Expectations and Obligations of the Mentor

1. Any research project that will involve a resident as the primary collaborator must be feasible. The mentor supervising the resident’s project should determine whether the project is appropriate for the resident’s level of training and expertise and whether the project will require collaboration with other mentor before the project begins. An estimate of the duration of time before project completion must be made before the resident starts the project. If it is unlikely that the resident will be able to complete a research project within the duration of time allotted to the resident by the training program, the resident must be made aware of this before agreeing to start the project.
   
   
2. Authorship credit should be based on the ethical principles enunciated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (see www.icmje.org for details). These principles base authorship credit on
   * Substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data
   * Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content
   * Final approval of the version to be published
   
   The mentor and resident should discuss authorship before the resident starts the project, including who will be primary author. Authorship order may be renegotiated periodically, especially if the resident ends up doing significantly more or less work than was originally planned.
   
   If the resident’s contribution is substantial, based on the principles outlined above, the resident can expect that he or she will be provided the opportunity to present the work at conferences and should ideally be the first author on the manuscript arising from the project. If the mentor believes that someone other than the resident should be the primary author, this must be discussed with and agreed to by the resident, at the earliest possible opportunity. If the resident is not the primary author the resident can still expect to be listed among the project’s co-authors, assuming of course that the journal’s criteria for authorship have been met.
   
   
3. Resident involvement in multi-centre research projects in which the resident’s contribution will, in the end, be unaccredited or unlikely to result in anything more than an acknowledgement (e.g., participation in a multi-centre industry-sponsored drug study) is unlikely to be appropriate. If a resident does want to undertake such a project, it should be with the clear understanding that authorship is unlikely and without any pressure from the faculty supervisor.
   
   
4. The mentor is obligated to make the resident aware, at the earliest possible time that any research project will require a formal submission to the organization/hospital IRB committee. The mentor must work in collaboration with the resident to ensure that approval is obtained in a timely fashion before initiating any data collection. No research project can start without previous IRB approval.
   
   
5. If a resident and mentor agree to collaborate on a research project, the mentor is obligated to ensure that sufficient financial and logistic resources are available for the completion of the project. The mentor should also attempt to help secure funds for the resident to present his or her work at a conference.
   
   
6. The mentor has an obligation to provide guidance and meet with the resident regarding any concerns on a regular basis. On short research rotations (e.g., less than three months), this obligation will most likely be met by meeting with the resident weekly.
   
   
7. The resident’s program director has the obligation to ensure that the resident’s clinical duties during the research rotation are reasonable. These duties should be made explicit at the beginning of the research rotation. The program director also has the obligation to ensure that the resident is free to attend academic rounds and half-days.

Expectations and Obligations of the Resident.

1. The resident is obligated to adhere to any applicable codes of research ethics, including but not limited to those of the organization or hospital and the College. Patient confidentiality must be adhered to at all times.
   
   
2. The resident is obligated to conduct the research project in the manner discussed with the mentor supervisor and adhering to the protocol of the project. Any planned changes from the original direction of the project must be discussed with, and agreed to, by the mentor supervisor. Where applicable, the IRB committee must be notified.
   
   
3. The resident is obligated to adhere to timelines (e.g., for data collection, data analysis, abstract submission, manuscript submission, etc.) that have been discussed and agreed to by both resident and mentor. If the resident anticipates that he or she will be unable to meet a timeline, the resident is obligated to discuss this with the mentor at the earliest possible opportunity so that the timeline can be renegotiated or alternative arrangements can be made so that the project can still be completed in a timely fashion. If such arrangements will include a redistribution of work among the project’s collaborators, any potential changes in authorship should be discussed.
   
   
4. If the resident suspects or anticipates that the research project will require more resources, both material and/or academic, than previously discussed with the mentor, the resident should discuss this with the mentor.
   
   
5. If the resident feels that it is necessary to involve other residents or mentors on the research project, the resident should discuss this with the mentor supervisor.
   
   
6. If the resident is encountering difficulties in any aspect of the research project, the resident is obligated to discuss these problems with the mentor supervisor.
   
   
7. If the resident wishes to submit an abstract based on the research project to a conference or submit a manuscript based on the research project to a journal, the resident must discuss this with the mentor before submission.
   
   
8. If the resident is the primary author of an abstract or paper based on the project, the resident must discuss the list of co-authors with the mentor supervisor before submission to any conference or journal. In most cases, the mentor supervisor will assume the role of senior author (i.e., last author) and corresponding author unless the mentor supervisor feels that is more appropriate to assign these roles to another co-author.
   
   
9. The resident is obligated to inform the mentor supervisor and any or all co-authors of the outcome of any conference submission, journal submission should that organization contact them instead of the mentor supervisor.
   
   
10. If the results of the research project draw media attention, the resident should not communicate with the media prior to discussing media requests with the mentor supervisor. The mentor supervisor and the resident should jointly decide what messages will be communicated to the media and by whom. If it is decided that the resident will communicate with the media, the mentor should try to ensure that the resident is adequately prepared for this experience
    
    
11. Good research ethics demand that the results of negative studies be disseminated. The resident is obligated to try to present and/or publish his results even if the results of the project are negative.

    Process for Conflict Resolution Between Resident and Mentor Regarding Research Projects

    If there is any disagreement with regards to the content of the research project or the academic products of the research project the resident and mentor should meet and try to resolve the disagreement, with or without the input of other collaborators on the project. If this is not possible, then the resident should seek guidance from the Research Director and/or Vice President of Medical Education.