminary
• Lack of novelty, or not contributing to the field
• Many submitters are from non-scientific
  background and not trained in scientific writing
  and publication processes
• Abstract Reviewers Feedback, IAS 2007

5
Why?
6
Programme implementation

• How were draft abstracts solicited?
• Pushmail sent out to all 13,000 IAS members, and
  past conference delegates
• Website promotion
• Workshops at regional conferences
• Who are mentors?
• IAS Governing Council members
• Previous conference mentors
• Previous conference scholarship recipients (Oral
  PD)

7
Via the conference website
Before you submit
8
To submit
Self-help tools
9
Track and category
Title
Abstract text
10
Online Mentoring what and how

• 1. Feedback template
• To facilitate comprehensive and coherent
  feedback, a template was designed based on mentor
  reviewer feedback from AIDS 2008
• - Track Title
• - Scientific Design
• - Language
• 2. Process
• Mentors fill this template it and send it back,
  we forward to submitter.
• IAS act as a buffer to avoid submitters spamming
  mentors.

11
Example of mentor feedback received

• Are the results presented clearly?
• In terms of the results presented within the
  abstract, at first read it was unclear as to the
  percentage of subjects that refused and were
  included in the analysis.
• A suggestion would be to revise the sentence in
  which you mention refusals and persons who are
  not eligible and perhaps just mentioning the ()
  that were eligible, and of those () refused.
• The remainder of the results are appropriate and
  clear.

12
Results
13
Results from AIDS 2008

• Number of mentors 42 signed up 26 received an
  abstract out of which 18 reviewed at least one
  abstract
• Number of abstract authors 66 (some sent
  several abstracts for mentoring)
• Number of abstracts received for mentoring 80
• Number of abstracts reviewed by mentors 78
• Number of abstracts submitted for the conference
  programme 59
• Number of reviewed/mentored abstracts finally
  accepted 47 (30 Poster Exhibition, 13 CD-ROM, 2
  Oral Abstract sessions, 1 Poster Discussion and 1
  poster back up).Note 6 authors had more than 1
  abstract accepted.

80 success rate
14
Results from IAS 2009

• Number of mentors 63
• Number of abstract authors 95
• Number of abstracts received for mentoring 118
• Number of abstracts reviewed by mentors 118
• Number of abstracts submitted for the conference
  programme 84
• Number of reviewed/mentored abstracts finally
  accepted 46

55 success rate
15
Results Year-on-year

• More mentors recruited
• More abstracts mentored
• More mentored abstracts submitted
• Less mentored abstracts accepted
• (note that the 2 conferences are different, so
  one should not simply compare year-on-year)

16
Research question

• Does online mentoring improve the
• representation of science from
• developing countries
• at
• International AIDS
• IAS conferences?

17
Monitoring data

• For this year, from LMIC (World Bank)
• Thus, online mentoring
• motivates more submission
• leads to more acceptance
• inducts newcomers into scientific literacy
• is engaging for learners
• builds networks around conferences (peer-peer
  experts)

18
What do people think?

• Submitters loved it!
• Submitted loved free tools, and mentor feedback
  and want to do it again and againwith their
  friends
• Feedback from online survey done with submitters
  (n35, IAS 2009)
• Mentors indicated that this was a positive
  experience
• They want do it again and again and .keep
  improving
• Feedback from online survey done with mentors
  (n6, AIDS 2008 ) (n31, IAS 2009)

19
What are we going to do next?

• Better promotion of the programme among
  developing country research networks
• Develop an online mentors network

20
(No Transcript)
21
Welcome to the WORLD CAFÉ
22
World Café

• Question 1
• How can online mentoring be improved?
• Question 2
• Creating a mentors network how, what, why

23
Practice makes perfect
24
(No Transcript)
25
Some reflections.

• Abstract submitters were appreciative of the
  feedback they received and wrote to IAS to thank
  them for the support provided
• Mentors would be willing to provide online
  mentoring, but face obstacles (time and work
  commitment)
• Results suggest that diverse types of
  organizations and adult learners may benefit from
  assistance in preparing research and program
  findings for conference submissions

26
Discussion

• Should we expand the scope of abstract mentoring?
• mentoring from experiment design to publication
• Larger manuscript mentoring programme?
• IAS is partnering with AuthorAid
• Collaborative authoring through new technologies?
• Potential for use of WikiEducator platform
• Global eLearning
• From 1-way Knowledge transfer to a web of
  knowledge production

27
Thank you!The AMP Project Teamwww.ias2009.org/
mentorwww.iasociety.org/abstractmentor.aspx