Fig 1.
CNS NRT stakeholder model shows the core, proximal, and peripheral stakeholder groups identified by the evaluation team.
Fig 2.
Program activities, short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes identified by the CNS NRT Evaluation Committee.
Fig 3.
The pathway model connects program activities, with short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes.
Table 1.
CNS NRT doctoral fellow ethnicity & race, by admission year.
Table 2.
CNS NRT doctoral fellow gender, by admission year.
Table 3.
CNS NRT doctoral fellow education background.
Table 4.
CNS NRT doctoral fellow secondary doctoral degree.
Table 5.
CNS NRT annual survey overall response rates, 2019–2023.
Table 6.
CNS NRT annual survey overall response rates by NRT role, 2019–2023.
Fig 4.
Survey participants’ agreement that the CNS NRT has achieved its program goals, 2019–2023.
Each square is shaded to represent the percentage of all survey participants who share the same level of agreement that the CNS NRT program met four major program goals; lighter shades indicate a smaller percent of participants provided an answer, while darker shades indicate a larger percent of participants provided an answer, and white squares indicate no one provided this answer during a year.
Fig 5.
Survey participants’ “level of agreement” that the CNS NRT has achieved its program goals, by NRT role, 2019–2023.
Each square is shaded to represent the percentage CNS NRT Faculty, Doctoral Fellows, Summer research affiliates, and program administrators who share the same level of agreement that the CNS NRT program met its four major program goals. Data is provided in S1 Dataset, S1A Table.
Fig 6.
Doctoral fellows’ “level of agreement” that they are satisfied with CNS NRT program and their academic progress, between 2019–2023.
Each square is shaded to represent the percentage of doctoral fellows’ level of agreement that they are satisfied with the CNS NRT program and their progress towards five program goals.
Fig 7.
Doctoral fellows’ “level of agreement” that CNS NRT program has a positive impact on their research skills, 2019–2023.
Each square is shaded to indicate the percentage of doctoral fellows who agree that the program has positively influenced their research skills in five areas.
Fig 8.
Doctoral fellows’ “level of agreement” on the CNS NRT program’s impact on interdisciplinary orientation, 2019–2023.
Each bar represents the percentage of doctoral fellows who share a level of agreement that the CNS NRT program has positively impacted their interdisciplinary skills and values.
Fig 9.
Doctoral fellows’ “level of agreement” on the CNS NRT program’s impact on interdisciplinary orientations, 2019–2023.
Each square is shaded to show the percentage of doctoral fellows’ who share a level of agreement of the CNS NRT program’s impact on A) six interdisciplinary values, attitudes and beliefs factors and (B) six interdisciplinary conceptual skills and behaviors factors. Data is provided in S1 Dataset, S1B Table.
Fig 10.
Faculty agreement that mentorship has a positive impact on doctoral students’ research skills, 2019–2023.
Each square is shaded to represent the percentage of faculty members’ level of agreement that their mentorship has positively impacted their doctoral fellows’ research skills in four areas.
Fig 11.
Doctoral fellows’ “level of agreement” that mentorship has a positive impact on doctoral fellows’ research skills, 2019–2023.
Each square is shaded to represent the percentage of doctoral fellows’ level of agreement that their mentorship has positively impacted their doctoral fellows’ research skills in six areas.
Fig 12.
Doctoral fellows’ “level of agreement” on mentorship quality, 2019–2023.
Each square is shaded to represent the percentage of doctoral fellows’ who share a level of agreement on the quality of faculty mentorship across 11 factors.
Fig 13.
CNS NRT members’ reflection on the impact of Covid-19 the CNS NRT program, 2022−2023.
Each bar represents the percentage of doctoral fellows who share a level of agreement that the CNS NRT program was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Data is provided in S1 Dataset, S1C Table.
Fig 14.
Annual CNS NRT publications, by type.
This stacked bar graph shows the number of research articles published by NRT members between 2018 and 2024. Each bar segment represents a different type of publication, including book chapters, conference papers, and journal articles.
Table 7.
CNS NRT member group authorship statistics.
Fig 15.
Annual count of authors and publications, by CNS NRT role.
Inset A presents the unique number of authors that published research during a given year by NRT role. Inset B presents the number of research papers published each year by NRT role.
Table 8.
CNS NRT publication Web of Science subject categorization.
Fig 16.
CNS NRT co-authorship network for 2018–2021.
149 authors and their 466 relationships associated with 48 research articles published during this period are represented in this network. Author nodes color and shape shows the NRT group membership, while node size indicates the number publications published during this period. Authors with at least 4 publications between 2018–2024 are highlighted in this network.
Fig 17.
CNS NRT co-authorship network for 2018–2024.
239 authors and their 806 relationships associated with 90 research articles published during this period are represented in this network. Author nodes color and shape show the NRT group membership, while node size indicates the number of publications published during this period. Authors with at least 4 publications between 2018–2024 are highlighted in this network.
Table 9.
CNS NRT relationship statistics, by author role.
Table 10.
CNS NRT member group relationship-pair statistics.
Table 11.
Top collaborator organizations identified by WoS.