ArticleeLife2023
Rethinking academia in a time of climate crisis.
Article in eLife, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to change research culture with participatory workshops.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Ethics and action pathways for psychologists in a time of climate crisis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Article
- Conceptual and ethical considerations in invasion science.Bioscience · 2025Article
- Scientist engagement and the knowledge-action gap.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Review
- Protists and protistology in the Anthropocene: challenges for a climate and ecological crisis.BMC biology · 2024Review
- Shifting institutional culture to develop climate solutions with Open Science.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Increasing sustainability in palaeoproteomics by optimizing digestion times for large-scale archaeological bone analyses.iScience · 2024Article
- Ten recommendations for reducing the carbon footprint of research computing in human neuroimaging.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Addressing the climate crisis requires radical and urgent action at all levels of society. Universities are ideally positioned to lead such action but are largely failing to do so. At the same time, many academic scientists find their work impeded by bureaucracy, excessive competitiveness, and a loss of academic freedom. Here, drawing on the framework of "Doughnut Economics," developed by Kate Raworth, we suggest seven new principles for rethinking the norms of scientific practice. Based on these, we propose a call to action, and encourage academics to take concrete steps towards the creation of a flourishing scientific enterprise that is fit for the challenges of the 21
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.