A. Responsibilities of a departing research mentor and newly assigned research mentor at Mount Sinai When a research mentor relocates to another institution, the mentee will need to realign their mentoring team, whether the mentee stays at ISMMS or relocates with the mentor while remaining enrolled at ISMMS. In all cases, the student must have a primary mentor who is a mentoring faculty of the GSBS. All formal mentors will be non-voting members of advisory committees. If a student’s new mentor was formerly a member of the student’s thesis advisory committee, that advisory role will need to be assumed by appointment of a new member who is a mentoring faculty of the GSBS.

The relocation of a research mentor presents three options for a new mentoring arrangement:

i) If the student has not yet passed their qualifying exam, they may opt to change their laboratory and begin their PhD with a new research mentor, project, and possibly multidisciplinary training area (MTA). This will require the same rotation, laboratory declaration, and mentor selection procedures that would be applicable to a new student. If the research mentor departs during the student’s first year, and the new mentor is willing to take the student as a mentee immediately, then this can occur with the new mentor assuming financial and training responsibilities for the student. If new rotations are required, the student will receive a 3-month window of support from the GSBS to pursue these rotations prior to selecting a new laboratory. The student and new Mentor must submit a new laboratory declaration form electronically to the Manager of PhD programs in Biomedical Sciences and Neuroscience to document any changes in the mentoring team.

ii) If the student is at least halfway through their training (3 years or longer in the program), and wishes to continue their research project in another laboratory with a new research mentor at ISMMS, the previous research mentor and student must identify the new mentor and agree to a collaboration to continue the work that was initiated in the original laboratory without further laboratory rotation. This may also require realignment of the thesis advisory committee, and possibly a change in the MTA. The new mentor assumes the role of primary mentor, and the departing mentor may (or may not) agree to remain as a secondary mentor so long as they hold an adjunct faculty position at ISMMS. This plan must be documented in writing as a transition plan submitted electronically via the GSBS Airtables, and agreed to by relevant MTA Director(s) and the Senior Associate Dean for PhD Programs. Academic requirements and student support services following this mentoring change will not be altered. The student must submit a new laboratory declaration form electronically to the Manager of PhD programs to document any changes in the mentoring team.

iii) Regardless of the stage of their studies, the student may opt to remain enrolled at ISMMS, and complete their experiments in the new laboratory of their existing research mentor at their new institution. In this case, the departing mentor must complete a transition plan form via the GSBS Airtables to indicate: 1) the names of all affected mentees; 2) a transition plan for relocating mentees, including a new primary mentor based at ISMMS, and a plan for financial support of the mentees. This plan must be completed in writing and agreed to by relevant MTA Director(s) and the Senior Associate Dean for PhD Programs. Academic requirements and student support services following this mentoring change will not be altered. The student must submit a new laboratory declaration form electronically to the Manager of PhD programs to document any changes in the mentoring team.

In cases where the student wishes to transfer to another program, they must withdraw from the relevant PhD program offered by the GSBS, and enroll at the new institution. International students should be aware that any changes to the locations of their activities may have implications for their visa/immigration status, and should check this with personnel at the new institution well in advance of any relocation.

B. Responsibilities of the mentee Any changes to the mentoring team due to relocation of the original research mentor do not change the responsibilities of the mentee, even if they are performing their experiments at another institution. Academic requirements and thesis advisory committee meeting requirements do not change. Policies regarding publication and use of data, protocols, or code generated during the PhD remain those of ISMMS, and the mentee’s affiliation as a student of the GSBS on publications and communications do not change. Finally, changes to the mentoring team do not change the maximum time for completion of a degree.

C. Responsibilities of the MTA director and thesis advisory committee regarding the research mentor(s) and mentee (including thesis proposal and thesis defense exams) If mentoring changes do not affect the MTA or thesis advisory committee, these entities continue to guide and assess the academic progress of the student. The absence of such changes will be documented on the transition plan.

If mentoring changes result in a change of MTA, this should be documented as part of the transition plan, and approved by the original and new MTA Director, as well as the Senior Associate Dean for PhD programs. Such changes may alter academic requirements of the new MTA, which must be clearly communicated to the student and included in the transition plan.

If changes are made to the thesis advisory committee, these must also be documented and approved by the (new) MTA.

The post-transition MTA and thesis advisory committee will oversee the thesis proposal and thesis defense exams of the mentee. These exams will be conducted under the same criteria, and to the same standards, as if no changes had occurred. In situations where the changes to the mentoring arrangements had a significant impact on the academic progress of the student, the student may apply for an extension to complete the qualifying exam, but the maximum time for completion of a degree does not change.

• Mentoring Changes due to the Relocation of the Research Mentor

• Mentoring Changes due to an Unproductive Partnership

• Procedures for Dispute Resolution

Entering students are assigned a graduate faculty advisor who will handle student questions about courses, rotations, or problems that surface throughout the first year. This faculty advisor is generally from the first choice MTA on the student’s application to the Graduate Program. In cases where the student is unsure about their choice of MTA, a second advisor from another MTA may be assigned. Once a student selects a dissertation advisor and a Multidisciplinary Training Area, with the help of the research mentor, he/she/they selects an Advisory Committee.

Also available to MD/PhD students are the Physician-Scientist Career Advisors, and peer networks, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, and the Office of Well-Being and Resilience.

This section covers advising for the PhD in Biomedical Sciences and Neuroscience Program. Students can find the following information in this section.

Selecting a Research Mentor The choice of a research mentor and an associated multidisciplinary training area (MTA) by the student (mentee), as well as the mentor’s acceptance of the mentee, should be regarded as a mutual commitment. This partnership is based on the understanding that the student will remain with their chosen research mentor until the thesis is completed. Students should select a mentor only after completing a period of research rotation. Both mentor and mentee should use the Compact for PhD Students and Preceptors as a basis to make sure that both parties are aware of their respective responsibilities and expectations, and apply the knowledge and skills from the “Responsible Conduct of Research” training (Course Code BSR1021). Such a partnership relies on open and transparent lines of communication to ensure understanding of the mentoring partnership and enhance the mentee’s training experience.

Students must understand that their research mentor is a primary mentor, providing research direction and career guidance. Research mentors are expected to foster the student’s independence, encourage collaborative work, presentations, and departmental seminar participation, introduce the student to colleagues, assist with manuscript writing and submission for publication, help identify and address strengths and weaknesses, and support career development. However, other faculty who take particular interest in the student’s growth and development as scientists may also serve as important mentors. Students are encouraged, with the guidance of their mentors and advisors, to develop relationships with those faculty whom they feel can provide significant research, career, and personal guidance, and may choose to include these faculty members on their thesis advisory committee (see section on Thesis Advisory Committee to follow).

Disagreements or disputes may arise between a mentee and their research mentor, thesis advisory committee, or MTA. These disputes may arise from the student’s laboratory training experiences or from concerns that the student’s academic progress is not meeting the expectations of the thesis advisory committee, MTA, and/or mentor. In such circumstances, every effort should be made to rectify these issues before they escalate into a situation that could make the mentor(s)-mentee partnership non-productive. Procedures for mediating disputes are outlined in Changes to a Mentor-Mentee Partnership which follow.

Irreconcilable differences that are not resolved by mediation may necessitate a change in the mentor(s)-mentee partnership, thesis advisory committee, or MTA. Such changes may be instigated by the mentor(s) or mentee, and policies and procedures to make such changes are outlined in Changes to a Mentor-Mentee Partnership which follow.

For MD/PhD students, the choice of a research mentor and MTA is done through lab rotations during the first two summers in the MD/PhD program. MD/PhD students end their second year in the program with being accepted into the laboratory of a Graduate Faculty member.

Each PhD student should complete the Dissertation Advisor/MTA Declaration Form before the end of the second semester in the Program. MD/PhD program strongly encourages its students to submit this form by March 1 of the second year/ fourth semester in the Program; however, for the form deadline is June 30 of that year. At this time, the student must also select at least three members for an Advisory Committee. Committee members should be selected because of their ability to provide scientific and/or technical support for the dissertation project. Advisory Committee members must be members of the Graduate Faculty. Two Advisory Committee members are experts in the area of the student’s research; a third member must be from a related field but need not be expert in the student’s area of research.

MD/PhD students are encouraged to add a clinical/translational (C/T) investigator, who need not be a member of the Graduate Faculty, to their Advisory Committee to provide feedback about the C/T impact of their research. This Form should be submitted to the Graduate School Office with all the required signatures as soon as possible, but no later than June 30.

One indication of satisfactory progress in the Program is the demonstration of the potential for research and the timely selection of a mentor and MTA. PhD students are expected to declare a dissertation advisor and MTA no later than 12 months after matriculation. MD/PhD students are expected to declare by the end of the second year in the Program.

The choice of a research mentor by the student and the acceptance of that student by the future research mentor should be considered a commitment on the part of both parties that the student will remain with the chosen research mentor until the thesis is completed. If a student is contemplating a change in research mentor or MTA, or, if the research mentor is unsatisfied with the academic progress of the student, mediation should be sought to remedy this situation by first meeting with the MTA Director and the student’s Advisory Committee. (MD/PhD students should also confer with the MSTP directors.) If necessary, the Dean of the Graduate School may also meet with the student and their research mentor. Movement between MTAs is permitted if the student is certified, in writing by the MTA Director(s), to be in good academic standing by the original MTA and is accepted, in writing, by the proposed MTA. Students who are contemplating a change must discuss this fully with the current research mentor. These changes invariably involve some loss of time and dislocation to both student and research mentor and possibly extra coursework. Careful guidance by the student’s Advisory Committee will reduce the number of such changes and will increase the likelihood that those changes that do occur are productive.

A. Responsibilities of former and new research mentors A mentorship change may be necessary based on irreconcilable differences or incompatibility between the research mentor(s) and mentee – whether based on scientific, academic, or personal issues – such that the mentoring partnership is no longer productive. In such cases, there are two possible outcomes that affect the role(s) of former and new mentors:

i) The mentee ceases to work on the former project. If no data, protocols, or code from the former research mentor’s laboratory is to be published, included in a thesis, or publically reported in any way, the former mentor no longer has responsibility for the mentee’s publication or reporting activities. If data, protocols, or code generated by the mentee in former mentor’s laboratory is to be published, the former mentor must document in writing (as part of the transition plan) that the former mentee will gain (co)authorship in accordance with ISMMS’s policy on authorship. If data, protocols, or code generated by the mentee in the former mentor’s laboratory is to be included in their PhD thesis, the former mentor and mentee must document inwriting such inclusion as part of the transition plan, and such an agreement must be approved by the Senior Associate Dean for PhD Programs, and recorded electronically in the student’s file. If the former mentor does not agree that the former mentee’s work is worthy of publication, including in the former mentee’s thesis, the dispute must be referred to, and handled by, the departmental Chair, similar to other authorship disputes.

ii) The mentee continues their research project in the laboratory of a new mentor. The former research mentor must approve in writing (and record electronically in the student’s file) the mentee’s continuation of a project originated in their laboratory. The new mentor assumes all the training responsibilities of any PhD mentor in research, academic progress, career development, etc. Continuation of the mentee’s research project must be accompanied by details of financial costs for experiments and publications, as well as plans for authorship, data sharing, and data usage, as would be part of any formal research collaboration. Such details must be included in the transition plan, approved by the Senior Associate Dean for PhD Programs, and recorded electronically in the student’s file. In addition, if any data, protocols, or code derived by the mentee in the former mentor’s laboratory is to be included in the PhD thesis, written permission for such inclusion must be provided from the former mentor prior to submission of the thesis. Such permission should be sought by the chair of the thesis advisory committee, and forwarded to the Senior Associate Dean for PhD Programs. If the former mentor does not agree that the mentee’s work is worthy of publication or inclusion in the former mentee’s thesis, the dispute must be referred to, and handled by, the departmental Chair, similar to other authorship disputes.

iii) The student opts to change their laboratory and start a new PhD research project with a new research mentor, project, and/or MTA. This scenario will require the same rotation, laboratory declaration, and research mentor selection procedures that would be applicable to a new student. If the research mentor departs during the student’s first year, and the new mentor is willing to take the student as a mentee immediately, then this can occur with the new mentor assuming financial and training responsibilities for the student. If new rotations are required, the student will receive a 3-month window of support from the GSBS to pursue these rotations prior to selecting a new laboratory. Procedures for the latter scenario can be found in Chapter 2, Funding Package and Direct Compensation. The student must submit a new laboratory declaration form electronically to the Manager of PhD programs in Biomedical Sciences and Neuroscience to document any changes in the mentoring team.

B. Responsibilities of the mentee If changes to the mentoring team are a result of unresolved disputes, the mentee will be responsible to continue their studies as outlined in the agreed mentoring plan. The overall academic responsibilities will remain those imposed by the GSBS and the MTA. Depending on the post-dispute agreement, in cases where the student is continuing the same research project in a different laboratory, the mentee, through the new mentor, may be required to communicate research results to the former research mentor. In all situations, mentees must abide by publication and data use rules under which their research was performed; this may affect plans for publication, thesis writing, and data reporting into public databases and at scientific meetings. If the former mentor agrees to publication or presentation of data, protocols, or code derived by the mentee while they were in the former mentor’s laboratory, permission from the former mentor must be obtained in writing and forwarded to the Senior Associate Dean for PhD programs and the Manager of PhD Programs, who will record such permission electronically in the student’s file.

C. Responsibilities of the MTA director and thesis advisory committee interactions with research mentor(s) and mentee (including thesis proposal and thesis defense exams) If changes to the mentoring team are a result of unresolved disputes, the new MTA and/or thesis advisory committees continue to assume the same roles as otherwise set forth in this Handbook in ensuring the completion of the academic requirements of the PhD as outlined above for changes induced by mentor relocation.

A. Disputes between research mentor(s) and mentee Disputes between the research mentor(s) and mentee range in origin and severity, and can be reported by either or both parties. Open communication between the mentor(s) and mentee is the key to avoiding disputes and, when they occur, resolving them. In cases where resolution cannot be reached in communications between the parties, there are procedures and resources that aim to resolve disputes. In the event that the mentor(s) and mentee cannot resolve their disputes through such procedures and resources, either the mentor(s) or mentee may opt to change the nature of the mentoring team.

i) Scientific disputes. When the research mentor(s) and mentee cannot themselves resolve a scientific dispute, they should promptly present the relevant issues to the student’ thesis advisory committee. After hearing from the research mentor(s) and mentee, the thesis advisory committee must ultimately decide on the scientific issue. If the scientific dispute concerns data ownership, the thesis advisory committee should refer to The Ownership of Research Data policy. Please note that in case of suspected research misconduct by either the student or mentor (with the priviso that disagreements of opinions are not reseach misconduct) the issue should be immediately reported to the Office of Research Integrity Note: Anonymous Reporting is also available at the Hotline: 1-800-853-9212.

ii) Non-scientific disputes. It is critical that all research is carried out in a safe and professional environment. Any form of mistreatment, bullying, harassment, is not tolerated, may violate NIH Anti-Harassment Policy and Guidance, and should be reported to one or more of the contacts listed below. The mentor is responsible to provide a professional laboratory environment, and should be the student’s first contact if they believe they are experiencing inappropriate or unprofessional behavior in the laboratory. If a mentee believes that they are experiencing such behavior by their mentors, they may initially contact an MTA Director, a faculty advisor, or the Senior Associate Dean for PhD Programs. Depending on the nature of the dispute, the MTA Director, faculty advisor and/or Senior Associate Dean for PhD Programs may directly recommend a course of action, refer the matter to a responsible office, and/or refer the mentee for further advice. Mentees may also seek confidential advice from the Ombuds Office (Dr. George.Huntley@mssm.edu). There are additional resources available for mentees to report inappropriate behavior that are discussed in Responsible Conduct of Research (BSR1021). These resources include:

• The mistreatment feedback form

• Title IX Coordinator Rebecca Anderson (212-540-8669 or TitleIX@mssm.edu)

• Human Resources (212-241-4097)

• Office of Gender Equity in Sci/Med (Carolyn Horowitz, Dean, 212-659-9552)

• Compliance Online Form (can be anonymous)—legal, ethical, behavioral, practical concerns)

• Compliance Hotline 1-800-853-9212

B. Disputes between the thesis advisory committee and a research mentor(s) or mentee All disputes between the thesis advisory committee and the research mentor(s) and/or mentee should be presented to the MTA directors and, if necessary, the Senior Associate Dean for PhD Programs. The Senior Associate Dean for PhD Programs has the ultimate responsibility for resolving any such disputes (whether scientific or non-scientific) and can institute changes to the thesis advisory committee membership to do so.

See Standards for Maintaining Satisfactory Progress

The thesis advisory committee is an essential, independent advisory panel that adds to the mentoring provided by the student’s research mentor. The membership of the committee should be determined after discussion between the mentor(s) and the mentee, and consist of at least three mentoring faculty members of the GSBS who can provide advice and support to the student. The student should declare the thesis advisory committee simultaneously with declaring the mentor(s) and laboratory, or as close as is possible to the time (not to exceed 3 months) the laboratory is declared.

The thesis advisory committee must meet with the student at least once per semester starting from the point of laboratory declaration. It is the responsibility of the student to ensure these meetings occur each semester, and that the appropriate progress reports are submitted electronically to the PhD program manager. Early meetings will focus on developing aims for a research proposal to act as the basis of the qualifying exam, as well as review initial progress and the relevant literature. At any time, the thesis advisory committee also acts to advise and support the student with their training experience, academic progress, and career development. Throughout the student’s candidacy phase, the thesis advisory committee plays an important role in working with both the mentor and mentee to refine and resolve any substantive or professional divergences.

The qualifying exam, comprising a thesis proposal (written document and oral defense) and discussion of relevant general knowledge from core classes, confirms candidacy for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. This exam is evaluated by the thesis advisory committee, plus an MTA director or their delegate (a senior faculty from their MTA). PhD students should successfully complete the qualifying exam by the end of their fourth semester (June 30th), and MD/PhD students by the end of their first year in the PhD-phase (MP1). Further details regarding registration and expectations for this exam can be found in “Thesis Proposal” to follow.

Following confirmation of candidature, the thesis advisory committee continues to advise on research directions and scope, preparations for thesis defense and publications, as well as responsible generation and handling of data arising from their research in the mentor’s laboratory. The thesis advisory committee will also advise on career development and on any other challenges or difficulties students may encounter during their PhDs. On occasions where additional help or focusing of effort is required, the thesis advisory committee may require more frequent meetings.

See Standards for Maintaining Satisfactory Progress

Students and faculty are urged to understand that the advisory system is their strongest ally in identifying and helping to resolve problems, in maintaining a realistic set of expectations for progress, and as a source of extra ideas and new approaches. Students should take the initiative in scheduling meetings. Timely meetings are imperative.

Students should recognize that their thesis advisor is usually their most important mentor, someone who can advise the student on research directions and may also provide career guidance. It is expected that thesis advisors provide opportunities for the student to develop independence, encourage the student to participate in collaborations, presentations, departmental seminars, introduce the student to colleagues, help the student to learn about writing and submitting manuscripts for publication, help the student to identify and work with their strengths and weaknesses and be committed to help the student make the next move in their career development. However, other faculty who take particular interest in the student’s growth and development as scientists may often also serve as important mentors. Students are encouraged to develop relationships with those faculty whom they feel can provide significant research, career, and personal guidance.

Formal progress reports must be filed twice annually with the Graduate School Office. To meet this requirement, students are expected to meet each semester with the full Advisory Committee. The student should review the and correct/update as necessary. The Advisory Committee must use the last page of the Progress Form to evaluate the student’s progress, clearly identify strengths and weaknesses and indicate plans for development. All members of the Advisory Committee should then sign and date the Progress Form.

When a student fails to demonstrate satisfactory academic progress, the Advisory Committee or Program Director may mandate more frequent advisory committee meetings.

When a research mentor thinks his/her/their student is nearing a point of completion, the Advisory Committee should meet with the student and advisor to assess the student’s readiness to write a dissertation. This meeting should take place approximately 6 months before the anticipated dissertation defense. Students should update their list of publications and manuscripts in press on the Progress Report form before this meeting. At this meeting, the Advisory Committee will certify that the student is ready to write his/her/their dissertation and to schedule a defense date.

This approval should be granted and a date set only if the student has, at a minimum, achieved the following:

• met all of the required program milestones,

• completed all coursework and met the academic standards of the Graduate School,

• demonstrated mastery of the literature, conceptual skills, analytical skills, writing and presentation skills, experimental skills, record keeping skills and work ethic meets doctoral-level standards

• contributed intellectually as a lead author, or equivalent, to at least one manuscript, published, in review, or ready for submission in a peer-reviewed journal. An exception to this requirement will require the unanimous approval by the Advisory Committee.

When these criteria have been met, the student will be given a green light to enter the dissertation writing phase.

Specific criteria for the members of the Thesis Advisory Committee are:

1. The committee chair: The chair is a voting member of the committee chosen by the MTA co-directors in consultation with the trainee and their Thesis Advisor. This committee member is typically an MTA co-director or a voting committee member delegated by an MTA co-director. The chair must be someone who does not directly collaborate on the student’s project, will not co-author papers or abstracts with the student, has no financial conflicts of interest with the student or project, and does not supervise the work.

2. The Thesis Advisor: the PhD Thesis Advisor of the trainee. The PhD Thesis Advisor is not a voting member of the committee and is a silent observer at the Thesis Proposal and the Thesis Dissertation. However, after committee meetings, the Thesis Advisor should discuss the feedback of the committee with the student and advise on how to act on their advice as the project evolves.

3. The voting members: There must be two voting members on the committee in addition to the chair. Both these individuals must be members of the Graduate Faculty and have no financial conflicts of interest with the student or project and cannot directly supervise the student’s work. Voting members may not be collaborators on the project; collaborators may attend committee meetings but may not vote. These committee members can be collaborators on the student’s project and co-authors on papers and abstracts with the student.

4. The non-voting members: One or more non-voting members can attend the committee meetings. These might include a clinical/translational (C/T) investigator, who need not be a member of the Graduate Faculty, to provide feedback about C/T impact of the research (encouraged for MD/PhD students) or others with particular expertise of value to the trainee, including collaborators. Individuals other than the Thesis Advisor who are directly involved in supervising the work (e.g., a computational mentor or co-advisor) can also attend committee meetings. In addition, experts who are not members of the training faculty of the GSBS may be invited to attend in an ad hoc manner to extend their expertise in one or more meetings.