| Title |
The Fermi Paradox in STEM—Where Are the Women Leaders?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Molecular Imaging and Biology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11307-017-1124-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Heike E. Daldrup-Link |
| Abstract |
This commentary summarizes insights and discussions about the status of women leaders in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and medicine). While many academic institutions now train close to 50 % female students in STEM disciplines, there is a major underrepresentation of qualified women in leadership roles. Women are admitted to the basements of STEM institutions, but only few make it to the top floor. We see male superstars receiving well-deserved recognitions and advancements. Unfortunately, their female counterparts are often held back or cut down by both male and female colleagues. Increasing reports of acts of discrimination reported by women in STEM fields are a symptom. Unilateral hierarchy is the root cause. Just increasing the quote/proportion of women and underrepresented minorities at an institution is therefore not enough to address the underlying problem. At Stanford Radiology, we started a major initiative to increase the representation of qualified women and other underrepresented minorities in our leadership teams in order to ensure that every member of the Department has an advocate at the leadership table, when decisions are being made. Diverse leadership teams are vital to creating a culture of respect and inclusion for everyone. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 7 | 26% |
| Ireland | 3 | 11% |
| Spain | 2 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| South Africa | 1 | 4% |
| Norway | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Denmark | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 67% |
| Scientists | 8 | 30% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Business, Management and Accounting | 8 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,928,055
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Imaging and Biology
#14
of 837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,563
of 325,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Imaging and Biology
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,430 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.