↓ Skip to main content

Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 144,622)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
103 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
378 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault
Published in
PLoS ONE, July 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0102172
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn B. H. Clancy, Robin G. Nelson, Julienne N. Rutherford, Katie Hinde

Abstract

Little is known about the climate of the scientific fieldwork setting as it relates to gendered experiences, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. We conducted an internet-based survey of field scientists (N = 666) to characterize these experiences. Codes of conduct and sexual harassment policies were not regularly encountered by respondents, while harassment and assault were commonly experienced by respondents during trainee career stages. Women trainees were the primary targets; their perpetrators were predominantly senior to them professionally within the research team. Male trainees were more often targeted by their peers at the research site. Few respondents were aware of mechanisms to report incidents; most who did report were unsatisfied with the outcome. These findings suggest that policies emphasizing safety, inclusivity, and collegiality have the potential to improve field experiences of a diversity of researchers, especially during early career stages. These include better awareness of mechanisms for direct and oblique reporting of harassment and assault and, the implementation of productive response mechanisms when such behaviors are reported. Principal investigators are particularly well positioned to influence workplace culture at their field sites.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,563 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 378 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 19 5%
Australia 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 342 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 106 28%
Researcher 60 16%
Student > Master 56 15%
Student > Bachelor 31 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 28 7%
Other 97 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 119 31%
Social Sciences 79 21%
Unspecified 42 11%
Environmental Science 29 8%
Psychology 24 6%
Other 85 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2458. 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 19 October 2019.
All research outputs
#483
of 13,647,845 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#12
of 144,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9
of 187,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#2
of 2,877 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,647,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 144,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 187,824 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,877 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.